High Streets

Debate between Simon Hughes and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

If the hon. Gentleman had read the motion more carefully, he would have seen that we are arguing that local authorities, in consultation with their communities, should be able to shape use classes in their area. We do not think that use classes should be got rid of altogether, which is what his Government are seeking to do.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I must express concern about a motion that calls on the Government to

“give communities a greater say over the shape of their”

communities when, unless I have misunderstood something, this Parliament recently passed the Localism Act 2011, which was initiated by this Government, as a result of which business improvement districts are being created and neighbourhood plans formulated all over my constituency. The hon. Lady clearly was not here for those debates and has not noticed what is happening in communities across England.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

It is the right hon. Gentleman who has not noticed what is happening, particularly with regard to use class orders. The power for local communities to shape their high streets is being taken away.

A steer from Government is required to enable local authorities, stakeholders and communities to get together and pool their resources to shape their high streets. One huge stumbling block to the Grimsey approach remains. While many of us have been arguing for greater powers to assist local communities in shaping their areas, the Government have been busy giving away the powers that do exist to provide for that. In May, the Government legislated to allow changes to use classes so that virtually any class of commercial premises on the high street can become any kind of shop, fast food restaurant or shop in the euphemistically named “financial and professional services sector”, which alongside banks and estate agents includes payday lenders or legal loan sharks and betting shops.

I hope the Minister can tell us what was going through the Government’s mind when they decided that what struggling high streets needed was for it to be made easier for more bookies and payday loan companies to be sprawled across them. I would like to hear the rationale for that decision, because my previous attempts to elicit a response from the Government have failed. Nationally, there are 20% more payday loan shops and 3% more betting shops than there were a year ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes]

The Government have taken loads of really good initiatives, and the Minister is right to put them before the House today. It is also clear that some of Labour’s criticisms about gaming issues are completely misconceived, given that it was the Labour Government’s legislation that caused the problem. I supported the motion on reviewing use orders that was passed at our conference, and I hope that the Government will look seriously at the question of use orders in relation to betting establishments—

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

That is what the motion is all about.

[Simon Hughes]

It is not what the motion is all about; it is one of the points in the motion. I am asking the Government to look into the question.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Simon Hughes and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Monday 17th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I wish to speak to amendments 45 to 48. Clause 6 greatly exercised us in Committee because of the threat that it presents to the future supply of affordable housing delivered through the application of section 106 agreements. No evidence has been provided in Committee or elsewhere of the necessity of the clause or of why section 106 agreements, as they relate to affordable housing, should be singled out for such treatment. Ministers and other Government Members seemed blasé about what the clause could mean for the development of housing, and particularly about the need to create communities that are both balanced and mixed.

I want to make it clear from the outset that we dislike clause 6 very much indeed, and that in tabling our amendments we have sought to curtail its worst excesses. The Minister was not able to provide an evidence base for it, a point noted by many witnesses, such as the National Housing Federation, which stated that

“no evidence has been provided to suggest that Section 106 generally, and its affordable housing component specifically, are routinely stalling developments.”

The Minister has not explained why the clause is necessary given that local authorities are already renegotiating section 106 agreements. The Local Government Association has emphasised that point, and as I have already pointed out to the Minister, the LGA is currently—I stress that word to my hon. Friends—under the control of the Conservative party. It stated that it believed the whole of clause 6 to be

“unnecessary because councils are already responding to changed economic circumstances by renegotiating Section 106…agreements voluntarily.”

Case studies exist from a range of councils, including Cheshire West and Chester, Exeter and Haringey. Given the relatively short time available I will not go into them in much detail, but it is worth pointing out that Cheshire West and Chester council has already renegotiated the section 106 agreement for Winnington urban village, and that Exeter city council has done the same for a series of new developments. There are a lot of examples of that across the country, and I am happy to pass the information on to the Minister if necessary.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that there is a problem with the current system? My local authority is run by the Labour party and has done a deal with the biggest developer on the estate near the Elephant and Castle, reducing the agreed planning percentage of affordable housing from 35% to 25%. When I asked, on behalf of those I represent, to see the paperwork justifying the viability of that, the council and the developer said no.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and I hope that he will persuade Ministers to accept our amendment 44, on how viability is measured. It would require more precise guidance to be given to local authorities of whatever political shade so that they know how they should assess viability. Voluntary agreements, which usually mean negotiating section 106 requirements downwards, are occurring across the country, so we and local councils need a better understanding of what is meant by viability in that context.

We know from the evidence provided by the LGA that on average councils are willing to accept a level of affordable housing about a third lower than the amount set in their local plan. We also know that all but 2% of councils have said that they would be willing to renegotiate section 106 agreements. There is therefore a big question about the need to include clause 6 at all.

It may help the House to understand the full nature of what is wrong with the clause if I briefly go through each amendment and its purpose. Amendment 45 would require a local authority to establish first of all that it is the application of a section 106 housing agreement that is making a development unviable. As we pointed out in Committee, such an amendment would place a sensible requirement on local authorities to establish that it is the section 106 agreement for affordable housing that means that a development cannot go ahead as planned. It would also allow other types of obligation, such as highways contributions, to be put forward to the local authority for renegotiation as part of current section 106 arrangements. Developers can already ask a local authority for a renegotiation of section 106 agreements, so we simply cannot understand why the Government would not want to accept such a basic, common-sense amendment.

The LGA has continued to press that point, stating that it does not understand why the clause addresses only affordable housing when section 106 agreements also fund other forms of infrastructure. It has asked why social housing is deemed dispensable, especially since the current lack of funding has had a particular impact on the delivery of affordable housing, which is greatly needed.

After the May 2010 election, the Government cut the budget for new affordable homes by 60%. Labour invested £8.4 billion in the three years between 2008 and 2011, whereas the current Government will invest just over half of that amount in the four years between 2011 and 2015. At the same time, funding for existing affordable homes has fallen. As a consequence, shockingly, 37% of affordable homes do not meet the decent homes standard. I say to Ministers in passing that when we discussed the matter in Committee, no mention was made of the huge amount of money that went into upholding that standard under the previous Government. Of course, that kept a number of affordable houses in occupation.

We know that private rents are soaring. They hit a record high over the summer and are even higher at the moment. The number of homelessness acceptances is increasing, and over the past year rough sleeping has risen by about 23%. Affordable housing is therefore more necessary than ever, which is why the clause is so dangerous.

The Minister should note that the Local Government Association supports amendment 44. It asks the Minister to set out in regulations the criteria by which viability is to be assessed, and to consult relevant organisations before doing so—the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). The LGA states that the clause encourages have-a-go behaviour for developers, because it offers no reason for them not to try to seek a reduction in their affordable housing obligations from the Planning Inspectorate. The LGA has said that the clause could delay house building and economic recovery as developers wait for the new regime to be put in place, while placing additional resources centrally with the inspectorate, rather than properly resourcing local planning authorities.