Homes and Planning Bill

Sarah Gibson Excerpts

Friday 13th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

It is important to remember that the last time this country consistently built the number of houses that we, across the House, agree we need was the 1960s, when councils were building houses. If the new Labour Government, who have had two and a half years to get this right, are still going to blame the Liberal Democrats’ small part in a coalition, in a fairly powerless time, some 10 years ago, then they really need to look forward and concentrate on what they can deliver.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that, last year, this Labour Government delivered the highest number of council homes since records began in 1991-92?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Gibson]

I do recognise that, but we are still nowhere near the levels we were at when councils were actually building. That is important, because for too long—even under this Labour Government—we have assumed that the answer to the housing crisis is more planning permissions, in the hope that the market will deliver, when we know that it will not.

That is why I welcome the Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George). It recognises something that we have forgotten in housing policy: land, planning and delivery cannot be separated from one another. As the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) mentioned, we can have planning applications, but delivery is a different issue. As an architect, I have spent most of my adult life trying to deliver buildings and actually get things built on the ground. One of the problems that I repeatedly see is land passing from one developer to another while the planning application process takes so long. With each of those transactions, the price increase on the land and the hope value built into the assumption that planning permission will ultimately be granted mean that, by the time planning permission is secured, the price paid for the land and the expectations on that future development have created so much pressure that almost everything else gets squeezed.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a good case for development corporations. Does she agree that spatial development strategies—there was an announcement on them yesterday, I think—are a good step forward in doing the strategic planning that she is asking for, and that I think we all agree is needed?

[Sarah Gibson]

Absolutely. I recognise that this Government are working towards that, which is why I feel very strongly that the Bill is adding to the work that the Government are doing, not detracting from it.

Over the years, we have seen the squeezing of affordable housing. It is what gets removed every time there is an economic crisis or an economic case for its removal—the social housing, the infrastructure and the quality of the housing itself. I particularly welcome the compulsory purchase provisions in the Bill, as they deal with the issues of affordability for housing associations and local government being able to actually provide this housing. Authorities need to be able to secure the land at a value that makes these homes deliverable, rather than allowing the inflated expectations of future development value to consume the viability of the scheme before a single home is built.

We also need to look again at who actually builds the homes. I speak regularly to the social housing providers in my area, and one problem in relying on developers to construct the affordable element of a large scheme, and then asking the housing association to acquire it, is that those homes have not necessarily been built with what the provider needs. The homes may be the wrong type of house or built to the wrong specification, and increasingly they may leave the provider with the additional costs of bringing them up to the standards the provider will shortly be required to meet.

By 2030, social landlords will need to meet new minimum energy-efficiency standards, and providers are therefore being asked to retrofit thousands of their existing homes while simultaneously finding the money to build new homes designed and built by somebody else.

[Amanda Martin]

Is the hon. Lady saying that people who live in social housing should not have those elements in their houses, whether they are retrofit or new build? Yes, those things are expensive, but we should absolutely ensure that everybody has a warm home to live in.

[Sarah Gibson]

As an advocate of the warm homes plan and as an architect trying to ensure this, I absolutely agree that everybody deserves a warm, safe and comfortable home. What the hon. Lady suggests is completely the reverse of what I am saying. I am saying that if the developer provides social housing that lacks those things, it is therefore the social housing provider that has to retrofit the housing to ensure that it is delivering on the promise of the 2030 agreement. It is a real problem that local developers are still putting in gas boilers and the social housing provider is having to retrofit the homes with alternative forms of heating. I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to ensure that our social housing is fit for the future, but getting the developer to build it on behalf of the social housing provider is probably not the best way of doing it.

If we can give social housing providers the capital to commission the homes that their communities actually need, we would also be able to diversify who delivers housing. We need the councils, housing associations, community land trusts, small builders and private developers all to play their part, rather than depending so heavily on a small number of large developers and a single model of delivery.

That is why I also welcome the provisions in the Bill that strengthen the role of community land trusts, parish and town councils and neighbourhood planning. People are much more likely to support development when it is community led: the homes are genuinely affordable; local families can access them; and, as the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) mentioned earlier, when much-needed infrastructure comes with the homes, the development can enhance the existing towns and villages, rather than just being a bolt-on to the side, adding to the pressures of existing services.

Good placemaking is not a barrier to growth; it is one of the foundations of sustainable growth. This Bill begins to reconnect land planning and community delivery. I really hope that even if the Government cannot support the Bill in its current state, they will continue to work with my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives. I congratulate him on bringing this Bill before the House.