Long-term Plan for Housing Statement The following Statement was
made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 19 December. “With
permission, I would like to make a Statement on the Government’s
commitment to housebuilding and the planning policy reforms we are
making today. This Government want to build more homes in the right
places, more quickly, more beautifully and more sustainably. We
know that the right way to deliver this is through a reformed
planning...Request free trial
Long-term Plan for
Housing
Statement
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on
Tuesday 19 December.
“With permission, I would like to make a Statement on the
Government’s commitment to housebuilding and the planning policy
reforms we are making today.
This Government want to build more homes in the right places,
more quickly, more beautifully and more sustainably. We know that
the right way to deliver this is through a reformed planning
system. Today, the Secretary of State and I are laying out our
plan for that reform, and we are clear that it is only through
up-to-date local plans that local authorities can deliver for
communities, protect the land and the assets that matter most,
and create the conditions for more homes to be delivered.
Having plans in place unlocks land for homes, for hospitals and
general practitioner centres, for schools, for power grid
connections and more. It lays the foundations for our economic
growth and the levelling up of our communities. The first change
we are making today is to update the National Planning Policy
Framework. We consulted on a series of proposals last December
and received more than 26,000 responses, which we have worked
through in detail.
The resulting update builds on the Levelling-up and Regeneration
Act 2023 and delivers on the intent set out by the Secretary of
State last year, and it does so in a way that will promote
building the right homes in the right places with the right
infrastructure, which will ensure that the environment is
protected and give local people a greater say on where and where
not to place new, beautiful development.
I will now summarise the key changes being made to the framework
today, and honourable Members should refer to the consultation
response and the framework itself for the published policies.
First, the standard method for assessing local housing need
figures has sometimes been difficult to apply in some areas and
has been blind to the exceptional characteristics of local
communities. The new NPPF makes it clear that the outcome of the
standard method is an advisory starting point in plan making for
establishing an area’s housing requirement.
The revised NPPF also now provides more clarity on what may
constitute exceptional circumstances for using an alternative
method to assess housing need. The framework is also clear that
the urban uplift should be accommodated in the urban areas in
which it is applied and should not be exported unless there is a
voluntary cross-boundary agreement in place. New homes are most
desperately needed in urban areas, so it is essential that city
councils plan properly for local people.
Secondly, given the importance of the green belt to so many, the
new NPPF is clear that there is generally no requirement on local
authorities to review or alter green-belt boundaries. Unlike
Labour’s plan to concrete over the countryside, we will not
impose top-down release of green-belt land against the wishes of
local communities. Where a relevant local planning authority
chooses to conduct a review, existing national policy will
continue to expect that green-belt boundaries are altered only
where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and
justified, and this should be only through the preparation or
updating of plans. The Government are making no changes to the
rules that govern what can and cannot be built on green-belt
land, but we are clarifying in guidance where brownfield
development can occur on the green belt, provided that the
openness of the green belt is not harmed.
Thirdly, the Government are clear that the character of an
existing area should be respected, particularly in the historic
suburbs of our great towns and cities. The new NPPF therefore
recognises that there may be situations in plan making where
significant uplifts in urban residential densities would be
inappropriate, as they would be wholly out of character with that
existing area. In these cases, authorities need not plan for such
development. That will apply where there is a design code that is
adopted, or will be adopted, as part of the local plan. I know
the shadow Minister will sympathise with this change, given that
he recently opposed 1,500 new homes in his constituency due to
the impact on Greenwich’s local character.
Fourthly, where an up-to-date plan is in place—a plan less than
five years old—and contains a deliverable five-year supply of
land when examined by the inspector, authorities will no longer
be required to update that supply annually. This change provides
those authorities with additional protection from the presumption
in favour of sustainable development. We are also fully removing
what are known as the 5% and 10% buffers, which could be applied
to an authority’s housing land supply. A transitional arrangement
will ensure that decision making on live applications is not
affected, thus avoiding disruption to applications in the system.
For authorities that have not yet passed examination but are
either at examination, regulation 18 or regulation 19 stage, and
have both a policy map and proposed allocations, there will be a
two-year grace period in which they need to demonstrate only a
four-year housing land supply for decision-making. That is a
strong incentive for councils to now do the right thing and agree
a local plan.
Fifthly, local communities that have worked hard to put
neighbourhood plans in place should not be penalised for the
failure of their council to ensure an up-to-date local plan. The
new NPPF therefore extends protection for neighbourhood plans
from speculative development from two to five years, where those
plans allocate at least one housing site. The updated framework
also gives greater support to self-build, custom-build and
community-led housing, and to encouraging the delivery of older
people’s housing, including retirement housing, housing with care
and care homes.
Next, the NPPF cements the role of beauty and placemaking in the
planning system; it now expressly uses the word “beautiful” in
relation to “well-designed places”. It also now requires greater
“visual clarity” on design requirements set out in planning
conditions and supports gentle density through the promotion of
mansard roof development. Finally, the new NPPF also strengthens
protections for agricultural land, by being clear that
consideration should be given to the availability of agricultural
land for food production in development decisions. The NPPF also
supports the Government’s energy security strategy, by giving
significant weight to the importance of energy efficiency in the
adaptation of existing buildings, while protecting heritage.
With the updated NPPF now in place, the other reforms we are
making today are focused on setting higher expectations for
performance. Those who operationalise the system—local
authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and statutory
consultees—must live up to their responsibilities. To support
that, we are taking action on four fronts. First, we will ensure
greater transparency, because exposing what is really going on in
a system sparks action. So we will publish a new local authority
performance dashboard in 2024, and pull back the veil on the use
of extension of time agreements, which in too many instances are
concealing poor performance.
Secondly, we have been providing, and will continue to provide,
additional financial support. That includes the increased
planning fees that went live a fortnight ago, as well as a range
of funds to tackle backlogs and improve capability. Thirdly, we
will tackle slow processes, with leading a review into the
statutory consultee system and a greater focus from the Planning
Inspectorate where planning committees are seeing their decisions
overturned on appeal.
Finally, we will intervene where we need to. The Secretary of
State has issued a direction to seven of the worst authorities in
terms of plan making, requiring them to publish a plan timetable
within 12 weeks of the publication of the new NPPF. Should they
fail, we will consider further intervention. We are also
designating two additional authorities for their decision-making
performance and we will review the thresholds for designation to
make sure we are not letting off the hook authorities that should
be doing better.
We are also taking action in London, because the homes needed by
the capital are simply not being built and opportunities for
urban brownfield regeneration go begging as a result of the
Mayor’s anti-housing policy and approach. A review launched today
will identify where changes to policy could speed up the delivery
of much-needed homes. If directing change in London becomes
necessary, this Government will do that.
In designing these reforms we have aimed to facilitate desirable
development, constrained only by appropriate protections. That is
a balance I am confident we have struck.”
2.17pm
(Lab)
My Lords, there surely cannot be any debate on the fact that we
are in the midst of a catastrophic housing crisis, which figures
from Shelter tell us leaves almost 300,000 of our fellow citizens
homeless every night, including 123,000 children, and over a
million families on social housing waiting lists. A planning
policy framework doing its job would at least put the steps in
place to start delivering the numbers of homes that would resolve
this crisis, but this plan is neither long-term nor a plan to
deliver housing.
Sadly, the Government’s caving-in to Back-Benchers in the other
place, and developers on housing targets, means this planning
policy framework will mean housing delivery falling far from the
mark for the foreseeable future. Data published this week showed
that consents are at an all-time low, 20% down on last year, and
the National House Building Council shows a dramatic fall in
registrations, down 42% in quarter two compared with last
year.
Commitment to delivering real improvement in housing delivery has
to be called into question when we have had no less than 16
Housing Ministers since 2010, and when the Secretary of State
delivered his statement on this planning policy framework to a
press conference, rather than in Parliament. The National
Planning Policy Framework should provide the link to ensure that
local councils are taking into account the strategic need for
housing, industrial and commercial land, food and farming
requirements and the whole range of environmental issues as they
apply in each area. Local plans are vital to deliver what is
needed across the country, but also to engage local communities
in how that is done and to provide the protections needed against
speculative, unwanted or dangerous development.
However, the level of uncertainty the Government have generated
by flip-flopping over their commitment to housing, by failure to
create proper industrial strategy and failure to take
environmental issues seriously enough, has fatally undermined all
of that and has now culminated in 58 local authorities either
scrapping or delaying their local plans as they wrestle with the
uncertainty over housing targets. Yet this Statement seems to
unequivocally point the finger at local authorities.
I suggest that the Minister in the other place might want to look
in the mirror here. The example closest to home for me was that
after extensive local research, two years of intensive public
consultation and partnership working, and an extended three-week
public inquiry, our Stevenage local plan was submitted to the
Government on time—and then sat on the holding direction on the
Secretary of State’s desk for 451 days until it was finally
approved.
It is not just on housing that this framework fails to deliver.
Because we have no proper industrial strategy, it is almost
impossible for local plans to meet the needs for industrial
commercial permissions, and the honourable Member for Buckingham
in the other place raised on 19 December that it does not meet
the stronger protections for food production land use either,
with a wishy-washy statement quoted by the Minister:
“The availability of agricultural land used for food production
should be considered”.
What does that mean? Question after question when the Statement
was debated in the other place, largely from Conservative
Members, sought clarification of exactly what is meant by the
fact that housing targets are an advisory starting point. The
best the Minister could come up with was:
“I cannot pre-empt or suggest exactly what that will mean in all
instances”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/12/23; cols.
1275-6.]
One senior member of a respected planning stakeholder body told
me that they stopped taking notes at the Secretary of State’s
press conference on this topic because what he said just did not
make any sense. Can the Minister please tell us how this process
of advisory starting points for housing targets will deliver the
300,000 homes a year that are so urgently needed? We need to be
clear here. There will be no levelling up unless we are at least
aiming to provide a safe, secure, affordable and sustainable home
for everyone. How does this set of policies deliver that?
On the key issue of resources, this is crippling local
authorities’ ability to deliver against their planning
obligations; indeed, the Royal Town Planning Institute reports
90% of local authorities as having a backlog of cases and 70% as
having difficulties in recruiting. How will the Government
support local authorities to resource their planning function as
demand increases when their budgets are squeezed by the
skyrocketing costs of children’s services, adult social care and,
of course, homelessness? How do the Government reconcile their
threats to remove planning powers from local authorities that do
not meet the three-month deadline for delivery of their plan with
the absolute obligation for authorities to consult local people?
With a significant change on the issue of housing targets, surely
it is understandable that further consultation must be
undertaken. Has that been taken into account? If, as the
Secretary of State has threatened, recalcitrant local authorities
have their planning powers removed, who will undertake the
planning work for their area? The Planning Inspectorate is
already underresourced and its involvement in local plan-making
would be a significant conflict of interest.
Time and again in debates during the passage of the levelling-up
Act we were told that the Government would not accept amendments
because provision would be included in the National Planning
Policy Framework; for example, on ensuring that housebuilders
focus on healthy homes and on making specific provision for
housing for older people, flooding, access to open space,
protections for historic buildings and a wide range of
environmental issues. What assessment has the department carried
out to ensure that all those issues—all those promises that were
made to us—are incorporated into this new set of policies?
I return to my initial point: without a determined effort to
deliver 300,000 homes a year, which we will need to resolve the
housing crisis, we will continue to see the shameful situation
where children are homeless, where they share beds with their
parents because of lack of adequate space, where permitted
development allows appalling housing conditions to prevail, and
where poor housing affects the health and life chances of a whole
generation. Perhaps it is time for a new ITV drama, “Mr Bates
versus DLUHC”. In failing to tackle this through a clear housing
strategy and the policies to support that, including targets,
this policy amounts just to failure and another missed
opportunity.
(LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interests as a
councillor in Kirklees—where we have an up-to-date local plan—and
as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, just said, there are 1.2
million households on the social housing waiting lists and the
Government’s own assessment is that 300,000 new homes need to be
built every year. Having somewhere to live is a basic human right
and a basic requirement that all Governments should fulfil. We
have a housing crisis, and the response as set out in this
Statement and the newly published National Planning Policy
Framework fails to address that crisis. The policies are
incoherent and fail on many levels. For example, the newly
published NPPF refers to social housing only once and in a single
sentence. There is a desperate need for social housing to rent.
Can the Minister tell the House how long the 1.2 million
households on the waiting list will have to wait for a safe,
affordable home at a rent that is within their means?
I could tell the Minister of a family in my ward that contacted
me this week. There is the wife, husband and a four year-old boy
living with the grandmother, who has serious dementia, and a baby
is on the way, in a two-bed Victorian terraced house with a front
door that opens on to an A-road and the back door on to a ginnel,
as we call it. It is an alley, I guess; we call them ginnels in
Yorkshire. There is nowhere, literally no space, for that four
year-old to play, or to put the baby. They rang me to ask what
chance they had for a council house or a housing association
home, and I had to tell them the awful truth: that virtually all
the family homes have been sold under right to buy, very few
replaced, and their chances are virtually nil within the next
five years. How are the Government going to address that example
and many, many more like it?
Debate on this vital national policy should have taken place when
we debated the levelling-up Bill in this House. Many Members
across the House, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said, asked
for the information on the revised NPPF at that time, and it is
now clear to me why the Government held back, because the
National Planning Policy Framework as published fails to tackle
this housing crisis by enabling local authorities to plan with
confidence and with the goal of meeting their local housing
need.
Housing need is defined not just by numbers of housing units
required but also by type and tenure. The Government’s own
figures show that 62% of the rise in households is of people over
65 living alone. Perhaps the Minister can say how the Government
intend to ensure that this particular need is to be met, given
the policies that they have now published. Is it possible, for
instance, for local authorities to allocate a site for building
with specific requirements to meet such locally determined
need?
Next, the Government are relaxing housing targets by describing
these as an “advisory starting point”. Can the Minister flesh out
“advisory” in this context? How advisory is advisory? What advice
will the Government be giving to the Planning Inspectorate on the
definition of that word and what they expect it to mean?
Given that housing targets are to be determined more locally, can
the Minister explain the rationale behind the requirement for 20
of the largest towns and cities to have 35% more homes than are
determined by their local housing assessment? Why is it 35%, not
20% or 40%? Where does the figure come from, and what will it
actually mean for those towns and cities?
One of the major holes in the Government’s planning and housing
policies is that there are no penalties for developers who,
having obtained planning consent, fail to start building or start
a site and then delay building out. This is one of the major
reasons for the crisis in housebuilding numbers: more than 1
million properties have planning consent but have not been built.
Yet local authorities are to be penalised for failing to provide
sites while, in those same local authorities, developers are
failing to develop sites that have permission. What will the
Government do about this dreadful state of affairs? What
pressures will they put on developers to ensure that, once
planning consent is given, the developer gets on and builds out
the site?
Many residents oppose new homes because of the impact on local
infrastructure, such as traffic, school places and access to
health services. Many are justified in their complaints. For
example, in my area of Kirklees, GP patient numbers are at 1,900
per doctor, as compared to the national average of 1,600. When
residents raise the issue of more houses meaning greater numbers
of patients for their local GP, where I live it is genuinely the
case. There are already 20% more patients per GP where I live
than the national average. What will the Government do to address
the genuine complaints from residents about local infrastructure?
That is just one example.
Providing the housing that we need is dependent on local
authorities having up-to-date local plans, yet the majority of
them do not have one. What action will the Government take to
ensure that local authorities have up-to-date local plans? A
local plan is the initial building block that unlocks sites for
housing of a type and tenure that is so desperately needed. This
Statement absolutely fails to address this. I look forward to the
Minister’s replies to all the questions that have been raised; if
she cannot answer them, I hope that she can give us written
responses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Levelling Up, Housing & Communities () (Con)
My Lords, I will endeavour to answer the questions from both
noble Baronesses as fully as I can, but it is first worth
reflecting on what this update to the NPPF sought to do. Both
noble Baronesses rightly situated it in the context of the
broader changes in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act to bring
forward a reformed planning system that allows more homes to be
built in the right places, more quickly, more beautifully and
more sustainably.
The right way to do this is through a reformed planning system.
In December last year, we laid out our plan to do that. We made
it abundantly clear that the only way to do so is through
up-to-date local plans, which local authorities can deliver for
communities to protect the land and assets that matter most and
lay the foundation for economic growth. Part of that plan for
reform was the update to the National Planning Policy Framework.
In December 2022, we consulted on a series of proposals that
received more than 26,000 responses, which we have worked through
in detail. The updates that we made, which were announced at the
end of last year, strike a careful balance between delivering
homes that our communities need and protecting the things that we
care most about, such as our natural environment, heritage
assets, high streets and town centres—matters referenced by both
noble Baronesses. The NPPF update acknowledges that different
areas and different parts of the country must be approached in
different ways and that local authorities and communities are
best placed to ensure that the right homes are in the right
places, where they are both needed and wanted.
Both noble Baronesses asked about the change to the NPPF which
clarified that the standard method of assessing housing need is
the starting point for local authorities. The NPPF expects local
planning authorities to evidence and provide for their housing
needs. The Government are clear that the standard method should
still be used to inform the process. Local authorities can put
forward their own approach to assessing housing needs, but this
should be used only in exceptional circumstances. Authorities can
expect their method to be scrutinised closely at examination. The
standard method remains the starting point for this process and
only in exceptional circumstances would we expect local planning
authorities to move away from that. However, it is right that we
allow for those exceptional circumstances. In the updated
framework, the demographics of a particular area are pointed to
as the factor which might mean that an alternative method would
be appropriate for that planning authority to use.
Part of delivering homes in a way that meets community needs is
about having a more diversified housing market. Therefore, the
framework also strengthens support for SME builders and the wider
diversity of the housing market by emphasising the importance of
community-led housing development, ensuring that local
authorities seek opportunities to support small sites to come
forward and removing barriers to smaller and medium builders in
the planning system. In the long run, that will also ensure that
we make progress in delivering the housing that we need and keep
us on track to deliver 1 million new homes during this
Parliament.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about social housing. Her
points were well made. These updates to the NPPF did not have
that as a particular focus but the Government are absolutely
committed to increasing the supply of affordable and social
housing. That is why our latest affordable housing programme is
backed by more than £11 billion. We have increased the delivery
of affordable housing under this Government. I would be very
happy to sit down with the noble Baroness and discuss specific
planning barriers to affordable housing further.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, referred to the resources needed
to unlock the planning system. She is absolutely right. That is
why we have increased the resources going into local planning
services. The new planning rules that came into force on 6
December increase fees for major applications by 35% and minor
ones by 25%. The indexing arrangements now in place also ensure
that they rise in line with inflation. Beyond that, the planning
skills delivery fund was boosted by £5 million to £29 million. In
the first round of funding, 180 local planning authorities are
receiving collectively over £14 million. We recognise that the
changes we have made to the planning system in the levelling-up
Act and through the changes to the NPPF need to be matched by
additional resources, which we have put in.
I turn to housing standards and a range of other issues that were
debated at length during the passage of the levelling-up Bill.
The Government have committed to bring forward further changes to
the National Planning Policy Framework, bringing in a national
development management framework. We are committed to consulting
on those changes this year but, for the development of local
plans, we believe that the combination of the measures in the Act
and those announced and changed in the NPPF at the end of last
year provide clarity and certainty for local areas to be able to
make their plans and deliver on them.
Where that is not proving possible for local authorities, the
Secretary of State has been clear that the Government are
prepared to intervene. That is why the Secretary of State issued
a direction about plan-making to seven of the worst authorities.
The best outcome from those directions is that the local
authorities themselves bring forward plans within 12 weeks and
set out a clear timetable to do so. Should they fail, we will
consider further intervention, but it would be based on the
particular circumstances of those local authorities and reflect
their points. I do not want to pre-empt that, as the best outcome
for those areas is for the local authorities to take forward
those plans themselves.
We are also taking action in London, because the homes needed in
the capital are simply not being built. Opportunities for urban
brownfield regeneration are being left untaken, as a result of
the mayor’s anti-housing policy and approach. His plan does not
contain sufficient ambition for housing, and he is
underdelivering against it. That is why we are undertaking an
urgent review of it.
There are a number of areas from both noble Baronesses that I may
not have addressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned
infrastructure and of course we have the housing infrastructure
fund, which provides the funding needed to ensure that
development can take place, is supported locally and comes with
the schools, hospitals and GP places needed to support it. I
undertake to write to both noble Baronesses in detail on any
further points on which I need to follow up.
2.42pm
(Con)
My Lords, there is much to welcome in the Statement—namely, the
increase in planning resources—but it represents a major change
in government housing policy, which was not there when the
levelling-up Bill was introduced. As the noble Baroness, Lady
Taylor, said, this was introduced to head off a rebellion in the
other place. As a result, the targets are advisory, not
mandatory, and we are already seeing a result—not just in plans
being withdrawn but in South Oxfordshire doing something unheard
of in planning by deleting from its plan for development sites
that had already been included. We may end up with more
up-to-date plans eventually, but they will have fewer homes in
them than the country needs. How will a democratically elected
Government, committed to building 300,000 new homes a year,
deliver that if they are totally dependent on the good will of
local authorities that do not share that commitment?
(Con)
My Lords, we announced a number of different changes at the end
of last year. However, as I said to both the noble Baronesses,
the standard method for assessing housing need remains the
starting point for local authorities. It is only in exceptional
circumstances that we would expect them to move away from that,
and that must be well evidenced. In such circumstances, where it
is not appropriate for that area, there is a way and method for
those local authorities to put forward a well-considered and
well-thought-out local plan, which would have a much better
chance of being delivered than something that does not command
local support and does not suit the needs of the local area.
We have made other changes that may result in the changes that my
noble friend talked about—for example, by removing the buffers
needed on land supply set out in local plans. They go over and
above the amount of land needed to deliver against the assessed
housing need for an area. Where local authorities have done the
right thing, put a plan in place and identified the land they
need to deliver against the local housing need in their area, it
is not the right way forward to require those local authorities
to hold a 5% or 10% buffer on top.
(CB)
My Lords, I pick up on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady
Pinnock. If we could see the production of decent, accessible,
energy-efficient, companionable, new retirement housing for older
people needing and wanting to rightsize, we could free up tens of
thousands of family homes, which are so badly needed. The
planning system can allocate sites, not least urban sites that
regenerate town centres, and those absolutely essential local
plans can stipulate requirements for a proportion of such housing
in all major developments. I add that at the same time removing
stamp duty for purchases by those over pension age would
stimulate the market, increasing revenue to HM Treasury through
the chain that follows, and that housing for older people saves
massive sums for the NHS and adult care services. Will the
Minister get behind all those trying to boost the output of
well-designed homes for the estimated 3 million older people who
are interested in downsizing and rightsizing?
(Con)
I absolutely support the remarks by the noble Lord on needing the
right housing to meet the needs of people at all stages in their
lives. There are changes within this update to the NPPF that will
encourage the delivery of older people’s housing, including
retirement housing, housing with care and care homes. In
addition, the Government have the Older People’s Housing
Taskforce, which is exploring broader changes that we might wish
to see to encourage housing for older people to be built in the
areas where it is most suitable and most needed. Also, there is
the point that the noble Lord made: ensuring that we have the
right solution for older people has a knock-on effect throughout
our housing supply on the availability for those who may be
trying to get on the housing ladder in the first place.
My Lords, the Archbishops’ Commission on Housing, Church and
Community recommended that the Government adopt a long-term plan
to address the scale of the housing crisis in the UK. I am glad
to see that they have adopted the language of long-termism, as
the UK’s housing has been held back by short-term planning and
decision-making for far too long. However, I believe that such a
plan must be holistic, taking into account all elements that make
up a good housing strategy, with consideration of both new builds
and existing buildings. What plans do the Government have to
improve the quality of the homes that we already have, for
example by undertaking a programme to upgrade EPC ratings, or by
equalising the rate of VAT on repairs for existing houses with
that for constructing new homes?
(Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right that, when we
consider the quality of people’s homes, we absolutely need to
think about existing stock, not just new homes. When it comes to
new homes, we have just launched the consultation on the future
homes standard, which will have in place regulations that mean
that all new homes built from 2025 onwards will need to be
net-zero ready and have much higher levels of energy efficiency.
They would most likely have heat pumps installed as a way to
deliver those net-zero targets. When it comes to existing homes,
we have a huge range of government support in place to support
increased energy efficiency. A lot of that has focused initially
on those on low incomes: for example, looking at social housing,
there is the social housing decarbonisation fund. We are
broadening that out to support other people too. We have the
boiler upgrade grant, which allows people to replace their old
boilers with heat pumps, with a significant proportion of those
costs met by government. We have debated VAT a number of times in
this House, but I will say that we have introduced a reduced rate
of VAT for energy-efficiency measures, and we extended the scope
of the measures that that covers in the most recent Autumn
Statement.
(Con)
My Lords, as the National Planning Policy Framework’s primary
purpose is more homes, is it not strange that His Majesty’s
Government have yet to make any statement about a new concept of
the new town movement? You can see on the ground the wonderful
work that was done as long ago as the 30s with the garden city
just alongside the A1—I drove past it yesterday. Then there are
the new towns. My former constituency was Northampton, and there
is the new city of Milton Keynes, which was only a village
before. That concept surely has to have a role, modernised to
meet today’s requirements in the future.
Secondly, my noble friend quite rightly says: “Yes, more new
homes”. But is not the problem at the moment that the developers
do not have the confidence that she clearly has? The figures for
2023 are very low. Are they not going to be only marginally
better in 2024? Against that background, will His Majesty’s
Government bring in new incentives for young couples to be able
to provide some of that demand, so that developers can have some
confidence to move forward?
(Con)
My noble friend makes two very good points. England has a proud
history of new town development, and well-planned, beautifully
designed, locally led garden communities are playing a vital role
in helping to meet our housing need, through providing a stable
pipeline of new homes. The Garden Communities programme supports
local authorities to build places that people are happy to call
their home. That programme was launched in 2014, and has awarded
over £58 million of capacity funding to assist places to deliver
their proposals for housing. A further £12 million has also been
invested to deliver the infrastructure critical to unblock the
delivery of homes. The 47 locally led garden communities have the
capacity to deliver over 300,000 new homes by 2050. That is
something that the Government absolutely continue to support.
The number of planning consents being down was referenced by the
noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. When it comes to the wider
conditions in the housing market, we recognise that this is a
challenging time. The broader economic conditions we face due to
very high levels of inflation, and the high interest rates that
are in place to bring that down, make it harder for people to get
on the housing ladder. That is why this Government have been
focused, laser-like, on tackling inflation. We met our commitment
last year to halve the level of inflation, and are back on the
road to the Bank of England’s 2% target. That is the most
effective way in which we can make sure that people are able to
afford their mortgages and access the housing market in the way
they wish to. But there are also important things that we can
do—for example, ensuring that our affordable housing programme
continues throughout this period to provide more stability and
certainty in terms of the pipeline of new homes while it is a
difficult market out there for housebuilders.
(CB)
My Lords, may I ask the Minister, following on from the question
from the right reverend Prelate, about the certificates—the EPCs?
We have had a problem and a review on EPC measurement. Could she
let us know where we are on that review?
(Con)
My Lords, my understanding is that the Government launched an EPC
action plan to take forward a number of changes to EPCs. We are
well on track for delivering against the majority of actions
within that, but we continue to look at it. We recognise that
there is potentially the need for wider reform to energy
performance certificates; we are looking at that very closely and
doing further work on it.
(Lab)
My Lords, I have the honour of serving on the Built Environment
Committee in your Lordships’ House, along with one or two other
colleagues here. We have been listening to evidence in the last
few months from builders, planners and Ministers about why the
300,000 target has not been reached. I think the low point for me
was evidence from an Environment Minister and the Housing
Minister, who sat next to each other trying to explain why it was
all very difficult. At the end of the evidence session, I
thought, “When did they ever talk to each other? It is as if they
are in completely different silos”. We have heard answers from
the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, this afternoon about the
importance of the environment. She mentioned affordable housing
once or twice. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned that
it is only in the NPPF once, I think; I may have that wrong.
When I looked at the Housing Minister’s Statement on 19 December
when he launched this, I was astonished to read one paragraph
which used several phrases which to me indicate what is really
important for this Government. One phrase was “gentle density”—I
do not know what that means, but perhaps some experts can tell
me—on the design of mansard roof development. Does that really go
in a Statement? There was “well-designed places”—we know what
that is—and then,
“‘visual clarity’ on the design requirements”.—[Official Report,
Commons, 19/12/23; col. 1266.]
Also, the word “beauty” comes into it, as the noble Baroness
said. These are all very good things, especially if you want a
lovely new house in the countryside, miles from anywhere, but are
they the priorities for affordable housing? This is the problem.
We have lost sight of what is important. I live in Cornwall and
the lack of affordable housing there is just terrible. If we are
to say that everything has to be a “gentle density” with “visual
clarity” of place, I do not think we are going to get there—until
we concentrate on what is important, which is affordable
housing.
(Con)
I do not think that the delivery of more affordable housing and
the delivery of more beautiful housing need to be in tension with
each other. In fact, the right housing in the right place allows
more support for development to go ahead, which is one of the big
barriers we see to delivering more housing in local areas, and
affordable housing should be beautiful housing too. Noble Lords
have had a lot of debates in this House about the standards
within our homes, particularly within our social housing. We
should be no less ambitious for the standards that people enjoy
in their housing, whether it is social housing, affordable
housing or private housing. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock,
talked about space for children to play, for example. Taking into
account that kind of amenity is important for the right
development to go ahead. We should recognise that we have made
significant progress in recent years in building more houses. We
have had some of the highest housing delivery in the past four
years that we have had in the past 20 years, and we seek to
continue that, but without those measures necessarily needing to
be in tension. The noble Lord spoke about Ministers talking to
each other in different departments. I reassure him that,
particularly on these areas that cut across different interests
and on something like net zero or environmental impact, we bring
together the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, my
department and Defra to work together to provide solutions on
these issues.
(GP)
My Lords, I shall follow the theme of social housing. I declare
my position as a vice-president of the LGA and the NALC.
Responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the Minister said
that the Government are committed to social housing. We have just
heard that again, and it is great, but the Minister may be aware
of a document from the National Housing Federation, Let’s Fix the
Housing Crisis: Delivering a Long-Term Plan for Housing. This
crosses over with her former departmental responsibilities. It
asserts:
“The wider fiscal, societal and economic benefits of social
housing are poorly captured in current cost benefit
analysis”,
and, particularly, in the Government’s Green Book. The NHF
stresses that we need housing
“in the right location, with the right support for those who need
it”,
which sounds very much like the Green Party’s Right Homes, Right
Place, Right Price. Does the Minister agree that planning needs
to think about this social element as well as the purely spatial
element? We have been relying on the market for decades now. It
has not worked out very well and has given the crisis we have
now, plus the terrible privatisation of right to buy. I will pick
up a point from the noble Lord, : one of the things that the NHF
report highlights is the increase in the long-term cost of
housing benefit as a result of the increase in the number of
retired people who are in private rental housing now. Do we not
have to join up far more planning and financial considerations
and pure human considerations to secure an affordable place for
everybody to live?
(Con)
My Lords, a number of the changes that we are making to the NPPF
address some of the noble Baroness’s concerns. They are all about
allowing a local area, using the evidence of local need, to
produce a plan that works for that area. The noble Baroness
touched on the Green Book and how we value social housing but
also wider social benefits when we look at value for money in
government projects. The Government have done work on reforming
the Green Book over a number of years to ensure that we better
take that into account. There is also better assessment of
national well-being as a factor when we look at policies. We are
looking, for example, at valuing our green space more clearly in
our policy assessments, so that we can take a more well-rounded
look. That is at the heart of my department’s mission. When
looking at levelling up across the whole of the United Kingdom,
one point that often gets made is that the old ways of doing
things incentivises you to invest only in London and the
south-east. While that is incredibly important, we know that
investing in communities across our country is how we will
actually deliver for people, and that is what my department has
been created to do.
(LD)
My Lords, the Minister has said that it is not the purpose of
this long-term plan for housing to address the need for more
homes for social rent. She has also said that the Government are
absolutely committed to increasing the supply of affordable and
social housing. In the face of the 14% increase in the past year
of people in temporary accommodation in our country—a trend which
is likely to continue rising—what is the Government’s short to
medium-term plan for getting more long-term homes for those being
forced to live in temporary accommodation?
(Con)
As I have previously said to noble Lords, we have over £11
billion for the affordable homes programme, but a number of other
measures were announced, most recently in the Autumn Statement.
For example, the local housing allowance uplift will help with
the affordability of the private rented sector, reducing the
chances that people might move into temporary accommodation. We
also have the Homelessness Reduction Act, which is matched by
funding to try to prevent people moving into temporary
accommodation altogether. At the Autumn Statement, we also
announced additional money for local authorities to increase the
supply and quality of their temporary housing to bring down the
costs of putting that provision in place so that we can invest in
the longer-term solution, which is more affordable housing
available to more people.
|
