Property Market

Debate between Stephen Lloyd and Lord Harrington of Watford

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Richard Harrington]

I cannot dispute the validity of what my hon. Friend says, as I am very familiar with his constituency and with my own. The demand for housing in Watford is significantly greater than demand in Burton, but both constituencies offer an illustration of how the RSS and those targets do not work. I am giving examples. My hon. Friend may say that the targets were fanciful, but they were aspirations. Now no one will say that these new targets will be reached, because my hon. Friend’s argument is the same as my own—there is always a presumption against development locally. There are councillors who are elected, one after the other, on anti-development platforms. They come from all parties; I am not picking out one particular party in that respect. However, the fact is that targets have been reduced all over the place, in St Albans, in Wiltshire—I could go on, as I have a list of quite a few areas.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he has been very patient in allowing us all to intervene, which I appreciate. Does he agree that a measure that will help people to find homes is another change that the coalition Government are introducing, thereby moving to a default situation where it is easier for people in receipt of housing benefit to opt for it to be given directly to the landlord rather than having it go via the tenant?

[Mr Andrew Turner in the Chair]

I know that my hon. Friend is talking about property sales, but does he agree that that change is another example of the coalition Government being practical and pragmatic, making it easier for people to have their own houses, even if in this instance they are rented houses.

[Richard Harrington]

I agree with my hon. Friend, except to say that he says that I am talking particularly about private housing. That is true, but in fact it is really the overall supply of housing that I am interested in and for whatever purposes, whether it is housing for private tenants or for social tenants, shared ownership or outright freehold ownership. I think that the principle is the same; we are talking about supply. However, I totally support that measure on rent that the coalition has introduced.

The core of the Government’s strategy is the new homes bonus, which was introduced as an incentive for councils to build. It may well succeed—I hope that it does—but I have spoken to a number of people in the industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister might say that they have vested interests as planning officers, house builders and so on, but whatever their other interests, they certainly have an interest in supply. Their concern is that the bonus will not be sufficient in itself to encourage councils to build.

If a development of new houses is opposed by local residents, local councillors elected on a non-development ticket are unlikely to take action on an issue that might work against them at election time. I do not believe that five or six years of council tax will be a convincing enough reward. I say that not to discount the scheme but to raise obvious concerns to Ministers that other weapons, tools and policies might be needed as well.

My right hon. Friend the Minister believes that residents and their representatives will change their views because of the benefits that their communities will receive from the new homes bonus. He regularly cites a large brownfield site in his constituency of Welwyn Hatfield where the new homes bonus—the money that the council will receive for a housing development on that site—will pay for a renewal of the whole town centre. I can see that—after he mentioned it to me at a meeting in Hatfield, I went to visit the site, and I accept that it is a compelling argument—but most developments are much more controversial than that. In Watford and, I suspect, many other constituencies, the available development land comprises many small sites for which the NHB money would not make a sufficient difference to the community coffers to provide any incentive, although I can certainly see how the big flagship schemes would do so.

I am not negative about the new homes bonus, and I hope that what I am saying will not be interpreted as such. I just do not believe that it will necessarily be enough. I have positive suggestions to make. Some simple considerations might do much to ensure what we want and what the Minister has declared many times that he wants: an increased supply of land with planning permission.

It is crucial that PPS 3, which is under consideration, preserves the obligation of local planning authorities to maintain a five-year housing land supply and to take a five-year view. Although the process is made cumbersome by a lack of nationally accepted guidance on how to calculate land supply—it is a matter beyond my intellectual capacity as a Member of Parliament—I am sure that there are many professional people on different sides of the argument who have views. The implementation of such a measure—not a target, but a measure—would at least ensure an impartial intermediary. I suggest that the Government convene an advisory committee drawn from leading planners, housing and economic experts, Government and local government to draw up a suggested standard methodology for calculating land supply figures. I repeat that it would not be a return to the over-centralised approach of the past, but it could be a sensible way to ensure that best practice is captured so that local councils make informed decisions.