Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 7 and 20 January (HL3615 and HL4297) and his remarks on 4 March (HL Deb, col 272), which local authorities (1) opposed reform, (2) were not opposed, and (3) expressed no opinion, in response to their consultation on deregulation of short-lets in London; and why they did not provide that information in response to the previous questions from Baroness Gardner of Parkes.

Fifteen London local authorities responded to question 22 of the discussion document on Property Conditions in the Private Rented Sector. Eight authorities responded to the effect that they opposed reform of the legislation: Haringey, Enfield, Camden, Westminster, Newham, Redbridge, Lambeth and the City of London. Seven were not opposed to a review: Lewisham, Sutton, Southwark, Hammersmith & Fulham, Harrow, Islington and Greenwich. The remaining eighteen of the thirty-three London local authorities did not respond to this question.

This detailed information was not provided in response to the questions on 7 and 20 January, as the Government had not yet concluded its consideration of the responses to the discussion document. The answers provided on 7 and 20 January explained that the Government had yet to publish its formal response to the consultation on the Review of Property Conditions in the Private Rented Sector, and that we intended to do so alongside details of our policy on short-term letting in London, prior to Lords Report Stage of the Deregulation Bill. The Government’s response to the discussion document, and proposed policy, was published in a policy paper on 9 February entitled ‘Promoting the sharing economy in London: Policy on short-term use of residential property in London’.

We took into account these representations from London boroughs and others, and as a result, introduced a series of checks and balances as outlined in my Written Ministerial Statement of 9 February 2015, Official Report, HLWS242. These were not in the original consultation paper, but were a consequence of the consultation.