The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
I apologise on behalf of the Department for the points you have
just highlighted, Madam Deputy Speaker. With permission, I would
like to make a statement on the Government’s commitment to house
building 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...Request free trial
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety ()
I apologise on behalf of the Department for the points you have
just highlighted, Madam Deputy Speaker.
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the
Government’s commitment to house building 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 hon. 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 only be 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 contained 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 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.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the shadow Minister.
2.14pm
(Greenwich and Woolwich)
(Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Nothing
screams long-term housing plan quite like a statement from the
16th Housing Minister since 2010 outlining the fourth set of
changes to the national planning policy framework in as many
years. As ever with this Government, the reality in no way
matches the rhetoric, as we see with the headline announcements
made to the press—not this House—over the past 24 hours. Not only
are they seemingly at odds with the Government’s stated wish to
give local communities more of a say about the placement of new
developments; the truth is that the ink will barely be dry on
outline plans for the proposed expansion of Cambridge by the time
the general election is called. The punitive and nakedly
political interventions that Ministers are working up for London
ahead of the mayoral election will, likewise, do nothing in
practice to resolve the constraints that they themselves have
imposed on house building in the capital, not least by leaving
industry completely in the dark when it comes to second staircase
regulations for tall buildings, at a cost of thousands of new
homes.
When it comes to meaningful support for small and medium-sized
house builders, the Government have been talking, literally for
years, about the various ways in which they need greater support
while presiding over their continued decline. Far from unlocking
a new generation of home building, as the Secretary of State has
claimed, the detailed changes being made to the NPPF today will
almost certainly further suppress collapsing house building
rates. Let us be clear: although there have been minor tweaks,
the changes being made are those that the Government, in their
weakness, promised the so-called “Planning Concern Group” of Tory
Back Benchers they would enact back in December last year in
order to stave off a rebellion on the Levelling-up and
Regeneration Bill. That is precisely why the members of that
group are so pleased with the ”compromise” they have secured
today.
I have a number of detailed questions for the Minister, starting
with the impact of these changes on overall housing supply.
Whether it is the softening of land supply requirements or the
listing of various local characteristics that would justify a
deviation from the now only advisory standard method, can he
confirm that the changes made to the NPPF, taken together, will
give those local authorities that wish to take advantage of it
the freedom to plan for less housing than their nominal local
targets imply? If he disputes that that will be their effect,
what technical evidence can he provide to demonstrate that these
changes can be reconciled with a boost to housing delivery?
I turn to the Government’s 300,000 annual housing target, which
the Secretary of State recommitted himself to today. How on earth
does the Minister imagine that the changes that have been made to
the rules around plan making will help the Government finally
meet that target, particularly given that the arbitrary 35% urban
uplift has been retained but the requirement for local planning
authorities to try to meet it out of area in co-operation with
their neighbours if they cannot do so alone has been removed? Can
the Minister finally provide a convincing explanation of how and
when the Government’s 300,000 homes a year target will be met? Or
is it the case that it remains alive in name only, abandoned in
practice even if not formally abolished?
Let me turn to local plan coverage. In many ways, the revised
NPPF speaks to a planning framework that does not actually exist,
because under this Government we have a local plan-led system in
which only a minority of local authorities have up-to-date plans.
According to the most recent figures, just 33% have local plans
that have been adopted or reviewed within the past five years and
only 10 new plans have been submitted for examination this
year—in part, this is because of the chilling effect of the
Government’s December 2022 concession. Yet only now, in the dying
days of this Government, are Ministers seemingly getting a bit
more serious about intervening to drive up coverage.
In The Times today, the Secretary of State announced a new
three-month deadline for up-to-date local plans to be submitted.
Will the Minister outline the thinking behind that timeframe and
tell us what happens if multiple local authorities fail to meet
the new March deadline? In his Times interview, the Secretary of
State suggested that local authorities that miss that deadline
will have development forced on them and their powers to delay
applications removed. Can the Minister tell us precisely how that
would be achieved? The Secretary of State also suggested that
recalcitrant councils will be stripped of their planning
responsibilities. Can the Minister tell us who will take them on,
given that the Planning Inspectorate clearly does not have the
capacity to do so?
Finally, although it is the Government’s contention that the
changes made today will boost local plan coverage, surely the
Minister recognises that even if that is ultimately their effect,
it will be at the cost of overall housing supply because it will
entail the enactment of numerous plans that will not meet the
needs of local communities in full. In short, isn’t the truth of
the matter that today’s changes entail a deliberate shift from a
plan-led system focused on making at least some attempt to meet
housing need, to one geared toward providing only what the
politics of any given area allow, with all the implications that
entails for the housing crisis and economic growth?
I thank the Opposition spokesperson for his comments, which I
will address in turn. He started by saying that this is the
fourth time we have updated the guidance in the last few years.
If his criticism is that we are willing to listen, be flexible
and adaptable, and recognise the differences between his
constituency of Greenwich and Woolwich and the constituencies of
Government Back Benchers, then he is correct. We are willing to
be flexible and adaptable, but we also recognise that we need to
build more homes; we just want to ensure that they are built in
the right places, which is exactly what today’s update seeks to
do.
The difference between my party and that of the Opposition
spokesperson is that we recognise the nuance in the discussion.
Within the NPPF, we are trying to accommodate the fact that
different areas and parts of the country have to be approached in
different ways. While the policies of the hon. Gentleman’s party
move backwards and forwards on different days of the week, we
will continue to ensure that we build more homes—in the right
place, with the right infrastructure and with the support of the
community. In the long run, that will ensure that we make
progress on housing in general.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question about freedom to plan. The
housing needs assessment will be made by all councils, but
councils can make a case if there is an exceptional circumstance
that applies in their local area. If that were not possible,
there would be no exceptions for any council, local authority or
community anywhere, which would be completely unnuanced. However,
on a macro level it remains the case that we will seek to build
more houses. When councils have plans in place, they tend to
deliver more houses than when such plans are not in place, so if
we can get more plans in place, we will have the opportunity to
build more homes that have the consent and support of the
community in which they will be built.
The hon. Gentleman asked about urban uplift and the removal of
co-operation with neighbours. We uplifted the targets and
expectations on the basis that those houses would go into cities
and would not be exported into the countryside near cities,
because the whole point was to acknowledge the infrastructure in
those cities. There are schools in London that are closing
because insufficient numbers of children are using them. We do
not want to export housing elsewhere; we want to use that
infrastructure—including transport links and educational
establishments—as was intended when it was built.
This is not about whether we believe in a plan-led system or
not—we clearly do. It is about the fact that this Government are
getting on with the hard job of striking a balance, recognising
the nuance and ensuring that more progress is being made, versus
the Opposition stating that they want to build houses, but then
voting against that happening in relation to nutrient neutrality.
If they put their money where their mouth was and did what they
say they will do, they would have the ability to stand up and
make such arguments consistently. They do not and, as a result, I
will not listen to them.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Father of the House.
(Worthing West) (Con)
Before talking about the general policy, may I mention one small
point? In paragraph 22 of his statement, the Minister talks about
energy efficiency in heritage buildings. In Ambrose Place in
Worthing—including at the house of one of my neighbours, where
Harold Pinter lived—people are being told that they can have only
secondary glazing, not double glazing, because it is in a
conservation area. I hope that the Minister will talk with
experts and say that double glazing is acceptable in reasonable
circumstances, when people want to improve the energy efficiency
of their homes.
On the general point, the Minister mentions the green belt.
According to one calculation, there are 16 green belts in
England, none of which is in East Sussex or West Sussex. I
interpret his words as meaning “green gaps”: an expression used
by the Secretary of State when he commented on the problems of
Worthing, where every single bit of grass—the vineyards, the golf
courses and the green fields—between Worthing and its neighbours
to the west is subject to a planning application. It is important
that the inspectors in his Department do not come along, as they
did over the land north of Goring station, to Chatsmore Farm and
the Goring Gap and say that even if Worthing built on every bit
of lawn in town, it would not meet the full target, and yet give
permission to build on that farm, which distinguishes Worthing
from its neighbours.
It is also important to follow up the Minister’s words about
intense development in the centre of villages, towns and cities,
so that there are homes in high-density accommodation that
elderly people can choose to live in, so that their family homes
can be freed for families. The idea that most of the development
on our green fields is for families is for the birds—it is for
people on their second or third homes. I think people who are my
sort of age ought to have the choice to live securely in
high-thermal efficiency apartments, with services that do not
require cars, and where they can live more easily and
happily.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about energy efficiency,
which I am happy to talk to him about in more detail. He is a
champion for Worthing West. I have family who live close to
Worthing, and know the Goring Gap well. He makes a strong point
about the importance of preserving character and ensuring
communities build the right homes in the right places, while
recognising that there are places where that should not be the
case. I am always happy to talk to him about that.
(Barnsley East) (Lab)
This morning, the Secretary of State complained about house
prices. If the Government are now rightly acknowledging the
impact of spiralling mortgage payments on our constituencies,
when will they apologise for the cause of that—their disastrous
mini-Budget?
I am glad to see that the talking points have already started
from the Opposition Back Benches. Despite choosing not to
acknowledge it, the hon. Lady will know that interest rates have
risen across the world, followed by a normalisation of interest
rates for a number of months as a recognition of changed economic
circumstances. If the hon. Lady and her party want to continue to
make mischief and nuisance about that, it is their right to do
so, but that does not accurately reflect what has happened. This
Government will always try to work through those difficult
situations and improve things for the people of this country.
Dame (Basingstoke) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that over the past 12 months, in
writing and at the Dispatch Box, Ministers have consistently said
that when making a local plan, planning authorities will be able
to take into account historically high house building levels by
lowering the amount of housing they need to plan for? Basingstoke
and Deane Borough Council has delivered exceptional levels of
house building, with new homes for 150,000 people over the last
five decades. How will the Government now make good on their
year-long commitment to recognise Basingstoke’s almost unique
position by doing whatever is needed to support the planning
authority to successfully agree a revised local plan, with
significantly lower overall house building figures because of the
very high amount of house building over the last five
decades?
My right hon. Friend is right that we consulted on that subject.
In recognition of that consultation, we have chosen not to take
forward the over-supply point at this time, but we are open to
looking at it and reviewing it in the future. I accept
Basingstoke’s particular circumstances, and have spoken to her
separately about the recognition that there has been substantial
building in Basingstoke over many decades. I am happy to talk to
her about the exceptional circumstances provision and look at
exactly how that may apply to Basingstoke.
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
York is now the 15th least affordable place to live in the
country. My constituents will have no confidence in what the
Minister and the Secretary of State have set out today, because
they have been waiting for a local plan for 76 years and
counting. The sticking point has been with the Government
Department, not the will of the Labour council. When will York
receive its local plan, be able to protect the precious space we
have and build the tenure of housing we need, as opposed to
developers moving in and building luxury flats that no one can
afford?
We are keen to ensure that local plans progress as quickly as
possible, not just for York but for every other council that
chooses to pursue the process, and we will continue to add
support and capacity into the system to ensure that that
happens.
(Harrow East) (Con)
In the written ministerial statement—as opposed to the oral
statement we have just heard—there is a strong suggestion that
there will be a review of London and the centre of London. One
challenge we face in suburban London is that planning
applications for high-density, very tall buildings—normally
comprising units of two bedrooms, two bathrooms and one shared
living space—are very suitable for young professionals, but
totally useless for families. There is a shortage of family
accommodation in outer London, and people would welcome more
houses but not high-density flats.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: a balance must be struck. We
will review the situation in London. We do not think that it is
acceptable; we do not think that the Mayor has done his job in
this regard and we will be reviewing that. We also recognise—I
hope my comments earlier indicated this—that there are places in
urban areas where character is very important, and we need to
make sure that there is an appropriate balance in that
regard.
(St Albans) (LD)
Liberal Democrat-led St Albans City and District Council is
rightly pressing ahead with the development of its local plan,
after the previous Conservative administration had its plan
thrown out by the inspector. Two years ago, I wrote to the
Government requesting additional funding so that we could
accelerate our plan-making process, but the Government said no. I
then requested that they allow us to charge developers the full
cost of processing applications, but, even with all the
tinkering, we are still not able to do that, and taxpayers in St
Albans are still subsidising developers to the tune of £3 million
a year to process their applications. Today the Government have
asked our local council to publish a timetable in the next 12
weeks, but if Ministers and their officials used Google, they
would find it on the website.
Apparently, Ministers have announced that the new protections
apply to areas with local plans, but not to areas with draft
local plans. That means that in St Albans, villages such as
Colney Heath, which are besieged by inappropriate development,
will not benefit from the protections. Will the Minister confirm
whether our local district council and planning inspectors can
firmly say no to inappropriate, speculative development, or is
this just another empty promise from this Government?
I believe that the Liberal Democrats have been in charge of St
Albans City and District Council since 2019. That is four and a
half years of opportunity to put a local plan in place. It is on
the Liberal Democrats for failing to do so. Perhaps the Liberal
Democrats could explain whether, as part of that local plan, they
will take their share of the 380,000 homes that their conference
said they needed to build in the future.
(Rayleigh and Wickford)
(Con)
May I ask the Minister for a very clear answer on the
controversial matter of housing targets? Basically, there are two
ways of doing it: we can have mandatory targets, where the man in
Whitehall knows best and hands down to local authorities a target
with which they have to comply whether or not it is sensible, or
we can have advisory targets, where the Department can recommend
a target, but if the locally elected councillors and the people
whom they represent know that it is too high and can give strong
reasons why—for instance, if their district or borough has a
large amount of green belt—they can legitimately push back in
their plan and offer a lower number. So there is the mandatory
option, which is the Labour option, and the advisory option,
which is the Conservative option. Is my understanding
correct?
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. For the
first time ever, the NPPF says, at paragraph 61:
“The outcome of the standard method is an advisory
starting-point”.
Then there are potentially exceptional circumstances that can be
discussed with a representative of the Government—in this case
the Planning Inspectorate—and the case can be made and then
discussed. If that is accepted, an alternative approach can be
taken.
(Slough) (Lab)
Our country is facing a housing crisis and, after more than 13
long years, the Government have utterly failed the nation. Data
from Glenigan published this week show that planning consents are
at a record low, 20% down on last year, and they are due to
become the lowest in a decade next year. Fifty-eight local
housing authorities have scrapped or delayed their local plan as
a direct result of the Secretary of State’s flip-flopping on
housing targets last year. Does the Minister agree that the
Government’s flip-flopping and dither and delay are having a
significant downward effect on planning and housing delivery?
I have the greatest of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but we
need to have a serious conversation about this. Planning consents
are down because planning applications are down, and that is due
to the global economic challenges. [Interruption.] Labour’s
Front-Bench team do not want to accept that there are global
economic challenges. That just demonstrates why they are so
unready for the government of this country. We are trying to make
sure, first, that we work through the global financial challenges
and, secondly, that we still build the homes. One way that we
undermine the building of more homes—the kind of homes that I
know the hon. Gentleman and I would both like to see—is by not
taking communities with us. What we seek to do today is inject
more balance into the system so that we can take more communities
with us. If we can get more plans in place, it usually means that
more homes are delivered in the first place.
(West Worcestershire)
(Con)
I thank the Minister for recognising the hard work that local
communities such as Hallow, Clifton upon Teme, Kempsey and
Welland have done in my largely rural constituency to develop
neighbourhood plans, the strengthening of which has been
announced today. None the less, those communities are being let
down by the fact that our council is run by the independents and
Greens, who do not have a local plan in place. Can he tell us
whether the additional protections from speculative development
will be immediate or retrospective? When will they take
effect?
I am a huge fan of neighbourhood plans, as are many of my
colleagues across the House. They give communities the
opportunity to get involved in the planning process and to get
into the detail. They also often demonstrate that having honest
conversations with people about planning can take some of the
challenge out of the system. We are updating the NPPF with regard
to neighbourhood plans, and we are strengthening them, as my hon.
Friend outlined. The NPPF is extant from the moment that it is
uploaded. There are some indications at the back of the plan
where policies take priority at a later date, but we are
committed to putting neighbourhood planning at the centre of our
planning policy, because we think that it is very successful and
helpful for our communities.
(Stretford and Urmston)
(Lab)
I am somewhat perplexed by the renewed focus on strengthening
local plans given the abolition of the mandatory housing targets
that underpin delivery against them. Indeed, the Minister appears
to be outlining a situation in which local authorities can game
the system and deliberately plan to under-deliver if they have an
up-to-date local plan, but a local authority that is delivering
can be stripped of its planning powers because its plan is not up
to date. If the Minister is so committed to accelerating housing
delivery, why is he creating a situation in which we are both
preventing greenfield building and stopping significant increases
to urban density?
We are not preventing increases of urban density. Indeed, we want
that to happen. We recognise that there are considerations around
things such as second staircases, which we are working at pace to
resolve as quickly as possible. We want more homes. We recognise
that the infrastructure is often in place in urban areas, and we
are keen to take up that infrastructure to be able to unlock
those homes for people who need them.
(Chipping Barnet)
(Con)
If I may take the Minister back to paragraph 61, will he confirm
that the inclusion for the very first time in the NPPF of the
words “advisory starting point” will have an impact on both the
level of targets set and the weight to be given to a target? How,
in practice, will that change the approach taken by planning
inspectors when they approve plans and decide on individual
planning appeals?
It is absolutely the case that the purpose of amending the
national planning policy framework today is so that this
information and wording, and the insertion of the advisory
starting point and everything that follows, are taken into
account in the process, and it is important that the planning
inspector does that. Obviously, every single council is
different, and we have set out the reality that each individual
council will need to go through this process, but that should
absolutely be taken into account.
(Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I must say to the Minister that we have been here before with
housing targets; I seem to remember Mr John Prescott—Lord
Prescott—putting this forward. One of the problems we have is
that, in a vast area that includes places such as the Somerset
levels, Exmoor and many others, sometimes it is very difficult to
build housing. However, where we have an irresponsible
council—Liberal Democrat, obviously, in Mid Devon—we have another
problem, because they do not care. They do not listen. They are
there just to cause trouble at every level. The Minister must
make sure that the safeguards are there for people who live in
these areas—not hope; we need actual safeguards.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one reason why we
have been clear with a number of councils today that they need to
get on with things. The whole point is that we put in place a
process and a system that work and, for those actors that do not
go through it, there are consequences.
(Aldridge-Brownhills)
(Con)
In constituencies such as mine, the green belt is vital to
protecting us from the urban sprawl of Birmingham, so I welcome
the statement, so far as it goes with its protections for the
green belt. However, can the Minister provide greater clarity on
the matter of targets? It would be very helpful to have a clear
understanding of what is meant by the advisory starting point and
its impact on any ongoing mechanisms to impose the quotas of
other authorities on a neighbour.
On my right hon. Friend’s second point—I am grateful to her for
raising it—the duty to co-operate has been superseded. The point
of the advisory starting point is to be very clear that
individual circumstances might apply within the context of the
need to build more homes in the right place. I cannot pre-empt or
suggest exactly what that will mean in all instances. There is an
example in the NPPF of where we think that is likely to be
relevant, but obviously that will be discussed on a case-by-case,
council-by-council basis.
(Harrogate and Knaresborough)
(Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. I am encouraged by his
words on provision of care and retirement housing and his focus
on design quality. I have no doubt that we need more homes, but
green spaces and the green belt are of critical concern in
Harrogate and Knaresborough. Can he tell me a little more about
the safeguards for the green belt under the Conservative party,
particularly compared with the Labour party?
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about the importance of
older people’s housing. We are currently in the process of
supporting an older people’s housing taskforce, and I look
forward to its recommendations about how to improve it for the
long run. The green belt protections remain today as they were
yesterday. What we are putting around them is a clearer process
about where the case for exceptional circumstances can be made.
It will be down to individual councils, with their individual
circumstances, individual beauty and individual environment, to
make that case where they feel it is appropriate to do so.
(South Ribble)
(Con)
Communities in South Ribble, including Eccleston, Mawdesley and
Croston, are subject to Chorley Council. I understand that
Chorley is one of only two councils designated for poor planning
performance. Does the Minister believe that that poor performance
is due to Chorley’s failure to produce a local plan to protect
South Ribble residents from inappropriate planning
applications?
My hon. Friend is a huge champion for her constituents in South
Ribble. We need local plans in place. I saw when I first became
an MP in North East Derbyshire, where the Labour council failed
to put a local plan in place, the huge issues that causes for
communities. I know there are other councils all around the
country that fail to do that, and it causes so many issues. We
have spoken about some of the challenges in South Ribble, and I
am keen to work with my hon. Friend and to talk more about them
over the weeks ahead. It is important that plans are put in
place. Where councils are not performing—where they have not
passed the threshold for the number of applications they need to
pass or have lost too many on appeal—we will designate and we
will be clear that changes are needed.
(Buckingham) (Con)
I place on record my gratitude to the Secretary of State for
agreeing, this time last year, to put stronger protections for
land use in food production into the NPPF, and to my hon. Friend
the Minister for confirming today that they have survived the
consultation period. Will he clarify, first, that the new
language in the NPPF is a binary test where land is either used
in food production or is not, ending the
dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin lawyer’s paradise of arguing about
what is best and most versatile, and, secondly, that the
character test he spoke of applies to rural character as well as
in urban environments?
On my hon. Friend’s second point, absolutely. On his first point,
I will read the footnote to paragraph 1.81 of the NPPF:
“The availability of agricultural land used for food production
should be considered”.
I hope that is helpful.
(North Devon) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for much of today’s announcement. In seats
such as mine, it does not really matter what the target is when
such a high proportion of the homes that are built are just used
as short-term holiday lets. This time a year ago, we agreed to
another consultation, which finished this June. I ask again: when
might we have the results of that consultation and steps to
ensure that, when we build homes in communities such as mine,
those homes are affordable for the people who live and work
there?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend not just for her question, which
gives us only a few seconds to talk about the matter, but for her
Adjournment debate a few days ago, when we had a much longer
period to talk about it. She makes a very important point; I know
how important it is to colleagues in the south-east and elsewhere
and, although I am not able to give her a date today, I hope to
have more on that very soon.
(Horsham) (Con)
I welcome what the Minister says on the importance of
neighbourhood plans, on agricultural land and on brownfield
development. Can he clarify what the consequences are if a
district council has already embarked on a consultation on a
local plan but, having studied the NPPF in detail, sees stuff
there that it wants to embrace and chooses to adopt elements of
the NPPF, which then leads to a consequential delay?
There is a long section at the end of the revised NPPF that
explains the arrangements for councils that are in the process.
We are trying to strike a delicate balance, ensuring that
councils go through that process to the extent that they are able
to, while recognising that those in an earlier part of the
process may want to consider some of the changes. It generally is
the case, if I recall correctly, that when councils have passed
the regulation 19 stage—the second consultation—there is a
greater expectation that they will stay in the process. It is
ultimately for them to make their own judgments, but the
Government will be watching the result.
(Isle of Wight) (Con)
I think overall that this is a very good plan and very well
delivered by the Minister. I welcome in particular the remarks on
character, on beauty, on the importance of agricultural land, on
the importance of community support and on the fact that targets
are a start point and not an end point. Those are significant
changes that mean that communities can be listened to. Will the
Minister just confirm that the exceptional circumstance will be
available—perhaps even welcome—for examples including islands
separated by sea, such as my Isle of Wight constituency?
The footnotes to paragraph 61 use as an example
“areas that are islands with no land bridge that have a
significant proportion of elderly residents.”
I hope my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that that sounds very
much like the Isle of Wight.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
The prize for patience and perseverance, with the last question
of the year, goes to .
(Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a privilege, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Five years ago, the export of houses from Derby made a local plan
in Amber Valley impossible, but there is no reason for delay now.
Does the Minister agree that there is no reason for the
Labour-run council not to have made more rapid progress with the
pretty reasonable plan it inherited in May? Will he also confirm
what the consequence will be if the 12-week direction he has
issued today does not result in rapid progress, to ensure that
residents in Amber Valley get a local plan sometime soon?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, who I
know speaks up for his constituents. Labour won Amber Valley
Borough Council and it now needs to own ensuring that the council
delivers on its responsibilities. If Labour has made promises to
Amber Valley residents that it cannot fulfil, that is on Labour.
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of councils to make sure
that they have a plan in place, and to do that at the earliest
possible opportunity. Where Labour councils such as Amber Valley
are failing to do that and are speaking out of both sides of
their mouths, it is right that he calls that out. Amber Valley
needs to get on with its plan.
|
