Housing White Paper 12.37 pm The Secretary of State
for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid) With
permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the
Government’s housing White Paper “Fixing Our Broken Housing
Market”, copies of which I have placed in the Libraries of both
Houses. I had hoped, Mr Speaker, that this housing White Paper
would dominate the...Request free trial
Housing White Paper
12.37 pm
-
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
(Sajid Javid)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a
statement on the Government’s housing White Paper “Fixing
Our Broken Housing Market”, copies of which I have placed
in the Libraries of both Houses. I had hoped, Mr Speaker,
that this housing White Paper would dominate the headlines
this morning, but it seems that someone else has beaten me
to it. [Laughter.]
-
Mr Speaker
Let me just gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that I
did make my statement to the House first. [Applause.] We
should not have clapping, as the hon. Member for Colne
Valley (Jason McCartney), a strict proceduralist, correctly
points out. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is in
such fine fettle and good humour.
-
Touché, Mr Speaker.
Our housing market is broken. Since 1970, house price
inflation in Britain has far outstripped that in the rest
of the OECD. The idea of owning or renting a safe, secure
place of one’s own has, for many, now become a distant
dream. Over the past seven years the Government have done
much to help. We have taken action on both supply and
demand, and the results have been positive. Last year saw a
record number of planning permissions granted, and the
highest level of housing completions since the recession.
Between 1997 and 2010, the ratio of average house price to
average income more than doubled, from 3.5 to 7. In the
five years to 2015, however, it crept up to just over
7.5—just a little but still heading in the wrong direction.
Behind the statistics are millions of ordinary working
people. I am talking about the first-time buyer who is
saving hard but will not have enough for a deposit for
almost a quarter of a century, or the couple in the private
rented sector handing half of their combined income
straight to their landlord. The symptoms of this broken
market are being felt by people in every community, and it
is one of the biggest barriers to social progress that this
country faces, but its root cause is simple: for far too
long, we have not built enough houses. Relative to
population size, Britain has had western Europe’s lowest
rate of house building for three decades. The situation
reached its nadir under the last Labour Government, when,
in one year, work began on just 95,000 homes—the lowest
peacetime level since the 1920s.
Thanks to the concerted effort of central and local
government, last year 190,000 new homes were completed, but
it is still not enough. To meet demand, we have to deliver
between 225,000 and 275,000 homes every year. In short, we
have to build more of the right houses in the right places,
and we have to start right now. Today’s White Paper sets
out how we will go about doing just that. House building
does not just happen. Meeting the unique needs of different
people and different places requires a co-ordinated effort
across the public and private sectors. There is no magic
bullet; rather, we need action on many fronts
simultaneously.
First, we need to plan properly so that we can get the
right homes built in the right places. To make this happen,
we will introduce a new way of assessing housing need. Many
councils work tirelessly to engage their communities on the
number, design and mix of new housing in their area, but
some duck the difficult decisions and fail to produce plans
that meet their housing need. It is important that all
authorities play by the same rules. We need to have a
proper conversation about housing need, and we need to
ensure that every local area produces a realistic plan that
it reviews at least every five years.
Once we know how many homes are needed we need sites on
which to build them, so the White Paper contains measures
to help identify appropriate sites for development—not
simply empty spaces but useable, practical sites where new
homes are actually required. I can reassure the House that
this will not entail recklessly ripping up our countryside.
In 2015, we promised the British people that the green belt
was safe in our hands, and that is still the case. The
White Paper does not remove any of its protections.
Government should not be in the business of land banking,
however, so we will free up more public sector land more
quickly. We will increase transparency around
landownership, so that everyone knows if someone is
unfairly sitting on a site that could be better used.
Moreover, people need a say on the homes that are built in
their area, so everywhere must have a plan in place and
ensure that communities are comfortable with the design and
appearance of new homes.
The second area of focus is all about speeding up the rate
of build-out. At the moment, we are simply not building
quickly enough. Whether that is caused by unacceptable land
banking or slow construction, we will no longer tolerate
such unjustified delays. We will speed up and simplify the
completion notice process; we will make the planning system
more open and accessible; we will improve the co-ordination
of public investment in infrastructure and support timely
connections to utilities; and we will tackle unnecessary
delays caused by everything from planning conditions to
great crested newts.
We will give developers a lot of help to get building, and
we will give local authorities the tools to hold developers
to account if they fail to do so. Local authorities also
have a vital role to play in getting homes built quickly,
and I am therefore looking again at how they can use
compulsory purchase powers. We will also introduce a new
housing delivery test to hold them to account for house
building across their local area.
Finally, the White Paper explains how we will diversify the
housing market. At present, around 60% of new homes are
built by just 10 companies. Small independent builders can
find it almost impossible to enter the market. This lack of
competition means a lack of innovation, which in turn leads
to sluggish productivity growth, so we will make it easier
for small and medium-sized builders to compete. We will
support efficient, innovative and underused methods of
construction such as off-site factory builds. We will also
support housing associations to build more and explore
options to encourage local authorities to build again,
including through accelerated construction schemes on
public sector land. We will encourage institutional
investment in the private rented sector, and we will make
life easier for custom builders who want to create their
own home.
Together, these measures will make a significant and
lasting difference to our housing supply. It will, however,
take time, but ordinary working people need help right now.
We have already promised to ban letting agents’ fees, and
this White Paper goes further. We will improve safeguards
in the private rented sector, do more to prevent
homelessness and help households that are currently priced
out of the market. We will tackle the scourge of unfair
leasehold terms, which are too often forced on hard-pressed
homebuyers. We will work with the rental sector to promote
three-year tenancy agreements, giving families the security
that they need to put down their roots in a community.
In the past few years, we have seen almost 300,000
affordable home units built in England. We have seen
housing starts increase sharply, and we have seen more
people getting on the property ladder, thanks to schemes
such as Help to Buy. We now need to go further—much
further—and meet our obligation to build many more houses
of the type that people want to live in in the places where
people want to live. That is exactly what this White Paper
delivers. It will help the tenants of today who are facing
rising rents, unfair fees and insecure tenancies; it will
help the homeowners of tomorrow to get more of the right
homes built in the right places; and it will help our
children and our children’s children by halting decades of
decline and fixing our broken housing market. It is a bold,
radical vision for housing in this country, and I commend
it to the House.
12.46 pm
-
(Wentworth and Dearne)
(Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the customary copy of
his statement just beforehand, but really, I have to say,
“Is this it?” When the Housing Minister himself admits that
the Government’s record on housing is feeble and
embarrassing, we had hoped for better. In fact, we needed
better. This afternoon’s statement will desperately
disappoint millions of people struggling month to month
with a cost of housing crisis.
I have to say that the statement was feeble beyond belief.
After seven years of a Conservative Government, the
Secretary of State says that we need to have “a proper
conversation” about housing need, and his top priority is a
“new housing delivery test”. How many times before have we
heard Ministers say that they will free up more public
sector land more quickly?
It is also clear today that we have not just a housing
crisis in this country, but a crisis in the Conservative
party about what to do about it. The huge 200-page Housing
and Planning Act 2016 is not even mentioned today. We heard
a boast beforehand of radical action on planning from the
Secretary of State, but it has been stamped on by the Prime
Minister today. We have heard of rows between Conservative
Back Benchers and the Secretary of State, and that local
councillors have resigned as a result of the right hon.
Gentleman’s decisions. This White Paper is not a plan to
fix the housing crisis, and it will do nothing to reverse
the seven years of failure on housing that we have seen
since 2010.
Let me turn to some of the areas where we needed strong
action in today’s statement. The first is home ownership.
There were 1 million more homeowners under Labour, but
seven years under the Conservatives has seen home ownership
falling, and it is in freefall for young people. Yet this
White Paper confirms that the Tory party has given up on
home ownership, because it waters down the promise to help
those who need help to get a first foot in the housing
market. I thus say to the Secretary of State: why not
reverse the cuts to investment in new affordable homes to
buy that has resulted in the number of new low-cost homes
built falling to just 7,500 a year? Why not stop those
earning over £100,000 getting help through Help to Buy, and
make it available only to first-time buyers, not to
second-time or subsequent buyers?
Secondly, there is homelessness. After being cut to record
lows under Labour, the number of people sleeping rough on
our streets has more than doubled, but we did not hear a
single mention of that in the statement. Why can the
Secretary of State not accept that this shames us all in a
country as decent and well off as ours, and why will he not
adopt the Labour plan to end rough sleeping within a
Parliament?
Thirdly, we need action to help renters. How will simply
working “with the rental sector to promote three-year
tenancy agreements” help the country’s 11 million current
renters? Why will the Secretary of State not legislate for
longer tenancies, tied to predictable rent rises and decent
basic standards?
Finally, there is the need to build more homes. The
Government have pledged to build a million new homes by
2020, but last year the total number of newly built houses
was still less than 143,000, while the level of new
affordable house building has hit a 24-year low. We need to
see all sectors—private house builders, housing
associations and councils—firing on all cylinders to build
the homes that we need. Why will the Secretary of State not
drop the deep Tory hostility to councils, and let them
build again to meet the needs of local people?
It is tragically clear from the statement that seven years
of failure on housing are set to stretch to 10. We were
promised a White Paper, but we have been presented with a
white flag. This is a Government with no plan to fix the
country’s deepening housing crisis.
-
Today, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John
Healey), as shadow Housing Minister, had a chance. He had a
chance to adopt a cross-party approach, to behave like an
adult—a mature person—and to help with the difficulties
that have faced so many people, under many Governments, for
more than 30 years. Instead, he chose to play cheap party
politics.
I could respond in the same way. As I said in my statement,
work began on only 95,000 homes—the lowest number since the
1920s—in a particular year, and I believe that the right
hon. Gentleman was the Housing Minister at the time.
However, that is not what people want to hear. People want
to hear the truth. They want to hear Governments, and
politicians more generally, recognise the size of the
problem. They want them to recognise that at this moment,
in every one of our constituencies, young people are
staring into the windows of estate agents, their faces
glued to them, dreaming of renting or buying a decent home,
but knowing that it is out of reach because prices have
risen so high. The vast majority of that rise in prices
took place when Labour was last in power, more than
doubling as a ratio to income, from 3.5 times to 7. But
people also want to know what we are doing about it, and
that is what is in the White Paper.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. He
mentioned home ownership. Home ownership declined as a
percentage under Labour: it declined sharply, because not
enough homes were being built. It is time the right hon.
Gentleman took responsibility for that. He asked about
homelessness. Just over a week ago, on a Friday, we debated
the Homelessness Reduction Bill in the House. It was Labour
shadow Ministers who tried to destroy that Bill by tabling
fatal amendments, and the only reason they backed off was
that they were begged to do so by housing and homelessness
charities, including Crisis. That is where Labour stands on
homelessness.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about renters. We have
recognised in the White Paper that we should have a policy
that meets the needs of not only those who want to own
their own homes, but those who want to rent decent homes.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman talked about councils,
and what he said proved that he had not listened to any of
my statement. He came into the Chamber with a pre-written
speech, not wanting to listen to any part of the debate. If
he had listened carefully, he would know that what he
wanted me to say was exactly what I said.
The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman had a chance and
he flunked it. I do not think that many of his colleagues
are with him on this issue. I sense that many of them want
a cross-party approach: they want a Government to work with
politicians on both sides of the House to deal with the
issue once and for all. I certainly know, having dealt with
many of his colleagues on local councils, that local Labour
leaders are working with the Government because they have
given up on this excuse for an Opposition.
-
Mr (Sutton
Coldfield) (Con)
There is much to be welcomed in the White Paper. It is
essential for us to build new communities and new homes,
but to build them in the right places. I am also pleased
that the Government have decided not to relax the green
belt rules further. The Secretary of State has rightly
described those rules as sacrosanct. However, does he
understand the deep anger that is felt throughout Sutton
Coldfield, where the reasonable views of 100,000 people
have been totally ignored by a Labour council during a
deeply flawed process involving the unnecessary building of
6,000 homes on our green belt, and their frustration at the
fact that the Government have not been able to stop that
process?
-
I know that my right hon. Friend feels passionately about
this issue, and I am pleased that he pointed out that the
White Paper refers to the retaining of protections for the
green belt. He referred to a particular case in his
constituency. When local authorities have made a proper
assessment of housing need and that assessment has been
signed off by an independent planning inspector, it is
important for us not to get in their way.
-
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight
of his statement, and for providing me with a copy of the
White Paper. I must say that it is pretty thin. I have it
here: this bit is the substance, and this bit is the
consultation. However, it was good to hear the Secretary of
State acknowledge the gap between the Tory Government’s
rhetoric on house building and their actual record. It is
always nice to observe a recognition of failure on their
part.
We have embarked on another year, and we have yet another
housing Bill, with no solutions in sight. We should
contrast that with what is being done by the Scottish
Government—[Hon. Members: “Oh no!”] The Tories would do
well to listen to what I am saying, because we have a
record of success. Having exceeded our targets for the
previous Parliament, our Housing Minister, , has set a target of
50,000 affordable homes in the current Session. We already
have local housing strategies and strategic housing
investment plans—comprehensive five-year plans which each
local authority is required to produce. The Secretary of
State might want to have a look at the Glasgow SHIP, which
was published recently.
In his statement, the Secretary of State mentioned building
on brownfield land. It must be recognised that
contaminated, derelict brownfield land may need significant
Government investment to make it ready for use, and the £1
billion fund will not go far enough to deal with the
contamination that exists. The statement referred to ways
of achieving progress in respect of land planning
applications. Quality is also important, as is
place-making. We need only look at the example of North
Kelvin Meadow in Glasgow. The local community felt that
what was being proposed was not good enough, and had to
take their objection all the way through the Scottish
Government’s planning process.
The Secretary of State mentioned types of innovative house
building. The Commonwealth games village in Glasgow was
built through the use of such innovative methods, and there
are other great examples in Scotland that show what can be
done. I am glad to note that insurance issues are being
considered, because they are incredibly important.
Finally, may I ask the Secretary of State to consult the
Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 for
examples of good practice? Will he acknowledge the
existence of the elephant in the room—the continual
ideological pursuit of the right to buy, which is ruining
people’s opportunities to gain access to affordable
housing?
-
I want all the people of the United Kingdom to have access
to decent homes, to rent or to buy, and that, of course,
includes the people of Scotland. As the hon. Lady knows, my
remit is only for England, and that is the focus of the
White Paper. She mentioned a number of English policies,
including the right to buy. We are very proud of that
policy, whether it relates to council homes or to our
commitment to housing association tenants. I think it right
for us to support people who want to own their homes, as
well as those who want to rent decent homes. However, there
is one thing that both Scottish and English people require
in order to have access to decent homes, and that is a
decent income, which means having a job. I think that the
situation would have been very different for Scottish
people if the hon. Lady had had her way and Scotland had
become independent.
-
Mr (Hitchin and
Harpenden) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing a
Macmillan-like sense of urgency to tackling the housing
crisis, which causes or aggravates most of the social
problems we face. The first step is being honest about how
many homes we need and where we need them, so I welcome his
bringing forward a new standard methodology for assessing
housing need. Can he reassure me that that will include the
affordability of housing, so that it deals with the places
where the pressure is most acute?
-
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. The
starting point has to be that every local authority makes a
realistic assessment of need, and in order for it to be
realistic, it must look at the market pressures locally,
which of course include affordability.
-
Mr (Sheffield South East)
(Lab)
I welcome the Government’s recognition that the housing
need in this country cannot be met by building homes for
sale alone, and that we also need homes that people can
afford to rent. May I therefore seek two points of
clarification? In the case of schemes that receive public
money, will the Homes and Communities Agency, councils and
housing associations be allowed to negotiate the right
tenure mix for each scheme, including through funding being
made available for social housing where that is
appropriate? Secondly, on section 106 agreements, will
councils now be free to negotiate with developers the right
types of affordable housing in each scheme, and will the
requirement to give preference to starter homes be dropped?
-
I always listen carefully to what the Chair of the Select
Committee on Communities and Local Government has to say,
and he highlights an important issue. He asked two specific
questions. On tenure mix and the use of public money, we
will certainly make sure that that money is used to help
promote homes that are available for rent, whether through
the HCA or by working with councils and housing
associations. We will also require all local authorities,
when they go through their plan-making process, to think
about the tenure and the mix that is required in the area,
and to allocate accordingly. That will also stretch to when
section 106 agreements are applied.
-
Sir (Mid Sussex)
(Con)
Mid Sussex District Council is keen to build homes, and
many people in my constituency work diligently to produce
neighbourhood plans, only for them then to be undermined by
ruthless behaviour by some rogue developers. Does my right
hon. Friend agree that if we are to deliver the imaginative
vision he has outlined to the House today, we need to curb
that sort of behaviour?
-
My right hon. Friend highlights the importance of
neighbourhood plans. I know that he is aware of the current
Bill going through Parliament, the Neighbourhood Planning
Bill, which is strengthening that part of the plan-making
process, but I think he will also be pleased to see in this
White Paper the further steps that we are taking to achieve
precisely what he wants: local communities being taken more
seriously through their neighbourhood plans.
-
Ms (Westminster North)
(Lab)
Constituencies such as mine will be stripped of desperately
needed social housing by the proposals in the Housing and
Planning Act 2016 for the forced sale of high-value
properties. In the spirit of what the right hon. Gentleman
is saying today and the White Paper, can he confirm that he
will no longer proceed with that policy?
-
I cannot confirm that, because we are committed to allowing
people who live in housing association homes the right to
buy. We have started a process of pilots, as I think the
hon. Lady will be aware; some 3,000 homes, I think, are
involved in that. Once that is complete, we will decide how
exactly to take the policy forward.
-
Mr (South Norfolk)
(Con)
What lessons can we learn from the Netherlands and Germany,
and how can we encourage land pooling, as in Germany, where
local authorities work in collaboration with landowners to
make serviced plots of land available so that individuals
and families can bring forward their own self-build and
custom house building schemes?
-
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he has done to promote
self-build and custom build. That is certainly one lesson
we can learn from the Netherlands and Germany, and I have
seen some good examples in those countries. He also
mentioned land pooling, and there are some fantastic
examples in the Netherlands; I went to see them, and they
were so good that I put them in the White Paper.
-
(Westmorland and Lonsdale)
(LD)
I hope the Secretary of State will forgive me, but I think
he flatters himself if he thinks that even on a quiet news
day this White Paper would have deserved headlines; it is
an unambitious and disappointing paper. I want to pull out
one particular aspect of it. The paper refers to a family
outside London in the market for an affordable home as
being on an average income of £80,000 a year. I wonder if I
may respectfully ask what planet he is living on. Average
incomes in my constituency are £26,000 a year. Does that
not prove that what we really needed was a commitment to
genuinely affordable homes and the building of 1 million
new council homes? Will the Secretary of State instead
commit the capital funding to do that, and to lift the
borrowing cap so that councils can build again?
-
First, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for turning up today?
The answer to his question is more supply—whether it is
council homes, housing association homes or private sector
homes, we need more supply. That is the only way to tackle
affordability.
-
(Broxtowe) (Con)
Conservative-run Broxtowe Borough Council is doing
everything it can to defend our green belt, but that is
very difficult because the previous Labour-Lib Dem
administration approved a plan for thousands of houses on
our green belt. But the biggest problem the council has is
that many small builders are having real problems getting
access to finance, particularly because of the risk
weighting. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to
make sure that small and medium-sized builders have better
access to financing, so that, when we can, we build those
new homes?
-
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I have talked
about the importance of having more small builders. With
finance, one particular way that we are helping is through
the new home building fund, launched in September with £3
billion of funding, much of it available to the small and
medium-sized house building sector. There are also a number
of other measures beyond finance in the White Paper to help
that sector, and I know that when my right hon. Friend sees
them, she will welcome them.
-
(Vauxhall) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State have any special plans to deal
with the very difficult situation in inner-city areas,
particularly along the river, such as in my constituency,
where we have owners coming from way outside this country
and leaving flats empty for a very long time? Are the
Government not prepared to buy up some of that land
themselves and allow local councils to build truly
affordable housing?
-
The hon. Lady might be aware that some of the type of land
she refers to will be public land—it might be owned by
different Departments or even local government—and there is
a lot in the White Paper on what is called the accelerated
construction programme, whereby Government can work
together with councils and the private sector to develop
more quickly.
More generally, the hon. Lady talks about empty homes, but
in fact the number of empty homes in England has fallen to
its lowest level since records began—the figure is just
over 200,000; there is still more to do—and that is partly
because of some of the changes we made to the new homes
bonus, which gives local councils incentives to bring those
homes back into use.
-
Mr (Forest of Dean)
(Con)
Conservative-run Forest of Dean District Council is working
hard to get its local plan in place. It gives out planning
permissions to get new homes put in place, but gets
frustrated when developers do not build them, and then the
same developers puts in speculative applications and argue
that there is no land supply, because they are not building
their own houses. I welcome what is in the White Paper, but
what more can my right hon. Friend do to make sure those
developers build the houses? As the excellent Minister for
Housing and Planning Home Secretary has said, people cannot
live in planning permissions, they need houses.
-
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. He is right
that many local authorities rightly get frustrated when
they take those difficult decisions and then do not see the
houses being built. There is a lot in this White Paper to
tackle that. I gave one example a moment ago in my speech
about compulsory purchase in the most extreme cases, but
councils will also have new tools. For example, they will
be able to put a time limit in place when they give a
planning permission, so that it will expire if the
developer does not create the homes in time. Also,
completion notices will become much easier to serve, which
will allow a local authority, when a developer has stalled,
to end the planning permission and try again with someone
else.
-
Mr (Walsall North)
(Lab)
May I tell the Secretary of State that house prices in my
part of the country are far removed from those in London
and the south-east, yet many, many people are still unable
to buy because of low wages? What they require first and
foremost is decent, secure rented accommodation, which will
come, in the main, from the public and voluntary sector.
May I add that in all the years I have done this job, not
one—literally, not one—person has ever asked me to be
rehoused in the private sector?
-
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need more decent
homes for rent. However, this comes back to the same
problem, whether in renting or buying, which is that we
need a greater supply of homes, particularly for rent.
There is a lot in the White Paper that will encourage what
we are calling Build to Rent. When local authorities are
plan-making, we want them to think about rented
accommodation, but we also want to support the sector that
will build homes specifically for rent.
-
(Wealden) (Con)
I welcome the White Paper, which will enable families to
secure a home or to feel secure in their present home.
However, the lack of infrastructure funding in my
constituency presents a barrier to development, with
concerns around amenities, broadband and road and rail
networks. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the
housing infrastructure fund will provide vital new money to
overcome those issues in areas such as Wealden?
-
That is right; my hon. Friend is right to focus on the
housing infrastructure fund. It was announced in the last
autumn statement, and it goes live in April this year. It
is just one of the new ways in which we are trying to
ensure that, when local authorities make decisions, the
infrastructure can quickly be put in place to support them.
-
(West Lancashire)
(Lab)
My constituents feel that localism is all but dead. Will
the Secretary of State expand on how he intends to
strengthen the planning laws to ensure that their voices
are heard much more loudly than those of the avaricious
developers who are trying to thwart the local plan and defy
any remaining vestiges of localism?
-
We rightly follow a policy of letting local authorities set
out their plans and determine what is right for their area,
but it is important to ensure that that is not used by some
authorities—it is only some—as an excuse for avoiding
making tough decisions. We have a housing shortage in
virtually every part of England. That includes much of the
south-east, and I can think of areas in the north as well.
We can tackle that only if local authorities are honest
about their needs and if they plan on that basis.
-
(Rossendale and Darwen)
(Con)
People across my constituency will welcome the White Paper,
which will make a huge change to people’s opportunities to
buy their own home. I particularly welcome the changes in
tenure that are set out in the document. Will the Secretary
of State think about whether we also need to update the
leasehold enfranchisement legislation to take account of
the fact that our housing stock is moving towards mixed
tenure?
-
Yes, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that I am doing that.
The process has already begun, and I talk a bit about it in
the White Paper. I am particularly interested in the
possibility that abuse is taking place when people buy a
stand-alone home—not a flat—on a leasehold basis. I have
seen some of the agreements relating to how the ground
rents work, and I am looking into the matter. A
consultation has been announced in the White Paper.
-
(Slough) (Lab)
House prices in Slough have risen by 39% over the past two
years, which is faster than anywhere else in the country,
and our affordability ratio is something like double the
one that the Secretary of State quoted. What is he going to
do for places such as Slough that are built up to their
boundaries but are surrounded by Conservative councils that
simply will not provide homes in their areas? We are now
housing people who commute to London, but we cannot find
homes that the local nursery nurses, street cleaners and
other people that our community really needs can afford.
-
One thing that we can do better across the country is to
take density more seriously. We need to use the available
land that is not green belt much more efficiently. Many
cities and big urban areas across Europe have managed
density a lot better than we have, and the White Paper
contains a requirement that, when local authorities put
plans in place, they start to take density seriously. We
will even be setting out indicative requirements for
provisions that could really help in some urban areas.
-
(The Wrekin)
(Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and the
protection in the White Paper for greenfield sites and the
green belt. I have a question on the issue of appeals. The
Muxton ward in my constituency currently has three public
inquiries taking place, and a fourth might be coming along.
What further reforms to the appeals process could be
introduced while ensuring that developers and local
authorities can still use the right of appeal under
planning legislation?
-
My hon. Friend makes a good point. People have a right to
appeal, and many cases go to appeal in our constituencies,
but frankly, some of them are frivolous cases that really
should not be appealed. One reason why that happens is that
there is currently no cost attached to making an appeal. It
is free, so many people do it. That is going to end, and we
have announced in the White Paper that we are introducing a
fee.
-
(Stockport) (Lab)
Some councils have fallen short of meeting their housing
need for years because their local plans have protected the
green belt, limiting the supply of land. If that is also
the Secretary of State’s priority, how is he going to
achieve his ambition for safe, secure homes, particularly
for families who do not want to live in high-rise flats, on
the scale that he has outlined today?
-
Approximately 13% of the land in England is green belt.
There is therefore a huge amount of land that is not, and
that land should be the priority. We should use brownfield
land, we should increase density and we should encourage
better co-operation with neighbours. That should always be
the priority. There are cases when a local authority
decides that the tests for using the green belt have been
met, and when that is properly done and the site has been
inspected by the planning inspectorate, the local community
can decide to build there, but that should not be the
priority. The priority must be brownfield sites and better
use of density.
-
Sir (New Forest West)
(Con)
If it is not in the interests of builders to sufficiently
reduce price by increasing supply to the necessary extent,
is not the answer to afford greater empowerment to the
public sector?
-
There are lots of answers to that question. My right hon.
Friend is absolutely right that there is an important role
for the public sector to play, whether indirectly through
housing associations or through councils. There are
excellent examples of councils with house building
programmes. A diversity of supply is required, and the
public sector has a role to play in that.
-
(Manchester Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased that the Government have finally recognised
that the housing market is broken, but I disagree with the
Secretary of State’s prescription that supply is the only
answer. In Manchester, we have built thousands of new homes
and upgraded all the council homes to a decent standard,
but far and away the worst-quality housing in Manchester is
in the private rented sector. It is unfit for human
habitation, infested, damp and dirty, and it is being paid
for, by and large, by the taxpayer through housing benefit.
When will the Government intervene in that broken market?
-
Whether homes are made available to rent or to buy, certain
standards must be met. It is important that we apply high
standards and that we do not have a race to the bottom. I
beg to differ from the hon. Lady’s assertion, however,
because Manchester also has a supply
problem—[Interruption.] The No. 1 problem is a supply
problem. Manchester, like so many other parts of Britain,
has not built enough homes.
-
(Weston-super-Mare)
(Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the White Paper
encourages building up, not out, in urban areas? That
should reduce the pressure on the green belt, regenerate
urban centres, cut commuting times and make rents and
mortgages more affordable. What assessment has he made of
the number of new urban sites that could be released for
housing in that way, and of the size of the corresponding
fall in development on greenfield sites?
-
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that that is an important
measure in the White Paper. I also want to congratulate him
on his work to promote density. He has shared with me and
others many examples from around the world of this being
done properly. One thing that I am particularly interested
in—it is in the White Paper—is making better use of our
transport hubs. They often have huge car parks, for
example, and much of that space could be used to create
high-density housing in a location that people would find
highly desirable, with the car parks being put underground.
That is among the good examples from around the world, and
I am glad that my hon. Friend is encouraging such plans.
-
Several hon. Members rose—
-
Mr Speaker
Order. On my reckoning, at least 60 colleagues are still
seeking to catch my eye. It will be almost impossible to
accommodate them all, but I will be helped if people can
confine themselves to asking one-sentence questions without
preamble, and if the Secretary of State can continue to
make his pithy replies. On the matter of simple,
one-sentence questions, I call Mr .
-
Mr (Huddersfield)
(Lab/Co-op)
The big lie at the heart of our housing policy is that we
can create new houses on brownfield land. All the research
shows that the brownfield land that is good for building
has already been used. The fact is that we have to build on
greenfield land to give people the chance of having a
decent home. Why does the Secretary of State not have the
courage to build on greenfield land?
-
A colourful one-sentence question, Mr Speaker. I do not
agree with the hon. Gentleman. Take Madrid, for example,
where the housing density is more than four times that of
London. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been
to Madrid, but he would find that it is a perfectly
beautiful, well-designed city that shows what can be done
with density.
-
Mr Speaker
Pithiness from a philosopher perhaps? I call Sir .
-
Sir (West Dorset)
(Con)
I hugely welcome this well-balanced package, but may I
invite the Secretary of State to be a bit more optimistic
about the prospects for consensus? Did he notice, as I did,
that despite the sound and fury the shadow Housing Minister
remarkably did not actually disagree with anything in the
White Paper?
-
My right hon. Friend points out that the shadow Minister
has realised what he could actually have done when he was
Housing Minister.
-
(Batley and Spen)
(Lab)
The Secretary of State says that people yearn for honesty
and truth. Travelling around my constituency, I am
frequently shocked by the standard of the private housing
stock. The English housing survey reveals that 29% of
private rented homes are still non-decent. In the spirit of
honesty and truth, why did the Government block Labour’s
proposal to require landlords to let properties that are
fit for human habitation?
-
The legislation already contains requirements and standards
for housing, including for rented accommodation. If we
start frivolously introducing unnecessary new regulations,
that will just increase the burdens on house builders and
push up costs even further.
-
(Newark) (Con)
Some of the large developments around Newark have gained a
bad name with my constituents due to the common practice of
large developers, such as Persimmon, selling freehold
properties but then ensuring that residents pay rip-off
prices for many years for management company rents, the
cost of putting up a satellite dish, and so on. It is an
outrageous practice that is hurting the working people of
this country, so will the Secretary of State consider
banning it?
-
Yes.
-
Mr (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State outline how the White Paper
aligns with the industrial strategy? How will the
Government collaborate with the construction industry on
skills, the supply chain, innovation and regional
imbalances to ensure that the house building challenge can
be met?
-
There is an important link, and one example relates to
skills. I mentioned earlier the importance of factory build
and its promotion. That requires a different type of skill
set, and the Government need to support that, but it will
help more generally with the skills challenge. We will have
a new immigration policy following our departure from the
European Union, so we must think carefully about that and
the link with the construction industry.
-
(Worthing West)
(Con)
The majority of the new homes that my right hon. Friend has
announced will be leasehold; many leaseholders are subject
to abuse. May I ask that his consultation on the abuse and
misuse of leasehold includes changing commonhold procedures
so that they actually work, so that those with unfair
conditions get stopped by the Competition and Markets
Authority, and landlords gain nothing by trying to exploit
leaseholders?
-
I can confirm that that is in the White Paper as part of
the consultation on leasehold, which is partly due to my
hon. Friend’s work in this area.
-
(Great Grimsby)
(Lab)
Modular housing will not be the panacea to this country’s
housing crisis. Traditional house building will provide the
majority of housing in the immediate future in which people
want to live. There is no mention in the White Paper of the
critical shortage of skilled people in the building
industry, so how will the Secretary of State build and meet
his targets without the people to do it?
-
No one is saying that modular homes and factory build will
be the panacea, but they do have an important contribution
to make. Traditional building remains important and that
will remain the case for many years to come. Part of trying
to get more skills into the sector involves the
apprenticeship levy, which comes into place in April. I was
proud to introduce it as Business Secretary and have
already heard about construction companies’ plans to take
on more apprentices.
-
(North West Hampshire)
(Con)
I welcome the standardisation of the calculation of housing
supply for local authorities. Will the Secretary of State
confirm that that means that no permission should be
granted outside the envelope of approved local and
neighbourhood plans?
-
That is what it means.
-
Mr (Bury South) (Lab)
My constituents are worried about proposals to build on the
green belt, but we need more affordable homes. What will
the White Paper do to force developers that are sat on
brownfield sites and refusing to develop them to get on
with building?
-
The White Paper contains several measures to deal with
that. There is no easy answer, but there can sometimes be
good reasons, such as if a developer has another project to
go on once it finishes the current one. Some developers do
take too long to turn planning permission into homes,
however, so the measures in the White Paper include changes
to completion notices and the ability to attach conditions
to planning permission. We are also consulting on a new
measure for large developments to allow local authorities
to take into account a developer’s track record.
-
(Reigate) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still
Government policy that London’s green-belt is a priceless
asset for both the nation and London? Will he further
confirm that if a local authority ducks difficult decisions
and fails to produce a local plan, it cannot short-cut its
way out of that through a £2.5 billion development where
the green belt is at its narrowest around London, earning a
nice little £1 billion for the developer and the landowner?
-
It would be inappropriate for me to discuss a particular
planning application, but I can confirm that protections
for green belt are as strong as ever. In fact, the White
Paper sets out for the first time much more clearly the
steps that we expect a local authority to take before it
even considers the green belt, including having to show
that it has looked at all reasonable alternatives.
-
(Bootle) (Lab)
How does the Secretary of State intend to help local
authorities purchase land under compulsory purchase orders
when he has devastated their budgets by up to 60%? He
should be holding himself to account for his failures, not
local authorities.
-
We are specifically consulting on the possibility of local
authorities holding auctions using a compulsory purchase
order, so they would not necessarily be buying land
themselves.
-
(Northampton South)
(Con)
In high-growth areas, such as my constituency, the key
issue is ensuring that we have the infrastructure for
schools, healthcare, transport and community facilities.
Will my right hon. Friend please give us more details of
how the infrastructure fund for housing will work in
practice to provide and ensure that we have both housing
and infrastructure?
-
The £2.3 billion fund, which was announced in the autumn
statement, will be launched in April and will be run by
DCLG. It will involve a bidding process, through which
local councils and possibly other parties can bid directly
for the necessary infrastructure. I am conscious that many
colleagues are eager to get more details, so we will
publish them as soon as possible.
-
(Leigh) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy
Powell) is right that it is time to take much tougher
action against absent private landlords who rake in housing
benefit but do not reinvest a penny of that money into the
upkeep of their properties. Councils should be given much
simpler powers to issue CPOs when properties are below a
decent standard. We should send a clearer message to
landlords: respect our communities or get out of Greater
Manchester.
-
The right hon. Gentleman will know what we want all
landlords, whether offering rented accommodation or homes
for sale, to meet certain standards, but the underlying
problem is that one reason why landlords can sometimes
extract a higher rent or set more difficult terms is the
lack of supply of homes. That applies to Manchester as much
as anywhere else.
-
(Cheadle) (Con)
I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State reiterate that
the green belt is safe in our hands. In Stockport, however,
the Greater Manchester spatial framework has proposed plans
to build more than 4,000 houses on the green belt in my
constituency. Will he reassure me, my constituents and the
3,600 people who signed my petition that the green belt is
safe in our hands and that there are no plans to remove any
restrictions on it?
-
We have made it clear in the White Paper that the green
belt will retain all the protections that it enjoys today.
For the first time, we have clearly set out what we expect
a local authority to go through to demonstrate that it has
looked at all other reasonable alternatives.
-
(Dulwich and West
Norwood) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State confirm whether he remains
committed to the definition of an affordable home as one
costing up to 80% of market rent or £450,000 to buy in
London? Can he confirm what now counts as a starter home?
Will local authorities still be subject to draconian
compliance directives if they fail to deliver them?
-
We want to see more starter homes being rolled out. A
process has already begun that will include homes sold at a
20% discount, but it will also include other types of
affordable homes for ownership.
-
(Hertsmere)
(Con)
My constituency is entirely green belt, apart from
developed areas, and it provides vital protection against
London urban sprawl. Can the Secretary of State therefore
confirm that, if my local council makes a determination
that it cannot meet its needs assessment without
sacrificing the green belt, the plan must be upheld by
planning inspectors?
-
My hon. Friend understands that I cannot talk about a
particular plan or application, but I can confirm that we
have thought very carefully about measures that will help
areas, such as his constituency and mine, that have huge
amounts of green belt. As part of that, we are asking all
local authorities to do more to co-operate with their
neighbours. One of the requirements in the White Paper is a
statement of common purpose, which we will consult on.
Every single local authority will be required to talk to
its neighbours and come up with a statement of common
purpose.
-
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
In Brighton and Hove alone there are 26,000 people on the
housing waiting list, so why will the Secretary of State
not lift the borrowing cap so that councils can start
building again? He keeps talking about supply, and here he
has a very practical way of doing it. Building on the green
belt has risen fivefold in the past five years. How is he
going to protect the green belt?
-
The councils asked for more borrowing powers two years ago
so that they could build homes. We did that in last year’s
Budget, and there is still lots of headroom—I think it is
almost £300 million.
-
(Colne Valley)
(Con)
I welcome the philosophy of the right houses in the right
places, but what advice can the Secretary of State give to
my constituents who keep seeing Labour-run Kirklees
building the wrong four-bedroom detached houses in the
wrong places on greenfield sites with scant regard for
school places, infrastructure and collection of section 106
money?
-
We expect all councils to come up with the right plans for
their area. One of the tests that we apply is to ask the
independent Planning Inspectorate to look at those plans,
which cannot be adopted until they have gone through that
process. When my hon. Friend looks at the changes, he will
welcome how we have become more robust about that.
-
(Nottingham South)
(Lab)
Nottingham City Homes recently won national recognition for
Palmer Court, its newly built scheme for older people in
Lenton, but across our city vulnerable tenants in supported
housing are deeply worried by the proposal to cap local
housing allowance. If the Secretary of State is serious
about providing safe and secure homes, why does he not take
this opportunity to drop that proposal?
-
One of the things the hon. Lady will find in the White
Paper is a requirement for all local authorities to account
in their plans for everyone in their community, including
older people and disabled people. She specifically asks
about how we can help supported housing, and there is an
ongoing consultation. We are carefully looking at all the
issues.
-
(Eastleigh) (Con)
There is a wild west, adversarial, Lib Dem, lazy planning
attitude in my constituency, and I welcome page 63 of the
White Paper, which says that disabled people’s needs and
older people’s needs will be considered. I also welcome the
protection of ancient woodland because, at the moment, the
only answer in Eastleigh is “out of space” development
dropped on ancient woodland.
-
I agree with my hon. Friend on both counts. First, the
words “Lib Dem” and “lazy” do go well together. Secondly,
she is right about ancient woodland. She has spoken to me
about that on a number of occasions, and in the White Paper
I did not see why ancient woodland should have less
protection than the green belt, as is the case currently.
That is why we are upgrading the protection of ancient
woodland to the same level as green belt.
-
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) is
not lazy. He is hyperactive.
-
(Leeds North West)
(LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. For the Secretary of State to call
anyone lazy when these few pages are the best he can do is
pretty pathetic. It is also pathetic that he has done
nothing in his term to ensure that the right houses are
being built in the right places. Will he speak to Bramhope
& Carlton and Pool in Wharfedale parish councils about
why they are facing yet more development of greenfield and
green-belt land for the kind of housing that is not
necessary? Will he speak to local Conservative councillors
who oppose his planning policies?
-
Not a day goes by when I do not speak to councillors across
the country. What many of them will welcome today is the
requirement for everyone to play by the same rules. They
all understand the need for homes in their area, and I
suggest the hon. Gentleman does the same.
-
(Harrow East)
(Con)
I welcome the White Paper’s measures to combat
homelessness, but part of the solution is direct
commissioning of housing. The progress on direct
commissioning is not very good so far. What action can my
right hon. Friend take to make sure that that is speeded up
so that homes are provided for the people who desperately
need them?
-
I commend my hon. Friend’s work on homelessness,
particularly through his Homelessness Reduction Bill, which
is making its way through Parliament. He is right about the
importance of commissioning, which has a role to play and
is something that I am looking at carefully.
-
(Hackney South and
Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The National Audit Office estimates that the total
Government spend on housing in the last financial year was
£28 billion, but a staggering £20.9 billion of that total
was spent on housing benefit. Is that not a demonstration
that rents are too high and that even people in work cannot
afford them? Did the Secretary of State give any
consideration to reforming housing benefit when putting
together the White Paper?
-
The hon. Lady will know that housing benefit has already
been reformed, but she is right to make the link between
housing benefit and high rents. Again, that is a symptom of
the fact that for far too long we have not been building
enough homes.
-
(Salisbury) (Con)
I warmly welcome today’s White Paper, which has a balanced,
pragmatic range of solutions. Will the Secretary of State
give consideration to situations where local authorities
find themselves held to ransom by developers who refuse to
make concessions in the section 106 agreement process and
frustrate local communities by subsequently not delivering
the infrastructure that they said they would deliver?
-
That is often a problem, and my hon. Friend makes a good
point. In the White Paper he will see that we refer to some
changes that will come about, following the consultation
that has already happened, both to section 106 and the
community infrastructure levy payments. I think that will
help.
-
(Stalybridge and
Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
We desperately need new houses, but development is not
always popular with the public. The key issue is
infrastructure. The best proposal I have ever seen is
building new garden villages and putting in schools, roads
and infrastructure at the same time. The Government have
had a pilot, but is it something that they will take
forward?
-
Yes, it is.
-
(Milton Keynes South)
(Con)
What flexibility does the White Paper propose for places
such as Milton Keynes? Milton Keynes wants to expand
properly as part of the Oxford to Cambridge corridor, but
housing developments are now being proposed to meet
short-term housing targets that risk undermining the
planning for long-term growth?
-
My hon. Friend makes a good point. When plans are put
together, they should look at the long-term land supply—not
just over the following five years but beyond that to the
required need. Also, there should be more co-operation with
neighbouring local authorities on putting together the
plans, which is where the proposed new statement of common
purpose will help.
-
(Bristol East)
(Lab)
I am glad the Minister eventually came around to realising
the need to tackle land banking and developers sitting on
properties, so the moves on completion notices and
compulsory purchase are very welcome. But when will he
start to listen to council leaders, who, despite his answer
to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas),
are still saying they need the borrowing cap lifted? They
need the freedom to borrow more so that they can build more
houses.
-
We have increased local councils’ borrowing ability, but
where the most ambitious councils that have good, sensible
plans want to come forward to do a deal with central
Government, we are listening. That invitation is in the
White Paper.
-
(Hazel Grove)
(Con)
Can a self-imposed housing target become the exceptional
circumstance to build on the green belt?
-
My hon. Friend helps me to highlight, again, the way in
which we have tackled the green belt in this White Paper by
keeping all its existing protections and demonstrating, for
the first time, exactly all the hoops a local authority has
to go through to show us categorically that it has looked
at all other reasonable options.
-
(Birmingham, Selly Oak)
(Lab)
Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member
for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), surely the
Minister has to accept that his plans are going to lead to
a reduction in the supply of supported housing in the
midlands but an increase in London? That is a problem he
could fix; that is a market he is breaking.
-
A consultation on supported housing is going on at the
moment and the results will be out in due course.
-
Mr (Wellingborough)
(Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that housing demand would
fall if we could reduce the third of a million people
coming into this country each year?
-
I have looked at this issue carefully and I am not sure it
makes the kind of difference my hon. Friend believes it
does. Two thirds of housing demand has nothing to do with
immigration; it is to do with natural population growth,
particularly through people living longer, and that will
have to be catered for regardless. Even if immigration was
to fall to zero, we would still have a deficit of some 2
million homes and people would still be in overcrowded
homes, so we would still have to keep building.
-
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
Not a single new social home has been commissioned in York
under this Tory Government and the Tory-led council, and we
have no local plan because the proposals were so
unworkable. How will this White Paper help to deal with
York’s housing crisis?
-
It will help York in many of the ways in which it will help
across the country, for example, through the requirement
for every local authority to undertake an honest assessment
of need and plan on that basis.
-
(Kingston and Surbiton)
(Con)
My constituents are shocked at Lib Dem and residents
association-controlled Elmbridge Borough Council’s
proposals to allow mass development on the green belt by
Surbiton. I therefore welcome my right hon. Friend’s
protection of the green belt, but will he confirm that
building on the green belt is and will remain possible only
in defined exceptional circumstances?
-
Yes, I can absolutely confirm that.
-
(Stretford and Urmston)
(Lab)
I note with alarm that the White Paper says the Secretary
of State plans to review the size standards, as we know
from University of Cambridge research in 2014 that house
sizes in this country are among the smallest in Europe. We
do not want to move to building lots of rabbit coops that
are not good for young families, so will he offer the House
assurances that he will proceed with great caution in this
area?
-
Yes, I can offer that assurance. This is why we are having
this consultation; it is in response to some of the
innovation taking place in the industry. It is right to
look at this, but it is also important that we do not have
a race to the bottom.
-
Mr Speaker
The ever-vigilant Speaker’s Secretary has just pointed out
that from the Government Benches I called Mr Wragg followed
by Mr Bone. It was not in any way calculated.
-
Dr (Twickenham)
(Con)
I very much welcome the White Paper. What support is the
Secretary of State giving to key workers who are trying to
access homes in areas with very high property prices?
-
There are two parts to my answer on that. First, I point to
our commitment to help with the creation of more affordable
homes, both for rent and to buy. A lot of that will be
through the support provided through housing associations,
including the £1.4 billion of extra funding in the last
autumn statement. In the longer term, we have the issue of
pushing up supply, because that is the only way in which we
shall tackle the affordability issue once and for all.
-
(Halton) (Lab)
My constituency is the most heavily urbanised in Cheshire.
Most of the available brownfield sites have been built on,
there is little green belt land and there is pressure on
school places and on the local roads. Will the Secretary of
State or his Minister therefore meet me to discuss the
specific problems that areas such as mine, particularly
small urban areas, have in meeting housing demands?
-
I am sure the Minister for Housing and Planning would be
happy to meet. The hon. Gentleman should know that we would
not be able to discuss the specific planning issue, but
more general discussions would be welcome.
-
(South Suffolk)
(Con)
The White Paper talks about sharpening the tools available
to local authorities to deal with the massive gulf between
the number of planning permissions given and the actual
construction of homes. Are there any circumstances in
which, if the local authority can provide evidence of land
banking, my right hon. Friend would give it the power to
levy council tax on unconstructed units if they were not
delivered?
-
We have looked at this issue carefully, and we have to try
to get the right balance. We need to respect the fact that
there are legitimate reasons why the supply of any product
would need to have a pipeline of inputs, including land, in
the case of a house builder, but there is evidence of some
firms taking advantage of that, as my hon. Friend mentions.
There are many tools in this White Paper, and if after
looking at them more carefully he thinks more needs to be
done I will be listening to him.
-
Mr (Bury North)
(Con)
If we are going to stop building on the green belt, as is
proposed in Bury as part of the Greater Manchester spatial
framework, does my right hon. Friend agree that the only
way to increase the number of new homes will be to insist
on higher density development on brownfield sites?
-
One way to increase the number of homes in brownfield areas
is through density. This White Paper contains a lot on
density and I know that when my hon. Friend takes a close
look he will welcome it.
-
(Cleethorpes)
(Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s determination to tackle
the housing shortage, but he will be aware that housing
need varies dramatically between provincial towns and rural
areas, and London and the south-east. Can he assure my
constituents that the policies and planning guidance will
not be focused entirely on London and that there will be
some allowance for local authorities to vary this in the
more rural areas?
-
I can absolutely reassure my hon. Friend on that point. The
White Paper contains a specific requirement on all local
authorities to plan for the needs in their area, so if the
demographics differ from area to area, as of course they
will, that is exactly what will need to be catered for.
-
(Halesowen and Rowley
Regis) (Con)
As a constituency neighbour of mine, the Secretary of State
will know that people in Halesowen value the amenity of the
green belt around it. Does he therefore agree that the
approach to house building in the Black country should very
much be brownfield first, focusing on the remediation of
existing sites for house building?
-
Yes, I very much agree with what my hon. Friend says.
-
Mr (Peterborough)
(Con)
Land availability is, in a sense, a side issue, because one
impediment to expeditious planning consents is the capacity
of the planning department and the fact that there is no
fiscal incentive for planners to grant permission, which is
why these things take so long. Linked to that is the
capacity issue and whether planners have the skills,
knowledge and experience to deal with large-scale planning
applications. On that point, is it not time we reviewed the
capacity of local authorities to increase planning fees?
-
My hon. Friend has talked to me about this before and has
helped, along with others, including many local leaders, to
make a strong case about it. We have listened and local
councils will be able to increase their planning fees by at
least 20%.
-
(South West
Wiltshire) (Con)
Local communities are often keen to support housing on
exception sites if they feel the housing is for local need.
Does the Secretary of State share their frustration that
too often under the Housing Act 1985 those homes can then
be swapped to somebody who does not have that local
connection? Does he also share their frustration at the
apparent easy waiving of section 106 agreements, whereby
housing for local need is determined after a very
peremptory examination of the market by registered social
landlords and others, who may turn down people with a local
connection who are living in private rented accommodation,
whether or not they can afford to live in that
accommodation?
-
It is important that the local connection rules are
appropriate and are working as we have set out. My hon.
Friend also makes a link to section 106 agreements; as I
referred to earlier, we have not yet made the final
decisions, but that matter is subject to a separate
consultation and we are looking at how we can improve it.
-
(Amber Valley)
(Con)
What action does the Secretary of State propose to take
against councils that fail to put in place a local plan?
-
The good news is that the vast majority of councils do have
in place a valid local plan, but, of course, some still have
not met their requirement. The biggest incentive on councils
to do so is that while they do not have a local plan, the
presumption in favour of development applies, and that is not
fair on the local people they represent. People want to see a
plan so that they can control where development takes place.
-
(Henley) (Con)
I am pleased with what the Secretary of State said about
neighbourhood plans. Will he confirm that he accepts they are
an important part of the planning mix and are delivering more
houses than expected?
-
Yes, I can confirm that. My hon. Friend speaks with some
experience in this area, and the evidence is that the 200-odd
neighbourhood plans that have been adopted so far are on
average leading to 10% more development than was necessary.
-
(Bexhill and Battle)
(Con)
On page 25 of the excellent White Paper there is an
expectation that local authorities will have to consider
small windfall sites off-plan. I suggest that often it is
medium sites that will deliver not only more housing but the
community benefits that would encourage the community to
welcome such sites. Could we increase their number?
-
I can highlight to my hon. Friend a requirement, which I
think is on the same page in the plan, that would help on
just that point. There is a new requirement that, from now
on, when local authorities set out their plan they have to
allow a minimum of 10% of the site for small and medium-sized
builders. These have to be small sites and small plot sizes
that will particularly appeal to small and medium-sized
builders.
-
(Pendle) (Con)
I was delighted to hear in January that Pendle Borough
Council will be one of the first councils in the country to
benefit from the Government’s £1.2 billion unlocking the land
fund to bring forward brownfield land for starter homes. How
will the White Paper further brownfield development in
constituencies like mine?
-
My hon. Friend will find in the White Paper a requirement on
all local authorities that, before they can look at anything
other than brownfield, they must show that they have fully
exhausted the brownfield opportunities in their area. They
must look at all the viable areas, but also at things such as
density, to get the most out of brownfield.
-
(Witney) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that when planning
permission is given for homes in places such as west
Oxfordshire, it is important that developers build them, and
quickly?
-
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. He will find in the
White Paper several measures to help to tackle just that
problem—for example, the changes we have made to completion
notices.
-
(York Outer)
(Con)
Starter homes offer a realistic solution to
difficult-to-deliver brownfield sites and low levels of home
ownership among young people. Bearing in mind the possible
change of focus for starter homes, is my right hon. Friend
still committed to delivering on the requirement under the
Housing and Planning Act 2016 to deliver 200,000 of them by
2020?
-
We are committed to delivering at least 200,000 homes for
affordable ownership, and that 200,000 will include the
starter homes with 20% discounts.
-
(Bolton West) (Con)
Urban sprawl creates excessive pressure on local road
infrastructure in my constituency, which means Daisy Hill and
Atherton stations have to have increased capacity at their
car parks. Will the Secretary of State do all he can to
ensure that we build up, not out, especially within walking
and cycling distance of established public transport routes?
-
There are specific measures in the White Paper to help to do
just that, especially around urban transport hubs and other
transport hubs, in order to get a greater density and make
much better use of the land.
-
(South Dorset)
(Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s White Paper. Will he assure
me that it will ensure that developers have to pay attention
to the character of the area around which they are
developing? So many developments are so ugly, but people have
to live in them and others are less likely to object if the
development is beautiful.
-
My hon. Friend is right to make that point. The change we
have made to allow local authorities to increase their
planning fees will help with that. Collectively, that 20%
increase is worth £75 million. Many local authorities have
told me that they would like to hire more resources in their
planning departments to help with design, and this change
will help to achieve just that.
-
(Pudsey) (Con)
Thousands of homes have been built on brownfield in my
constituency, but thanks to Labour’s excessive 70,000 housing
target, we are now seeing swathes of green belt coming under
threat. Does the standardised methodology for housing need
offer hope to my constituents that we can have a realistic
housing target review to meet housing demand?
-
I assure my hon. Friend that at the heart of the new
methodology is a requirement to be more realistic and honest
about the actual housing need in the area. Perhaps he will
also be reassured by the words in the White Paper about
making sure that, before anyone even looks at green belt,
they have exhausted all other reasonable options.
-
(Corby) (Con)
One market that never seems to be met is that for bungalows,
which are perhaps the only truly lifetime property and which
also free up properties for families. What role does the
Secretary of State see bungalows playing in future supply?
-
My hon. Friend makes an important point. This comes back to
the new requirement for local authorities to plan for every
demographic in their area. I am sure that, like me, my hon.
Friend has met constituents whose children have left and who
live in a large home and would love to downsize, but there is
not enough choice in their local area. There is now a
specific requirement in the White Paper to make sure that
local authorities are planning for everyone, including older
people.
-
Mr Speaker
I am most grateful to the Secretary of State and colleagues,
whose pithiness enabled every would-be contributor to take
part in the exchange on the statement.
-
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department
for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office
(Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now
repeat a Statement made in the other place earlier
today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of
State for the Department for Communities and Local
Government. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a
Statement on the Government’s Housing White Paper,
Fixing Our Broken Housing Market, copies of which I
have placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I had
hoped this White Paper would dominate the headlines
this morning, but it seems someone else beat me to it.
Our housing market is broken. Since 1970, house price
inflation in Britain has far outstripped the rest of
the OECD. The idea of owning or renting a safe, secure
place of your own is, for many, a distant dream. Over
the past seven years, the Government have done much to
help. We have taken action on both supply and demand,
and the results have been positive. Last year saw a
record number of planning permissions granted and the
highest level of housing completions since the
recession. Between 1997 and 2010, the ratio of average
house price to average income more than doubled, from
3.5 to more than 7; but in the five years to 2015 it
crept up only a little, to just over 7.5, but still
heading in the wrong direction.
Behind the positive statistics are millions of ordinary
working people. I am talking about the first-time buyer
who is saving hard but will not have enough for a
deposit for almost a quarter of a century, or the
couple in the private rented sector handing half their
combined income straight to their landlord. The
symptoms of this broken market are being felt by real
people in every community. It is one of the biggest
barriers to social progress this country faces, but its
root cause is simple: for far too long, we have not
built enough houses.
Relative to population size, Britain has had western
Europe’s lowest rate of housebuilding for three
decades. The situation reached its nadir under the last
Labour Government, when in one year work began on only
95,000 homes—the lowest peacetime level since the
1920s. Thanks to concerted action in central and local
government, last year 190,000 new homes were completed,
but that is still not enough. To meet demand, we have
to deliver between 225,000 and 275,000 homes every
year. In short, we have to build more of the right
houses in the right places, and we have to start right
now.
Today’s White Paper sets out how we will go about doing
so, but housebuilding does not just happen. Meeting the
unique needs of different people and different places
requires a co-ordinated effort across the public and
private sector. This means there is no single magic
bullet that can fix the problem; rather, we need action
on many fronts simultaneously.
First, we need to plan properly so we get the right
homes built in the right places. To make that happen,
we are going to introduce a new way of assessing
housing need. Many councils work tirelessly to engage
their communities on the number, design and mix of new
housing in their area, but some of them duck difficult
decisions and fail to produce plans that actually match
their housing need. It is important that all
authorities play by the same rules. We need to have a
proper conversation about housing need, and we need to
ensure that every local area produces a realistic plan
which it reviews at least every five years.
Once we know how many homes are needed where, we need
sites on which to build them, so the White Paper
contains measures that will help us to identify
appropriate sites for development: not simply empty
spaces, but usable, practical sites where new homes are
actually required. Let me reassure the House that this
will not entail recklessly ripping up our countryside.
In 2015, we promised the British people that the green
belt was safe in our hands, and that is still the case.
This White Paper does not remove any of its
protections.
Government should not be in the business of
land-banking, so we will free more public sector land
more quickly. We will increase transparency around land
ownership, so everyone knows if someone is unfairly
sitting on a site that could be better used. People
need a say in the homes that are built in their area,
so everywhere must have a plan in place and ensure
communities are comfortable with the design and
appearance of new homes.
The second area of focus is all about speeding up the
rate of build-out. At the moment, we are simply not
building quickly enough. Whether it is caused by
unacceptable land-banking or slow construction, we will
no longer tolerate such unjustified delays. We will
speed up and simplify the completion notice process. We
will make the planning system more open and accessible.
We will improve the co-ordination of public investment
in infrastructure and support timely connections to
utilities. We will tackle unnecessary delays caused by
everything from planning conditions to great crested
newts. We will give developers a lot of help to get
building, and local authorities the tools to hold
developers to account if they fail to do so. Local
authorities also have a vital role to play in getting
homes built quickly, and I am therefore looking again
at how they can use compulsory purchase powers. We will
also introduce a new housing delivery test to hold them
to account for housebuilding across their local area.
Finally, the White Paper explains how we will diversify
the housing market. At present, around 60% of new homes
are built by just 10 companies, and small independent
builders can find it almost impossible to enter the
market. This lack of competition means a lack of
innovation, which in turn leads to sluggish
productivity growth. So we will make it easier for
small and medium-sized builders to compete. We will
support efficient, innovative and underused methods of
construction, such as off-site factory builds. We will
support housing associations to build more, and explore
options to encourage local authorities to build again,
including through accelerated construction schemes on
public sector land. We will encourage institutional
investment in the private rented sector. We will also
make life easier for custom builders who want to create
their own home.
Together, these measures will make a significant and
lasting difference to our housing supply, but it will
take time, and ordinary working people need help right
now. We have already promised to ban letting agents’
fees, but this White Paper goes further. We will
improve safeguards in the private rented sector, do
more to prevent homelessness and help households who
are currently priced out of the market. We will tackle
the scourge of unfair leasehold terms, which are too
often forced on to hard-pressed homebuyers. We will be
working with the rental sector to promote three-year
tenancy agreements, giving families the security they
need to put down roots in their community.
In the past few years, we have seen almost 300,000
affordable homes built in England, housebuilding starts
increase, and more people getting on the property
ladder thanks to schemes such as Help to Buy. Now we
need to go further—much further—and meet our obligation
to build many more houses of the type people want to
live in and in the places they need to live. That is
exactly what this White Paper will deliver. It will
help the tenants of today facing rising rents, unfair
fees and insecure tenures; it will help the homeowners
of tomorrow by getting more of the right homes built in
the right places; and it will help our children, and
our children’s children, by halting decades of decline
and fixing our broken housing market. It is a bold,
radical vision for housing in this country, and I
commend it to the House”.
3.18 pm
-
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, , for
repeating the Statement given by his right honourable
friend in the other place earlier today. I must say
that after all the hype—the promise that it would be
published before Christmas, then that it would be out
in the new year and then that it was expected shortly,
followed by a series of briefings to the media over the
weekend and the noble Lord himself saying in Grand
Committee yesterday that it was expected imminently—it
is a disappointing and missed opportunity. It is not
the first time we have been disappointed, but probably
the first time with so much hype and so little in
reality.
It will not come as much of a relief if you are a young
family on the council house waiting list or a young
couple living in a home that does not meet the basic
fit-for-human-habitation standards, but of course the
Government have form here. The nearly 1,000
announcements on housing since 2010 include the
following. In 2011, a housing strategy running to 78
pages from the then Prime Minister was described as
“radical and unashamedly ambitious”, and one that would
“unlock the housing market”. In 2012,
“a major housing and planning package”,
again fronted by the then Prime Minister , was designed to
boost housebuilding and stimulate the economy. In 2013
there was a housing Budget from the then Chancellor,
, including Help to
Buy, the mortgage guarantee scheme that has now been
closed. There was a 2015 plan to radically redesign the
planning system, commissioned by the then Chancellor,
. The Housing and
Planning Act 2016 runs to 200 pages but the majority of
it remains unimplemented eight months after it passed
into law.
The independent House of Commons Library has confirmed
that between 2010 and 2015, under , we built fewer
homes than under any peacetime Prime Minister since the
1920s. The number of new affordable homes built below
market price to rent and to buy fell to the lowest
level in 24 years, with the number of properties built
for genuinely affordable social rent the lowest on
record.
The number of rough sleepers has doubled since 2010.
Just walk from Charing Cross, Victoria or Waterloo on
your way to this House and you will see homeless people
huddled in doorways. Enter the building through
Westminster tube and you will see people sitting there
trying to keep warm. The number of households owning
their own home has fallen by 200,000 since 2010 and the
number of people under 35 owning their own home has
fallen by 344,000. One in four families with children
now rent privately. Only one home in every six sold
under Right to Buy has been replaced, despite all the
talk from the Dispatch Box of like-for-like
replacement. I very much agree with the Minister that
the housing market is broken, but to repair it we need
action to build across all tenures and provide homes
that families can thrive in. This is more of a Lemsip,
“There there, it will all be better soon” approach
rather than the radical surgery needed to deal with the
housing crisis.
I have a number of questions for the Minister that I
hope he is able to answer. What caused the hold-up in
the production of the White Paper? I can only assume it
was what is not in the document today, rather than what
is in it. Do the Government have a problem with council
and social rented housing, rather than seeing the
sector as part of the solution? Will the Minister
confirm that local authorities will have the
flexibility to build council housing or work in
partnership with providers to build social rented
housing instead of starter homes, if they can
demonstrate that need in their area?
Why do the Government continue to rely on the
unaffordable, so-called “affordable” rent model? Will
they be taking further action to make homes fit for
human habitation? Making a home safe, warm and dry at a
price that can be truly afforded is what is needed
here. Do the Government think they have got the tenure
balance right and, if so, how did they come to that
conclusion?
I will study the White Paper carefully over the coming
days and I hope it will provide solutions to our broken
housing market, although so far my reaction is one of
disappointment that the Government have again missed
the opportunity to fundamentally deal with the housing
problem, and have put dogma in the way of finding
solutions.
-
(LD)
My Lords, I agree very much with the noble Lord,
. I
welcome some of the proposals in the White Paper but it
is not the ambitious, radical plan that is needed to
solve the housing crisis. At the outset, I will ask the
Minister a specific question. There is no mention in
the Statement of the 1 million net new homes commitment
by 2020 and there seems to be no new money for
investing in the homes we need—yet the Government have
an ambition in the Statement for between 225,000 and
275,000 homes a year to be built. Exactly how are the
Government going to deliver those numbers?
I agree with the Government that our housing market is
broken and I think we should be grateful for that
admission. We should be grateful, too, for the
admission that the country has not built enough houses
and that millions of “ordinary working people”, in the
words of the Secretary of State, are saving hard but
will not have enough for a deposit for almost a quarter
of a century—or, if they are in the private rented
sector, they are handing half their combined income
straight to the landlord, if they are a couple.
It is true, and the Government are right to say, that
we need action on many fronts simultaneously—but I
believe that they are not working on as many fronts as
they should. There is an acceptance, which I welcome,
that brownfield sites must be developed before green
belt site. There is, rightly, an acknowledgement that
the Government should not be in the business of land
banking and that we must free up more public sector
land more quickly. There is also an acknowledgement of
the need to make it easier for small and medium-sized
builders to compete, to encourage off-site factory
builds, to support housing associations to build more
and to “explore options” to encourage local authorities
to build again, including through accelerated
construction schemes on public sector land.
I am not clear why the Government are still “exploring
options”, because they have had months to get on with
permitting local government to start building again—I
declare to the House my vice-presidency of the Local
Government Association, which has campaigned for years
on this matter. Local authorities can borrow
prudentially under the prudential code against their
housing assets or, quite separately, against their
overall assets. I would like to hear from the Minister
that there will be government support for local
authorities to get on building again.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, referred to the changes
that the Government seem to be making to the Housing
and Planning Act—which was, I hope it is now generally
conceded, a very bad Act. We have seen U-turns. To cite
just four: the Government introduced pay to stay for
those in social homes and then abandoned it when they
realised that it was impossible to manage, as they had
been warned in your Lordships’ House; they extended the
right to buy to housing associations and then made it
voluntary; they refused to ban letting fees for renters
because it was bad for the market and then changed
their mind; and they cut funding for supported housing
and then extended it for another year to think further
about it. What other U-turns are on the way? What
exactly is the position on the compulsory sale of
high-value council homes?
Finally, the Government need to apply tests over the
coming months to the White Paper. The tests I would
apply are these: will it reduce homelessness? I remind
the Minister of the Government’s own figures in
December that almost 75,000 households are in temporary
accommodation. Will it build more social homes for rent
in the volume required? Will it make housing more
affordable to those on low incomes, to enable those in
work on the living wage to afford to live reasonably
close to where they work? Will it definitely prioritise
brownfield over greenfield development in practice, and
will it get local authorities building in the volume
they are capable of against their assets?
I have a final request. Not for the first time, I ask
the Government to cease using the word “affordable” to
describe housing that patently is not affordable for
millions of people?
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and
, for their
contributions, but I am rather amazed that neither of
them welcomed many of the things that they have been
asking for over the past three days in Committee which
are contained in the White Paper. There is action on
planning fees: a 20% increase for planning departments
from the summer, with a further possible 20%, to which
we are minded to agree, tied to performance. That is
something that I am sure they would wish to welcome.
There are provisions on land banking, on which we were
pushed continually in previous sessions on the Bill,
and before that, as well as action on brownfield sites.
It is also very clear, to answer the noble Lord’s
penultimate point, that brownfield land is something
that we specifically go for before greenbelt land in
the White Paper.
I appreciate that noble Lords have probably not had
long enough to study the White Paper, and therefore
that some of these points may have been overlooked.
They asked what we were doing in relation to councils.
We intend to work with them, with all the levers that
we possess. The reason there is no immediate action is
that this is a White Paper that is out for consultation
from today until 2 May. That is why this does not
represent legislation. Noble Lords need to be careful
what they wish for. There seemed to be an implied
criticism from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that there
was too much legislation. Some of this we hope will
result in legislation and some of it can be carried out
without legislation—but this is not legislation but a
White Paper.
Clearly, building 1 million new homes—to which the
noble Lord, , referred—is
still very much our policy. It was in the manifesto and
is still very much there. We are going for a mixture of
tenure—again, the White Paper makes that very clear. We
are putting fresh new emphasis on the private rented
sector and, indeed, we are working with the social
rented sector. We provided extra money in the Autumn
Budget last year for the social rented sector by
allowing it to lift the cap. That is also a very
positive point about this White Paper. So I am amazed
that noble Lords do not wish to welcome some of the
points in the White Paper.
The test that the noble Lord, , applies is a
fair one. Will the White Paper reduce homelessness? I
believe that it will. Also, of course, other things are
happening with relation to homelessness. As we know,
with all-party support, the Homelessness Reduction Bill
will be an important part of that panoply of measures,
and that comes before us after our Recess, towards the
end of February, when it will get its Second Reading in
this House.
I was asked what we were doing in relation to rough
sleeping. We doubled the grant for that recently, as
noble Lords will be aware. Another measure that we
have, quite rightly, been encouraged to provide for is
woodlands. Again, woodlands are featured here. We want
to protect woodlands with measures in the National
Planning Policy Framework. Again, this is in the White
Paper.
There is an awful lot of radical stuff which, quite
rightly, Peers across the House have been calling for
and which is in the White Paper. So I think that the
welcome given to it—if welcome it were—was far too
muted as regards the content of the White Paper.
3.32 pm
-
(Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that the last Labour Government
left 19,000 more hectares of greenbelt than they
inherited and that the one thing we are not short of in
this country is land? In England, the last time I
checked, 15% of land is made up of areas of outstanding
natural beauty—no one is talking about building on that;
9% is made up of national parks, and no one is talking
about building on that; while only 9% is actually built
on, and 13% is greenbelt, most of which is rubbish
land—collars around urban areas—which can be swapped. It
can be built on because the infrastructure is there. This
is nonsense—no one is talking about building over the
countryside. Forty-six per cent of that, added to what I
have just said, leaves 54% of land which is farmland and
unprotected land. One thing that we are not short of is
land—and the public sector, last time I checked, owns
enough land to build 2 million homes. We keep being told
about this but nobody is using it.
-
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord about 13% of land
in England being greenbelt. That is absolutely right;
that figure has been constant for some years and we are
determined that it should remain at 13%. I do not agree
with the noble Lord about his classification of greenbelt
land; it is absolutely vital that we maintain the
greenbelt. But I do join him in saying that there is
plenty of land that can be built on; 87% of land is not
greenbelt, on that calculation, and there is much that we
can do in relation to building on brownfield land and in
relation to land that the Government hold—and, as I
indicated in the Statement, that we are releasing,
because the Government, along with everybody else, should
not be land banking. It is important that we do that, and
it is also important that local authorities that have
difficulty identifying land in their own area should
discuss the issue with their neighbouring authorities to
see whether they can do something together. All those
things are highlighted in the White Paper.
-
(Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his Statement is
timely and has bite, which is to be greatly welcomed?
However, one area seems to have been overlooked. After
decades of no action, is it time to look again at the
development of new towns? One has only to look at the
success of Milton Keynes and Northampton—which I had the
privilege of representing for 23 years. Why is planning
not being done? Can this not be added to the White Paper
after the consultation?
-
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his welcome for
what we are doing in the White Paper. I understand why
noble Lords would not have been able to digest everything
in it in a short period, but there is provision for new
towns and for the garden cities and garden villages which
are currently being developed—16 and 10 of them
respectively. We are looking at the possibility of
transferring these to local planning authorities because,
in pursuance of our policy of localism, we need to ensure
that there is local control and involvement. We have been
working with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and other noble
Lords who are also keen on this, including the noble
Lord, , to ensure that we
involve localities, and this is in the White Paper.
-
(LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments on garden
cities, villages and towns, which I have taken an
interest in. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in
the register of interests. As the Government reform the
local planning process, will the Minister give a strong
message—I hope it is reinforced in the White Paper—that
it is vital for local authorities to take a long-term
view of how communities will develop? Many thousands of
homes will be needed over time; we cannot simply rely on
a five-year supply, doing it piecemeal with tens, fifties
or hundreds at a time. This leads to housing estates with
no facilities or proper community which are often of very
poor design quality, rather than creating a vision for
the future which allows all the things the Minister talks
about: a supply of plots for small businesses, affordable
homes and much better quality place-making.
-
My Lords, I am happy to endorse what the noble Lord has
said about local community involvement and taking a
long-term view. The possibility of engagement on design
is also featured in the White Paper. We want to ensure
that local authorities discuss the importance of design
with developers, so that is earmarked as well. The noble
Lord is right and this is central to the developments
which are bringing fresh housing in our garden cities and
villages.
-
The Lord
My Lords, on these Benches we are acutely aware of the
huge crisis in housing. We hear stories about this from
all around the country and we share some of the concerns
that have been raised from the Benches opposite. There
are a number of things which we welcome hugely. Examples
are the new powers for local authorities to prevent land
banking, measures to encourage local authorities to work
together over larger areas, and new requirements for
local authorities to undertake a more thorough assessment
of housing needs.
I will focus on one area in which I have a particular
interest. Housing is a key issue for rural
sustainability. What steps will Her Majesty’s Government
be taking, first to encourage the development of new
homes in rural areas and, secondly, to ensure that any
new housing developments are designed to meet the needs
of local people and families, rather than continuing the
worrying trend of large, expensive rural homes that are
simply not meeting real local needs?
-
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right about the
importance of the rurality factor. As somebody who used
to represent a very rural area, I understand that. In the
White Paper we reinforce the importance of rural housing
exceptions. However, the point is a very good one and we
will give proper weight to rural housing as the
consultation—which, as I have indicated, ends on 2
May—goes forward. I hope people, institutions and local
authorities will respond to it.
-
The (CB)
My Lords, as someone involved in commercial and
residential development, I warmly welcome aspects of the
White Paper, particularly the attention it gives to the
private rented sector, its encouragement of institutional
investors in that area and the way it addresses land bank
issues, including reducing the window after planning
permission from three to two years. These are very
welcome. Will the Minister examine closely Crisis’s
campaign and the comments of both the private rented
landlords’ associations to ensure that more homeless
people can access the private rented sector? I am
particularly concerned about young disadvantaged people
without family support. Support for that campaign, a
mortgage guarantee scheme and for private landlords
implementing the right to rent scheme would be very
helpful to the Government’s endeavours.
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that welcome,
particularly in relation to the private rented sector,
and for his comments on land banking. Crisis is a very
valued partner. The point made about the importance of
ensuring that the private rented sector frees itself up
to the homeless much more than it has done previously is
well made. As we take forward consultation on these
areas, I hope that we can accommodate it.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the White Paper as far as it goes
given the disastrous Housing and Planning Act of last
year, as has already been mentioned. I wish to put to the
Minister a question and a suggestion. The question
follows that asked by the noble Lord, , which the
Minister did not answer. Therefore, I would be glad if he
would answer it now. It is not in the White Paper. The
Government are extending the right to buy with large
discounts to housing association tenants. Does the
Minister still expect those discounts to be funded by the
forced sale of council homes as they become temporarily
vacant between tenants, robbing social tenants in another
tenure of the opportunity to rent their own affordable
homes? Secondly, on the cost-free suggestion, those in
severe housing need may qualify for housing benefit. As
has been mentioned, social housing is seldom available.
It has been sold off. Yet in the private rented sector
many private landlords worried about reliable rents
refuse to let to tenants on housing benefit. Where
tenants and landlords wish it, will the Minister persuade
his unsuitably rigid DWP colleagues to reinstate direct
payments to landlords so that some of the most vulnerable
have a chance to get a home?
-
I thank the noble Baroness, who has great experience in
these areas. I apologise to the noble Lord, , that I did not
cover the point on HVA. There is a section in the White
Paper on this. It correctly states that we are proceeding
with pilots on the measure in relation to the right to
buy and housing associations. That is the position. We
want to see how the pilots play out. As I say, it is in
the White Paper.
-
What is the page number?
-
My Lords, I am not aware of the page number. However, I
am happy to meet the noble Baroness afterwards and point
out where it is in the White Paper.
The point the noble Baroness made on housing benefit is
beyond the scope of the White Paper. We talk to the DWP
regularly and do not find its staff as hard-hearted and
difficult as she does. However, she makes a very valid
point and I will ensure that it is appropriately
discussed, as it has been in the past.
-
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement and
draw attention to my entry in the register as chair of
the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. As regards the
provision of utilities and connections to support
planning for housing, rather than waiting to see whether
this is a problem will the Government step in and make it
clear to utilities providers that they must put in the
necessary connections to planned development alongside
the local planning process rather than wait until the
houses are given planning permission?
-
My Lords, once again, my noble friend is very experienced
in this area. He is right to draw attention to the
importance of utilities. That, of course, extends not
just to the normal utilities, as it were, that we all
recognise from the past but also to broadband, which,
again, is mentioned in the White Paper. My noble friend
is absolutely right; we need to ensure that these parts
of the infrastructure are taken care of in moving forward
with the plans for the additional housing.
-
(LD)
My Lords, paragraph 2.29 of the White Paper says that the
Government are looking at,
“options for reforming the system of developer
contributions”.
Can the Minister give an assurance to the House that that
reform will not lessen the amount of contributions that
developers give? This White Paper is about building
communities, not just homes.
-
My Lords, I anticipate that it is looking at greater
contributions—the wording is obviously broader than that,
but my reading is that we are looking at ways to ensure
that there is a more effective contribution. I look
forward to the issue of contributions when we consult on
that.
-
(Lab)
Will not private individual landowners all over the
country be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect
of transforming, at the stroke of a planner’s pen, land
worth £10,000, £15,000, £20,000 or £25,000 a hectare,
into land worth anything between £1 million and £5
million a hectare? Is not the price of land in the United
Kingdom, and huge profit-taking by individual landlords
when they secure planning permission on their land, at
the heart of the problem? Until that problem is sorted
out, we will never resolve the problem of housing in this
country.
-
My Lords, the noble Lord is being a bit of an Eeyore. We
are being encouraged to build more, which we are seeking
to do here. If it is a question of supply and demand, the
more supply there is, the more that would affect the
price. There are also provisions in the White Paper with
regard to landlords, which we are consulting on, and
which landlords would not necessarily welcome—the bad
ones certainly will not. We are looking across the board
at unreasonable terms in leasehold provision, and at some
where people think they are buying their own home only to
find that they have a ground rent payment, for example,
or things of that nature. Therefore, if the noble Lord
studies the White Paper, he will see that it is extremely
fair.
-
(Con)
My Lords, my noble friend just mentioned the leasehold
system, which is quite iniquitous and very damaging.
There should be encouragement for more freehold, or
commonhold, properties in new build, because then people
will own their houses instead of being indebted to
someone who owns the land they live on.
-
My noble friend makes a valid point on the point I just
made, and that is exactly what we are seeking to do.
However, across the board we are going for a mixture of
tenure. It is important that it is properly regulated;
most landlords are perfectly honourable, obey the rules
and are quite fair. We want mixed tenure and we are
putting fresh emphasis on leaseholds, so that people
realise what they are getting, rather than finding, when
they thought they had purchased their own house, that
they have a long lease with unreasonable terms.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my local government interests. I
have not read the White Paper in detail but I have
certainly looked through it, and I can see no reference
to two matters which I have raised on more than one
occasion in your Lordships’ House. The first relates to
the rent increase imposed on local authorities of 1%,
which will cost, as I have mentioned before, £590
million, and which would otherwise have been invested in
housing stock in Newcastle, either in existing or new
properties. That will translate into billions of pounds
nationally, yet it is not mentioned in the report. The
other issue is to do with private tenancies. Is there any
intention to promote and facilitate more selective
licensing schemes to deal with landlords who are simply
failing their tenants, not looking after properties, and
all too often exploiting their tenants?
-
My Lords, the noble Lord is right that the issue of rent
increases on local authorities is not covered by the
White Paper. On the position of landlords who act
unreasonably, he will be aware that we are bringing in,
under previous legislation, the register of rogue
landlords, which is due to happen later this year—perhaps
he was referring to that point. That is mentioned in the
White Paper and it is already scheduled to happen.
However, in addition we are, as I have indicated, looking
at where landlords are acting unreasonably and holding a
consultation on that issue within the White Paper.
-
(Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the White Paper and
congratulate the Government on their decision to require
local authorities to prioritise and make plans for
accommodation for older people. The fastest growing group
in our population is the older generation. I also welcome
the building of the right homes in the right places and
the encouragement for small and medium-sized firms. Too
often, the very large builders make outsize profits at
the expense of smaller ones, which often have the
specialist knowledge to build homes suitable for older
people. I also welcome the emphasis on institutional
investors. Many insurance companies are now engaged in
build-to-rent programmes. In the current low interest
rate environment, that is a very fruitful avenue for
them. Will my noble friend consider encouragement for
local authority pension funds also to invest in housing
in the build-to-rent sector?
-
I thank my noble friend very much indeed for her welcome
of the part of the White Paper that relates to older
people and disabled people. It was prompted by a
Conservative Back-Bencher in the Commons but is
supported, I think, across the other place and across
this House as something that is very valuable. I have
indicated to my noble friend my hope that as we take this
forward she and others who have shown an interest—the
noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews and Lady Greengross, who
have great experience of this through institutions that
they represent—will help us craft some thoughts on this.
As was indicated in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady
Andrews, this is the first time there has been a
provision like this in legislation. It is valuable. It
helps not only those who are elderly or disabled but has
the bonus that it will free up housing, although that is
not the prime intention.
I will respond to a couple of the other points that my
noble friend made. There are certainly provisions in the
White Paper by which, again, we are seeking to encourage
institutional investment in the housing programme. I
believe that that will be fruitful and I echo the point
she made about pension funds. We will make sure the
message goes out that pension funds should, I hope, be
included in the process of trying to encourage outside
investment away from the public sector towards the
private sector and the third sector.
-
The Lord
My Lords, I want to ask about the politics of all this. I
speak as a fool in relation to that, but let us take the
hypothesis that this policy is a great success, that we
have lots more houses and that the price of houses starts
to fall. Indeed, let us imagine that land prices start to
fall in the way that the noble Lord, , rightly
pointed out. All the people who have bought houses in the
past 20 years will find that those houses are worth less
than they used to be. It seems to me that this is
tinkering with a major problem. Do the Government
seriously wish to get the average value of a house back
down to 3.5 times average earnings? If so, what are the
consequences going to be?
-
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes an interesting
point. However, as noble Lords will know, I am not a
wizard. I can seek to take forward measures that I
believe will stabilise the position and mean that house
prices do not rise as quickly as they should. That is
good news for young people and people who are trying to
buy their own house. I accept that, over time, if prices
fall, that will not be good news for people who live in
those houses. But the most important thing is delivering
housing that is affordable. This is not a single policy;
a whole raft of policies exists across the range, which
is why it has taken some time to promote and produce the
White Paper. Although they may not agree with all of it,
anybody who has studied the White Paper in any detail
will see that it offers a range of tools that can be used
to help us build more and get more people on the housing
ladder. I think that will be a fair response once noble
Lords study the White Paper.
|