Commonhold and Leasehold Reform
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(3 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
My Department always strives to ensure that the House is updated at the earliest possible opportunity. I note and appreciate fully the points you have made, Mr Speaker, and will ensure that they are passed on to my ministerial colleagues.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. We made a clear and unambiguous commitment in our manifesto to act where previous Governments had failed and finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end. We did so on the basis of a firm conviction that it is only by extinguishing fully the historical iniquities on which the present leasehold system rests that we can ensure that the dream of home ownership is made real for millions of households across the country.
Today, the Government have published and laid the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee. This ambitious piece of legislation will modernise property law, deliver a fair and efficient modern housing market and, most importantly, transform the experience of home ownership for millions of leaseholders across the country.
The draft Bill includes the following key provisions: a new legal framework for commonhold to reform and reinvigorate this radical improvement on leasehold ownership; a statutory restriction on new leasehold flats to ensure that, in future, commonhold is the default tenure; a new process for converting to commonhold from leasehold to make conversion easier, so that more homeowners can enjoy this improved form of ownership; the abolition of leasehold forfeiture and its replacement with a fairer system of lease enforcement; the repeal of draconian powers relating to rent charges on freehold estates; and the capping of ground rent for older leases at £250 a year, changing to a peppercorn after 40 years.
Let me expand briefly on each of these core measures, beginning with commonhold. Commonhold is a modern home ownership structure that is widely used around the world. It is not merely an alternative to leasehold ownership, but a radical improvement on it. At the heart of the commonhold model is a simple principle: the people who should own buildings and who should exercise control over their management, shared facilities and related costs are not third-party landlords, but the people who live in the flats within them and who have a direct stake in their upkeep. Commonhold ensure that the interests of homeowners are preserved in perpetuity. It transfers decision making to them so that homeowners have a greater say over how their home is managed and the bills they pay, as well as the flexibility to respond to the changing needs of their building and its residents.
For a variety of reasons, commonhold failed to establish itself following its introduction in 2004. As a result, there are fewer than 20 commonhold developments in existence today and the 2002 legal framework is hopelessly outdated. The provisions in the draft Bill build on the publication of our commonhold White Paper in March last year, which confirmed the detail of our commonhold reform programme, and responded to the Law Commission’s thorough and expert review of commonhold law. The result is legislation that will reinvigorate commonhold through the introduction of a comprehensive new legal framework that will enable commonhold to be used in the widest possible range of settings.
To ensure that commonhold becomes the default tenure, as our manifesto promised, the draft Bill also includes provisions to ban the use of leasehold for new flats. Once enacted, this will ensure that, other than in exceptional circumstances, all flats are provided as commonhold. The provisions will work in tandem with the ban on the use of leasehold for new houses contained in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.
Alongside the publication of the draft Bill today, we are publishing a “Moving to commonhold” consultation, seeking input from industry and consumers on precisely how we implement the new ban. The feedback we receive will ensure that we can proceed with a smooth transition to commonhold for new developments, while at the same time protecting the supply of new homes and determining whether there is a case for any justified exemptions.
The draft Bill also includes measures to make it easier for existing leaseholders to convert their buildings to commonhold. The existing law already sets out a process for conversion, but it is one that requires consent from everyone with an interest in the block. This sets an unacceptably high bar and means that commonhold is not achievable if even a single unit owner, lender or the existing freeholder objects. The draft Bill will introduce a new process for conversion, one that brings conversion into line with wider enfranchisement processes and will make conversion possible if at least 50% of qualifying leaseholders agree.
The previous Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act does provide leaseholders with important rights and protections, but on the Labour Benches we have always maintained that it was a distinctly unambitious piece of legislation that left untouched serious problems, including the disproportionate and draconian threat of forfeiture as a means of ensuring compliance with a lease agreement. For too long, outdated forfeiture laws have allowed landlords to threaten people with losing their home and hard-earned equity over small debts of as little as £350, or any amount if left unpaid for three years. The draft Bill contains provisions to abolish forfeiture and replace it with a modern, proportionate lease enforcement system that addresses breaches fairly, with appropriate safeguards and judicial oversight.
Mr Speaker, you will know that before Christmas we launched two comprehensive consultations, seeking views on how best to implement new consumer protections for homeowners on freehold estates and the ways in which we might reduce the prevalence of privately managed estates over the coming years. To further enhance protections for homeowners on freehold estates, the draft Bill will also repeal enforcement powers that apply to estate rent charges on them. These powers, often difficult to find in deeds and poorly understood by buyers, can lead to rent charge owners taking possession of, or granting a lease over, a freehold home as a result of small sums outstanding. That is not just unfair; it creates real barriers to home ownership and property sales. We will remove these wholly disproportionate and outdated remedies for enforcing rent charges by repealing sections 121 and 122 of the Law of Property Act 1925, including estate rent charges.
The Government are acutely aware that the cost of living remains a pressing concern for leaseholders across England and Wales, and that those who remain subject to unfair and unreasonable practices need urgent relief. That is why last summer we consulted jointly with the Welsh Government on strengthening leaseholder protections over charges and services. That consultation included proposals to reform the section 20 major works procedure, increase transparency over service charges, and enhance access to redress through the relevant provisions in the Act. We thank all those who responded to the consultation and will set out details of how we intend to implement the measures in question as soon as possible. However, the Government are determined to go further to alleviate the cost of living pressures facing leaseholders. In our manifesto, we promised to tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rent charges. The draft Bill honours that commitment.
As the House will know, historically, ground rents, which often entail no service being provided whatsoever, were of low or nominal value. However, over the past two decades a practice has developed of freeholders including high and escalating ground rent clauses in leases. Such clauses are causing leaseholders considerable financial strain and some are unable to sell or remortgage their properties as a result. The draft Bill will cap ground rents at £250 a year initially, changing to a peppercorn after 40 years. This will provide immediate financial relief for leaseholders with high and harmful ground rents, while the longer-term change to a peppercorn cap will eliminate the two-tier market between new and older leases, delivering a fair and efficient modern housing market.
The reforms will necessarily have effects on existing contractual arrangements and investments—something that the Government do not undertake lightly. However, the Government have a clear mandate to tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rent charges, and our approach has been designed to strike a fair balance between the interests of leaseholders, freeholders and investors, maintaining the reputation of the UK as a safe place to invest.
Finally, as I have made clear to the House on previous occasions, the last Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act contains a number of specific but serious flaws that prevent certain provisions from operating as intended and that need to be rectified via primary legislation. While not included in the draft Bill, our intention is to rectify those flaws in primary legislation. Among other things, that will allow us to commence the 2024 Act’s enfranchisement provisions, making it cheaper and easier for leaseholders to extend their lease or buy their freehold.
To conclude, the publication of the draft Bill today is an historic moment. It marks the beginning of the end for the feudal leasehold system that has tainted the dream of home ownership for so many. I look forward to working closely with the Select Committee as it performs its invaluable role of scrutinising carefully this draft legislation, and I encourage hon. Members across the House to engage with it and the accompanying consultation on banning new leasehold flats. I commend the statement to the House.
Matthew Pennycook
I note the initial positive tone from the shadow Minister in welcoming the draft Bill. I am slightly reluctant, on what is usually a matter of cross-party consensus, to be too critical of him, but it is a bit rich to criticise this Government, given that the previous Government cherry-picked reform in a way that was at odds with the Law Commission’s recommendation to treat all three of its reports as a holistic package, and left us with an Act that we will have to make a series of changes through primary legislation to fix so that we can implement the remaining provisions. I will, therefore, not take any strictures on ambition from the shadow Minister when it comes to leasehold reform.
I say plainly to the shadow Minister that we have switched on a number of the 2024 Act’s provisions already. On coming into office, we immediately enacted a series of provisions on rent charge arrears, building safety legal costs, and the work of professional insolvency practitioners. On 31 October we enacted further building safety measures; on 31 January we switched on the two-year qualifying exemptions for leaseholders; in March we switched on the right-to-manage provisions; and we are working at pace to take forward the rest of the significant package of secondary legislation that was required. However, some parts of those provisions require us to make fixes to the Bill—sadly, something that the previous Government left us with.
The shadow Minister mentioned housing supply, but again, I am loath to take lessons from a party that torpedoed housing supply in the last Parliament by making a series of anti-supply changes to the national planning policy framework, including the abolition of mandatory housing targets. The shadow Minister’s criticism could be taken a little more seriously if his colleagues did not come to me week in, week out, objecting to housing applications, telling me how our reforms will make it more permissive in their local constituencies.
We are getting on and taking forward the reforms to the leasehold system that are already on the statute book. Through this Bill, we are bringing forward the wider reforms necessary to bring that system to an end, which will be to the lasting benefit of millions of leaseholders across the country.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to the Minister for his hard work in getting us to this stage. There were a few occasions when he saw me and went the other way, because he knew what I was going to ask him, but we would not be here without his tireless work. I also highlight what the Minister said about this being a cross-party issue, and pay tribute to the former Member for Worthing West, Sir Peter Bottomley, for his work chairing the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform.
For far too long, many leaseholders up and down the country have been caught up in this medieval system, leaving them with soaring rents and unreasonable fees—people who bought their homes in good faith and have seen a nightmare transpire. It is right that the Government are finally bringing in a change that will help millions of people up and down the country. The Minister has agreed to support the Committee’s inquiry with the necessary evidence. Can he also confirm that he will support us by providing the Government’s response to the 2023 ground rent consultation in the coming days, so that we can get a better understanding on how that underpins the Government’s decision to cap ground rents at £250?
There were some things that we were expecting to see in the draft Bill—yes, I have read it—that are not there, including the Law Commission’s unimplemented recommendations on enfranchisement and the right to manage, and Lord Best’s recommendations on managing agents. Lord Best has called for a regulator with teeth for proper enforcement; can the Minister clarify what work the Government are doing to ensure that this will be in the final version of the Bill, or if it will be addressed elsewhere? The Minister also outlined a rough timeline for implementation. Can we get more clarity on when we expect to see that, so that those leaseholders around the country who have been waiting for a long time will finally get the help that they desperately need?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, for those fair and pertinent questions. I will answer each of them in turn. We published a whole series of documents at 7 am, including a copy of the draft Bill. That also included a policy document setting out our rationale for the £250 per year ground rent cap, but we will make available to the Committee other information, evidence and documentation as needed and at the earliest possible opportunity.
As for the other recommendations made in the three reports from the Law Commission, the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 implemented a significant number of the Law Commission’s enfranchisement recommendations, a small number of its right-to-manage recommendations, and none of its recommendations on commonhold. We cannot do everything in this Bill; hon. Members who have had a chance to look will have seen that is has a large number of clauses already. But we are committed to enacting those remaining recommendations relating to leasehold enfranchisement and other things over the course of the Parliament.
On implementation, different provisions will come into effect at different times. For example, we aim to switch on the rent charge provisions I described soon after Royal Assent. Other measures will require secondary legislation. We expect the ground rent cap to be in place in 2028. We will work with the Committee to ensure that it can do the fullest and most robust job possible when it comes to giving the Bill the enhanced scrutiny it deserves.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats welcome the introduction of a commonhold framework, the abolition of leasehold for newbuild flats, and the end of forfeiture—all these are positive steps in the right direction. Our manifesto has been calling for an end to unfair residential leaseholds since Lloyd George called it “blackmail” in his 1909 People’s Budget. But while I welcome those measures, we should be going much further.
The Housing Secretary this morning called ground rents “money for nothing” and a “scam”, so why should leaseholders continue to pay £250 for nothing? The Government’s proposals need to go further. For freeholders trapped in the fleece-hold of unscrupulous property management companies, the blackmail of the great property rip-off is set to continue. There is nothing that will cap those charges in these proposals. Since residential leaseholds will still be with us for some time, millions of leaseholders need better protection from landlord costs being passed on to them. They need the capping of excessive service charges, like £400 to change a lightbulb and £4,000 to mow the grass. Help is also needed for those trapped in unsafe and defective buildings, hundreds of thousands of which are excluded from the building safety regime.
Will the Minister take forward Liberal Democrat proposals and immediately abolish residential leasehold charges, set ground rents at a peppercorn now, and regulate property and estate-management companies as recommended in the Best report, capping unreasonable service and estate management charges?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I gently say that I want to get everybody in, but I cannot do so if people are going to make longer contributions? I know there is a 40-year clause in the legislation hon. Members are discussing—I don’t want us to hit that today!
Matthew Pennycook
It is clear that this draft Bill cannot do absolutely everything, and it is the Government’s considered opinion that we do not need provisions on service charges in this Bill—not least because, for the reasons I have set out, we do not intend to implement a service charge cap—and that the provisions in the 2024 Act will do the job. Help is on the way, though, and I want to ensure that those provisions are switched on at the earliest possible opportunity.
Chinese Embassy
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
This question relates to the proposals for a new Chinese embassy at Royal Mint Court. It is a decision to be taken by Planning Ministers, independent of the rest of Government. As I have said before in the House, this Government are committed to the probity of the planning process at all levels, to ensure robust and evidence-based decision making. Planning Ministers must take decisions following a quasi-judicial process, meaning that they must take decisions fairly, based on evidence and planning rules.
As the case is currently before the Department for consideration, and due to the statutory role of Ministers in the planning process, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment further on this live case. That said, I fully understand Members’ interest in the case, so I will briefly set out the process that the case has followed to date. A public inquiry into the applications was held by an independent planning inspector between 11 and 19 February 2025. The Department received the inspector’s report into the applications on 10 June that year. On 6 August 2025, a reference-back letter was sent to parties seeking further information, specifically in respect of the redacted plans and some issues raised by the Home Office and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. That was recirculated for further comment on 22 August, and again on 16 October, 2 December, and 17 December. It was recirculated for information on 6 January 2026. Referring back to parties is routine when further information is required.
As you know, Mr Speaker, the Government do not provide a running commentary on planning casework decisions, and it would be particularly inappropriate to make any comment on material that has been received. The reference-back material will be available on request when the decision is issued. The timetable has been varied to allow for full consideration of the applications, given the detailed nature of the representations provided, and the need to give parties sufficient opportunity to respond. A final decision will now be made on or before 20 January 2026. Such variation to the timetable is routine when additional time is needed for determination. Members can be assured—I am afraid I will be required to state the following ad nauseam, Mr Speaker—that Ministers will take all material planning considerations into account when the final decision is made, and Ministers will inform the House of the decision accordingly.
Mr Speaker
In fairness, you brought me into this by saying that I would know about planning—absolutely—but I did not choose for you to be the Minister who answered this. I would have thought it would have been someone from the Home Office, and the Minister for Security. I call Alicia Kearns.
Alicia Kearns
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is very disappointing to get a technocratic history lesson rather than an answer to the meaningful question.
Two hundred and eight secret rooms and a hidden chamber, just 1 metre from cables serving the City of London and the British people—that is what the unredacted plans tell us the Chinese Communist party has planned for its new embassy if the Government give it the go-ahead. Indeed, we now know that it plans to demolish the wall between the cables and the embassy—cables on which our economy is dependent; cables carrying millions of British people’s emails and financial data, and access that would give the Chinese Communist party a launchpad for economic warfare against our nation.
The Home Office and the Foreign Office say that security concerns have been “addressed”, so I put this to the Minister: had any Minister seen the unredacted plans before The Telegraph uncovered them? If not, why not? Was Parliament misled when we were told that all documents were publicly available? Is it true that in December a briefing was given to our Five Eyes partners on these risks? Does the Minister really have no concerns at all over plans to install heavy ventilation equipment parallel to those cables? What is that for? If the Government are as shocked as we are today, have Ministers already called in the Chinese ambassador to explain those secret rooms? If not, why not? The embassy would create a daily headache for our security services. What confidence can we have that the CCP’s technological capabilities can be contained for a decade, let alone 10? I have consistently asked the Government to require the Chinese to pay for any re-routing of cables if they are to give this go-ahead, so will the Government commit to that today?
We understand that the Prime Minister is planning to visit Beijing this month. Is it true that the embassy will be approved this week? That the Prime Minister plans to reward the Communist party, which is holding a British national hostage and torturing him in confinement, and which put spies at the heart of our democracy, is bad enough, but to turn up with a gift in hand, begging for handouts, beggars belief. Labour promised a new relationship with China, yet UK goods exports are down 23%. Surrendering our security for Chinese trade was always a bad policy, but surrendering our security while exports plummet is, frankly, insanity. The Government can claim today they had no idea about the secret rooms, and we will take them at their word, but they cannot now say that they have no power to protect us. We must protect our economy, protect the British people, and deny the Chinese Communist party its embassy.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for her questions, and I note and appreciate her concerns. We need a consistent position on China, which cannot be boiled down to one word. We recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, and we challenge those robustly. China also presents opportunities to the UK, as the world’s second largest economy and the UK’s third largest trading partner. We will therefore continue to develop a consistent and pragmatic approach to economic engagement, without compromising our national security. On Hong Kong in particular we will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the UK.
On the matter before us, which is the particular case in question, as I have stressed before—I am afraid I will have to do so repeatedly—no decision has been made. I cannot comment on any aspects of the case, which is a live case for Planning Ministers to determine. All material considerations will be taken into account when making a decision, but I am afraid I cannot comment on any specific national security concerns.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The redacted plans for the Chinese super-embassy provide new reasons to reject this application. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government had access before today to the unredacted plans showing the proximity of basements to critical communications cabling? Will he, and other Ministers, ensure that the intelligence agencies update their risk assessments before a final decision is taken?
On 16 December, the Government told the House that an urgent review would be launched into foreign financial interference in UK politics, including by China. Will the Minister now agree to pause any decision on the super-embassy until the Rycroft review has reported? The new super-embassy would also condemn Hongkongers living in Britain to more surveillance, more intimidation, and more bounty hunting. On Saturday, hundreds of Hongkongers are expected to join a protest outside the proposed super-embassy site. Will the Minister, or a colleague, meet the protesters on Saturday outside the embassy, to listen to their concerns first hand?
Matthew Pennycook
I repeat what I said specifically about transnational repression. We will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the UK. The decision that is before Planning Ministers will be taken independent of the rest of Government. Planning Ministers must take decisions following a quasi-judicial process, meaning that they must make decisions fairly, based on evidence and planning laws. I stress again that all material considerations will be taken into account when reaching a decision.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
This is the national Parliament and it deserves answers. I have already asked this question to the Minister for Security, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), and I got no answer at all. It may seem to be a subsidiary point, but it is important. On 14 January 2025, the Secretary of State wrote to the Chinese demanding an answer about whether there will be a perimeter wall so that the public can access the buried Cistercian monastery. With typical arrogance, the Chinese have not even replied. Why is that important? Because if Ministers insisted on what they wrote about last January, there would have to be an entirely new planning permission. The site is near the Tower of London, where so many prisoners of conscience died over the centuries, so—who knows?—maybe the prayers of medieval monks might finally stop this aberration.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook
In general terms, anyone considering extending their lease or acquiring their freehold should obviously consider seeking specialist advice from a solicitor or surveyor, but I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman receives a prompt answer to his question as to whether any of the reforms we are taking forward will give some redress to his constituent.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his answer. I know that he has been taking a lot of time to debate and look at the issue of leasehold, and he can see the cross-party concern on behalf of many constituents up and down the country on this big issue, as well as the support for tackling it. We on the Select Committee are ready to help him by making sure that the legislation is right, fit and proper. I just want to tease out a further answer from the Minister. Can he confirm for the House that he is still on track to ensure that we end the issue of leasehold and commonhold by the end of this Parliament?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman has written to me about that issue and he has, if I may politely say, generated a huge number of questions on it. We have met about it on one occasion, I think, and I am more than happy to have another conversation with him to try to get to the root of his concerns.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Leaseholders, like renters and prospective homeowners, have been made big promises by this Government. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of botched local government reorganisation, cuts to the budgets of two thirds of England’s local authorities, delays to elections and the wholesale abolition of housing and planning authorities in England’s shires on the delivery of those promises? This is just another promise that the Government are not going to deliver, is it not?
Matthew Pennycook
Forgive me—I do not know whether the shadow Minister has come in on the wrong question—but I cannot see how local government reorganisation will, in any shape or form, influence in any way our ambitious leasehold and commonhold reform agenda.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Fully 5 million leaseholders were plunged into the dark before Christmas and thousands report feeling angry and abandoned. Why, then, are the Government choosing to delay their ending of the feudal leasehold system? Will they go further and follow the calls from Lib Dems and others to regulate property agents and to cap extortionate service charges?
Matthew Pennycook
We will of course keep the implementation of the Act under continual review, but, as I have said, it allows tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases at the first-tier tribunal, which will make a judgment on whether the increases are fair and meet that market-rate definition. We have, however, made it clear that the Government do not support the introduction of rent controls, including rent stabilisation measures, for the reasons that we debated at some length during the passage of the Bill.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We all know that rent inflation, like all inflation, is caused by over-demand and lack of supply, and we can agree on the need to address problems by building more houses and tackling immigration, but does the Minister agree that the more controls and regulations are imposed on landlords, particularly small landlords, the more they will get out of the rented sector altogether, causing less supply and rent inflation which will hit vulnerable people?
Perran Moon
Meur ras, Mr Speaker. With your good grace, I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of the emergency services, who responded so courageously across Cornwall during and in the wake of one of the worst ever storms to hit the duchy. I also thank the 600,000 people of Cornwall, who heeded pre-storm advice and kept fatalities, mercifully, to a minimum. The loss of one life is too many, but it could have been far worse. Over 1,000 trees are down, and hundreds of thousands of people were plunged into darkness, with no power. I hope that Ministers will create the appropriate forum to discuss the lessons learned from Storm Goretti.
The Secretary of State has confirmed that, because of our unique status, Cornwall will be a single strategic authority for the purposes of devolution. The greatest threat facing the constituents of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle today is the lack of social and truly affordable homes, which is compounded by the 14,000 second homes and 25,000 Airbnbs, leading to an exodus of our young people and a chronic lack of key workers. Given these factors—
Mr Speaker
Order. I gave a lot of leeway at the beginning of the question. I think the Minister will have got the message already.
Matthew Pennycook
I think the thrust of my hon. Friend’s question was about what arrangements can be put in place for Cornwall so that it can better deliver housing and regenerate areas that have been identified by the council. As he will know, strategic place partnerships are reserved for mayoral strategic authorities that bring together more than one council into a combined authority. That said, and not least as a result of hearing representations from my hon. Friends who represent Cornish constituencies, I encourage Homes England to deepen its partnership with Cornwall council and to explore a memorandum of understanding or similar partnership agreement to support its ambitious housing and regeneration plans.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order. We are on topicals, and Members are stretching the questions.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. Again, he will appreciate that, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning system, I cannot comment on individual applications. I am aware of the concerns that have been raised by Members from across the House about holding directions, issued in particular by National Highways. He may be aware of the reforms that we are making to the statutory consultation system as a whole, which are now out to consultation.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for Housing and Planning for visiting Ebbsfleet Garden City in my constituency last week. Does the Minister agree that, with an additional 10,000 homes to be built in Ebbsfleet over the next 10 years, to create great places to live we have got to build schools, medical facilities and green spaces—
Matthew Pennycook
We fully appreciate the importance of finishing Ebbsfleet Central, and while I cannot pre-empt the Department’s business planning, my hon. Friend can be assured that his championing of Ebbsfleet Garden City will ensure that it receives the support it requires through the new—
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Matthew Pennycook
We are ensuring, through the new £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, for example, that the types of homes that need extra grant funding have that flexibility—that will include rural housing.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
What is grey belt, and can the Minister tell us what assessment he has made of the risk it poses to the integrity of the green belt in areas such as mine?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook
I am afraid I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman, as it was the previous Conservative Government—in which he served as a Minister—who lost control of our borders and presided over the complete breakdown of the asylum system. This Government are restoring order to that system, speeding up decision making and reforming the appeals process to cut the asylum backlog and remove those with no right to be here at a much faster rate than the previous Government. Our country has a proud history of providing sanctuary to those fleeing persecution. Genuine asylum seekers who have been granted refugee or humanitarian protection status should be welcomed. The hon. Gentleman would have said the same some years ago, and it is a sign of just how far his party has fallen that he cannot now bring himself to do so.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Despite that answer, it is clear that things are getting worse. Our councils are battling with the cost of this Government’s border failures. The 22% rise in small boat arrivals, combined now with Chagossians arriving in rising numbers, throwing themselves at the mercy of our local authorities as they escape Starmer’s sell-out, is stretching council housing budgets to breaking point. The Government have refused to answer my written questions about what financial support they provide to councils housing asylum seekers and refugees who are granted asylum in their areas. Can the Minister tell the House how much of the proposed rise in council tax is for the cost of the Government’s asylum failures, and will he publish the full costs and support in the interests of transparency?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues. The best way in which local planning authorities can protect themselves from speculative development is to have an up-to-date local development plan in place. He touched on developer contributions; we remain committed to strengthening the existing system to ensure that new developments provide the necessary affordable homes and infrastructure. We will set out further details in due course.
When it comes to the prospective new town that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I gently point out that it was not the Government but the independent, expert new towns taskforce that recommended to the Government that Adlington and 11 other locations in England should be the sites for the next generation of new town. On 28 September, we commenced a strategic environmental assessment to understand the environmental implications of new towns, and that will support final decisions. But no final decisions have yet been taken.
Mr Speaker
Order. I should say that that is the Adlington in Cheshire, not Lancashire.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook
Those house builders have expressed their confidence, and their gratitude for the reforms that the Government have carried out. It is slightly peevish of the right hon. Lady, who stood for election on a manifesto that committed her party to 1.6 million homes, to say that our 1.5 million homes target is unachievable. We quite regularly hear from Conservative Members that we are concreting over every inch of England, but at the same time that we cannot meet our targets. We will meet that target of 1.5 million homes.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Lord knows who the Housing Minister is talking to, because time and again, developers have said that he cannot achieve his target of 1.5 million homes. As he knows, I have severe doubts about his ability to meet such unrealistic housing targets, and I suspect the Opposition will be proven right. However, if he does succeed, the quality of new homes must be maintained. Will he do what the New Homes Quality Board is calling for, and ensure mandatory board membership for developers of all shapes and sizes, and an empowered ombudsman, so that home occupiers are protected?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that question. He is absolutely right that our target of 1.5 million new homes, which is extremely stretching—we have never said anything other than that—does not entail units at any cost. The design and quality of new homes and new places are incredibly important. He rightly cites the new homes code of practice, and we are giving consideration in the round to whether that can be strengthened—for example, whether it needs to be put on a statutory footing. In general, we want to drive up the quality of new homes in the places and communities we are creating.
Matthew Pennycook
I note my hon. Friend’s concerns in relation to the Tees Valley. In general, we are looking to streamline the powers given to development corporations—we took measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to allow them, for example, to shape transport in areas—but if he wants to write to me or Ministers to raise more of the specifics of that case, we would be more than happy to take a look.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Community support is always vital for development, and with 95% of planning applications already decided by officials under delegated powers, it is clear that that democratic voice can be missing. Can the Minister tell the House why, taking that in tandem with the devolution White Paper, which envisages abolishing around 75% of councillors who represent their local residents on planning committees in England, local communities do not deserve more of a say, rather than less, in the planning process?
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government support selective licensing as a tool to tackle the impact of poor housing management on local communities. The general approval that we granted in December gives councils full powers to introduce schemes, regardless of their size. My hon. Friend’s own authority will have heard loud and clear his call for it to consider doing so.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Matthew Pennycook
If the hon. Lady writes to me about the issue, I will certainly respond to her.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook
If I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he pointed to how a variety of arrangements can be put in place under freehold estates; we need to capture that variety across the country. That is one of the challenges in looking at what measures we might bring forward to reduce the prevalence of such arrangements, and we certainly intend to do that.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I do not blame my hon. Friend for trying, but for good reason we established an independent expert advisory panel—the new towns taskforce—to make recommendations to Ministers on the location and delivery of new towns. The taskforce will submit its final report to Ministers in the coming months.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. The newly established Building Safety Regulator is crucial to upholding building safety standards, but I acknowledge that its operation is causing delays in handling applications for some building projects. She will be aware that in February, the Government allocated £2 million to the BSR to accelerate the processing of applications. We are working closely with the regulator to support the plan for improved delivery, and we will continue to keep its performance under review.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The Government’s much-lauded policy of building 1.5 million new sustainable homes has been doomed from the start of this Parliament, and we now have that confirmed, with the Chancellor saying last week that only 1.3 million homes will be delivered by the end of this Parliament. But it is worse than that. Office for Budget Responsibility figures show that only 1.06 million homes will be built in England, which is 500,000 fewer than the Government’s target, and around 200,000 fewer than the last Conservative Government built in the past five years. Will the Minister confirm that the goalposts have moved, and that Labour will not meet its target for housing in this country?
Matthew Pennycook
We have been very clear that we are going to consult on a new decent homes standard that applies to both the social rented and private rented sectors, and I would welcome the right hon. Member’s engagement when that consultation is published.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Despite the announcements referred to earlier, the Building Safety Regulator is now advising applicants to plan for 16 weeks to clear gateway 2. That is holding up a disproportionate number of social homes, including 100 in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), and it is much longer than is required for planning permission. What steps will the Government take to reduce the wait back down to eight weeks, as it was?
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I do not begrudge my hon. Friend his attempt, but he will have to wait for the spending review outcomes to receive an answer to his question.
Matthew Pennycook
Local authorities already have a range of powers to bring empty homes back into use, but I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this specific issue in more detail.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Last month, I was in a field near the East Carr estate in Hull. With the River Humber in the distance, the field lay submerged under water and sat clearly below sea level. Residents told me that the field acts as a barrier between their homes and the water, and they were really worried that the planned development, which is in the Hull local plan, will leave them with flooded homes. Can the Minister reassure me, and residents in Hull and other low-lying communities, that the Government will ensure that the land use framework for determining areas for development will consider flood risk management and the delivery of sustainable drainage systems?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we intend to bring into force this year the provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which is designed to drive up the transparency of service charges so that leaseholders can challenge them more easily if they consider them to be unreasonable. We intend to strengthen the regulation of managing agents, imposing minimum standards in relation to, for example, qualifications. I would say to any managing agent—and I know that Members across the House have been holding them to account—that they should improve their performance in the light of the changes coming forward in the near future.
Matthew Pennycook
I would say to the hon. Gentleman that they already are. There are very strict requirements in place when it comes to the allocation of social housing. As I am sure he knows well, local criteria can be imposed—I am not sure that his council has them in place—in terms of the amount of time someone needs to be resident in an area before they qualify for social rented housing.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Every day, another family contact my office because they are homeless, and they are placed in a hostel, with no functioning kitchen and no private bathroom, miles away from their children’s schools. I am sure that other hon. Members can say the same. What is worse is that the placements cost councils at least three times as much as permanent social homes. So-called affordable homes are of no use to these families at all. At the same time, new homes are being rejected by registered housing providers because the standards are not high enough. What are the Government doing to progress the future homes standard, so that the homes being built are not rejected by registered home providers, who say that the homes are not good enough for them, and will have to be retrofitted?
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I well recognise the situation that my hon. Friend describes, but I also recognise the reluctance of local authorities to take on substandard housing estates that have been built. We have decided to consult this year on options to reduce the prevalence of private management of estates of the kind he describes. We will also, importantly, implement new consumer protections for homeowners on private estates in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
All social housing tenants deserve to live in decent homes, to be treated with fairness and respect and to have their problems quickly resolved. Under the Regulator of Social Housing’s safety and quality standard, housing associations and councils must provide an effective, efficient and timely repair service for their homes, including setting timetables for completion and clearly communicating with residents. As my hon. Friend knows, we will also introduce Awaab’s law and a new decent homes standard to set the minimum quality that social homes must meet.
Building Homes
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on our plan to build the homes our country so desperately needs.
This Labour Government were elected five months ago with a mandate to deliver national renewal. Standing on the steps of Downing Street on 5 July, the Prime Minister made it clear that work on that urgent task would begin immediately, and it did. Within our first month in office, we proposed a bold set of reforms to overhaul a planning system that is faltering on all fronts after a decade of piecemeal and inept tinkering by the Conservative party. Today I confirm to the House that we are delivering the change we promised by publishing an updated national planning policy framework, meeting our commitment to do so before the end of the year, and supporting our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament.
The case for grasping the nettle of planning reform in order significantly to boost housing supply and unleash economic growth is incontrovertible. England is in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis, and as you, Mr Speaker, and every Member of the House will know, its detrimental consequences are now all pervasive: a generation locked out of home ownership; 1.3 million people languishing on social housing waiting lists; millions of low-income households forced into insecure, unaffordable and far too often substandard private rented housing; and, to our shame as a nation, just shy of 160,000 homeless children living right now in temporary accommodation. Our economy and the public services that our constituents rely on are also suffering, because as well as blighting countless lives, the housing crisis is consuming ever larger amounts of public money in the form of a rapidly rising housing benefit bill. It is also hampering economic growth and productivity by reducing labour mobility and undermining the capacity of our great towns and cities to realise their full economic potential.
The Government are under no illusions about the scale of the task before us or the challenges that must be overcome and the pitfalls avoided if we are to succeed. But we are absolutely determined to tackle this crisis head on. The previous Government, of course, took a different view. Not only did they fail to meet, even once, the target of 300,000 homes a year that they set themselves, but in a forlorn attempt to appease their anti-house building Back Benchers, they consciously and deliberately chose to exacerbate the housing crisis by making changes to national planning policy that have contributed to plummeting housing supply. We know that the changes required to start putting things right will be uncomfortable for some. We know we will face resistance from vested interests. But this Labour Government will not duck the hard choices that must be confronted to tackle the housing crisis, because the alternative is a future in which a decent, safe, secure and affordable home is a privilege enjoyed only by some, rather than being the birthright of all working people.
Let me turn to the changes that we are making to the framework. We received more than 10,000 responses to our consultation, alongside which my officials and I have held extensive engagement with private house builders, affordable housing providers, local authorities and other organisations from the sector. The views shared with us have been invaluable in helping to refine our initial proposals so that we are able to introduce an effective package of reforms.
Before I set out a number of important areas in which we have made changes, let me touch briefly on some of the proposals that we intend to implement unamended. First, we have reversed the anti-supply changes introduced by the last Government almost exactly a year ago. From the abandonment of mandatory housing targets to the softening of land supply and delivery test provisions, the policies that gave local authorities the freedom to plan for less housing than their nominal targets implied are no more. Secondly, we have made explicit the importance of growth supporting development, from labs to data centres, to supply chains and logistics. In the same vein, we have made clear that the default position for renewable energy deployment should be yes. Thirdly, we strongly promoted mixed tenure development, reflecting robust evidence that attests to the fact that such developments build out faster and create diverse communities. Fourthly, we have made a series of changes to bolster affordable housing delivery and enable local authorities to determine the right mix of affordable housing for their communities. That will support our commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation.
There are four important areas where we have refined our proposals, and I will turn first to housing targets. As we made clear when launching the consultation in July, restoring a mandatory standard method for assessing housing needs is insufficient if the method itself is not up to the job. As the House will know, we proposed a bold change, increasing the total annual national target from 300,000 to 370,000, ending the reliance on decade-old population projections, and removing the arbitrary 35% urban uplift that resulted in a skewed national distribution that was disproportionately focused on London to the detriment of the rest of the country. We fully intend to maintain the level of ambition outlined in July, but we heard through the consultation a clear view that we should do more to target housing growth in those places where affordability pressures are most acute. We have therefore made the method more responsive to demand, redistributing housing targets towards those places where housing is least affordable, while maintaining the overall target envelope.
Next, let me turn to our reforms to the green belt. As the House knows, ours is a brownfield-first approach to development. As a result of a number of targeted changes we are making to the framework, and our proposals for a brownfield passport, we are prioritising and fast-tracking building on previously developed urban land wherever possible, but we know that there are simply not enough sites on brownfield land registers to deliver the volume of homes that the country needs each year, let alone enough that are viable and in the right location.
In the summer, we proposed that local authorities take a sequential approach to releasing land to meet their housing need: brownfield first, followed by low-quality land in the green belt and only then higher-performing land. To identify low-performing sites we proposed a definition of grey-belt land that reflected the fact that there are areas currently designated as green belt that contribute little by way of aesthetic, public access or ecological value. That approach received broad support through the consultation, but a strong desire was expressed to limit the room for subjectivity. We have therefore set out a clearer description of how to assess whether land meets the definition of grey belt, and we will be providing further guidance to local authorities in the new year to support them with green-belt reviews.
At the centre of our green-belt reforms lies our golden rules, which are designed to make sure that where green-belt land is released, the public derives real benefit from development on it, including more affordable housing to meet local need. In the consultation, we proposed a flat 50% affordable housing target, but we recognise that because land values vary across the country, the limited use of viability assessments should be permitted. Through the consultation, we have recognised that that approach risked uncertainty. If flexibility was needed in some parts of the country because land values were lower, the precise amount of affordable housing to be secured would become a protracted site-by-site negotiation. If a local authority did not allow flexibility, there would be a risk that sites were rendered unviable, with the result that no houses, affordable or otherwise, would get built.
Our final policy therefore takes a different approach to managing variation in land values. Rather than a single 50% target, we are introducing a 15 percentage point premium on top of targets set in local plans, up to a maximum of 50%. Because that means the target itself will be responsive to local circumstances, we will be restricting the ability for site-specific viability assessments until such time as we have amended viability guidance in the spring of next year. By prioritising pragmatism over purity, the golden rules we are putting in place today will give communities the confidence that they will be met and will maximise the number of affordable homes delivered across the country.
Another area where we have made changes is to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The presumption sits at the heart of the national planning policy framework and means that where a local authority has under-delivered or an up-to-date local plan is not in place, the balance of decision making is tilted in favour of approval. We are determined to ensure that where the presumption applies, it will have real teeth. At the same time, we are clear that development consented through it must be consistent with the clear requirements in national policy relating to sustainability, density, design and the provision of affordable homes. The changes we have made deliver on both those fronts.
Finally, in the consultation we sought views on how our changes apply to local authorities at an advanced stage of plan making. Our proposed transitional arrangements aim to strike a balance between maintaining the progress of plans at more advanced stages of preparation, while maximising proactive planning for the homes our communities need. The core of our proposal—that we only hold back a draft plan where there is a significant gap between the current proposed housing requirement and the new housing target—was well supported. However, we are making three changes.
First, we have taken on board concerns that the transitional period was too tight, so we will provide local planning authorities with an extra two months to progress their plans, extending the transitional period from one month to three. Secondly, and again responding to an ask we heard repeatedly from councils, the transitional arrangements will apply where the draft housing requirement in the plan meets at least 80% of local housing need, rather than the numerical 200 homes threshold we originally proposed. In those instances, the plan will not be held back. Thirdly, where plans are adopted under these arrangements, and where there are existing plans based on the old targets due to run for a number of years yet, we want to see the level of ambition raised sooner rather than later. As a result, from 1 July 2026, we will expect authorities with plans adopted under the old standard method to provide an extra year’s worth of homes in their housing pipeline, helping to accelerate the delivery of new homes.
We recognise that we are asking much from many local authorities, and we are determined to support local leaders trying in good faith to deliver homes for their communities. That is why across dedicated local plan funding, the planning capacity and capability support announced at the Budget and income from raised fees, we will be injecting more than £100 million into the system in the coming year.
We are confident that the revised framework that we are introducing today will support significantly higher rates of house building and sustained economic growth. We have listened carefully to the views expressed in the consultation and adjusted several areas of policy accordingly; now it is for others to do their part. Developers must turn supportive words into action, bringing forward new sites and building them out at pace. Local authorities must embrace the challenge of higher targets and push for more and better development in their areas.
We have moved fast. We have not held back. We have not shied away from controversial decisions, or wavered in the face of those who have sought to chip away at our resolve. With focus and determination, we have pushed on to ensure that we are putting in place a planning system geared toward meeting housing need in full and unleashing economic growth. Change will take time as homes are not built overnight and our dire inheritance means that the climb out of the trough we are in will be a steep one, but by implementing this revised framework today, we have taken another decisive step toward a future in which everyone will enjoy a decent, safe, secure and affordable home in which to live.
Planning Committees: Reform
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He has huge expertise in this area from his time as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and he is absolutely right. We have been clear that the best way for local communities to shape the decisions about what to build, where, is through local plans. It is appalling that we have inherited a situation in which less than a third of places are covered by up-to-date local plans. We need to boost that, and—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) will allow me, what we are looking at, in the changes that we are consulting on, in a soft form, through the working paper, is how we can ensure that planning committees make decisions on the most significant and controversial applications, including those that are not in line with local plans, rather than spending their time poring over decisions that have been made in an allocation framework through the local plan process. Hon. Members will see in the working paper that one of our proposals, for a national scheme for delegation, would require all applications that are in accordance with the development plan to be determined by officers. That will free up committees to focus on controversial development that is out of step with the local plan that elected members and officers put forward after consultation with their communities.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
As there are 8.5 million people in England with unmet housing need, the Liberal Democrats welcome the plans for further house building. For us, the priority has to be the delivery of social homes. We need 150,000 annually, and we need housing that local people can genuinely afford. On the topic of social housing, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Let us be clear: when Whitehall takes planning decisions out of the hands of local councillors, it is taking decisions out of the hands of local people. That is undemocratic, and we would reverse that. Instead, Government should unblock the thousands of permitted homes that are not being built—for example, through “use it or lose it” permissions, by having more than just one extra planning officer per local authority, and by allowing councils to set their fees and to ringfence that income for planning departments. Will the Minister allow councils to set their application fees, and ensure that that funding is ringfenced for planning departments?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right about some of the bad decisions that were made in the past. I am a keen student of history and am well aware of some of them, and we definitely take them into account when making our own decisions. On what he said about seizing power from the centre, this is absolutely nothing of the sort. We are proposing a national scheme of delegation to provide consistency in how councils make these important decisions. That involves a national scheme of delegation, which balances vital local democratic oversight with ensuring that planning committees operate as effectively as possible. In instances where local councillors are not making the decisions and applications can be dealt with by trained local planning officers—not by me, or by officials in Whitehall—we think that is the right thing to do, in order to streamline the delivery of essential housing in parts of the country that are crying out for those homes.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
There is nothing more controversial than Governments seeking to bypass local democracy. I saw that with the desire of the last Government to bypass local democracy by imposing a special development order on RAF Scampton, and I see it now with the many applications to build solar farms that are ostensibly national infrastructure projects. The present planning system was largely created by the Labour Government, and has stood the test of time. Can the Minister assure me that whatever he decides finally, we will not degrade local democracy? It is essential that people join a council, and join a planning committee, knowing that they have real powers and are not under the cosh of Government, or plans imposed by Government.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Speaking as—until recently—the leader of a district council and a long-term member of our planning committee, I do not recognise the issues that the Minister is citing. A lot of the things he says relate to the absence of a local plan. I fully agree with that. My council has just put in place a new local plan, which is hopefully being approved right now. A better way to get more affordable housing would be to look at the way local authorities can finance the building of those houses and fix that. It would be better to allow local authorities to charge appropriate amounts to cover the costs of the planning, so that they can get the necessary planning officers, and far better to look at how many councils already do mandatory training. I hear from Liberal Democrat colleagues that they all had to do mandatory training, as I did in my council, so that is in place. I would like to see a list of how many councils do not do that. We also need to make water companies statutory consultees so that we do not hit flooding problems. Those changes will help. The problem is not in the planning process. More than 1 million applications have been allowed but not built—
Matthew Pennycook
Indeed, Mr Speaker, and I get a strong sense that an Adjournment debate application will be coming your way on several of those issues. Let me address a number of them. The hon. Gentleman says that training is in place in most parts of the country, in which case local authorities should have no problem with mandatory training being requested by the centre, and only a small number of authorities—if it is a small number—would have to put such training in place.
The hon. Gentleman makes points on capacity and planning fees. I hope he will have seen in the recent consultation on proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework that the Government set out proposed changes to planning application fees and also sought views on the localisation of such fees.
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I would encourage him to read the working paper. Most planning committees make well considered and fair decisions most of the time, but we know that there is practice out there of planning committees making decisions that are not in accordance with material planning considerations, repeatedly revisiting and re-litigating the planning answers. We have to look at how we can streamline that process, and I encourage him to engage with that work.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman will know that we are leaving in place the protections on neighbourhood planning. He is mistaken if he is suggesting that we are skewing development towards rural areas. The proposed standard method, which we consulted on, significantly boosts expectations across city regions. Indeed, across mayoral combined authority areas, it would see targets grow by more than 30%. Local plans are the best way for communities to control development in their areas. I am sure that he will agree that Hinckley and Bosworth borough council needs an up-to-date local plan in place. Perhaps he can work with me to ensure that that is the case.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Ministers briefed the media over a week ago about plans for local government reorganisation and devolution. When do the Government plan to set them before the House, so that Members representing areas across the country can take a view?
Council Tax
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Let me take them in turn. The Government are committed to a fair funding settlement for local government. We will set out further details in the usual way in the upcoming local government finance settlement, which will be presented to Parliament.
On the £2.4 billion figure, I am afraid that we simply do not recognise it. I assume that the hon. Gentleman, in his calculations, failed to take account of the over £300 million raised from business rates and £300 million in additional new houses coming along. Yes, it is right that £1.8 billion will be raised through council tax in 2025-26, but, as I made clear, that is because the Government are clear that we are maintaining the previous Government’s policy on council tax, in line with the OBR forecast made in March 2024.
The question for the Opposition is: are they saying that the cap should be abolished, as the Conservative Local Government Association group’s “Rebuilding the Road to Victory” document called for all caps to be removed, or are they saying that the limit should be reduced, which would be contrary to the policy in place when the now Leader of the Opposition was the local government Minister?
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
It is worth remembering why a number of our local authorities are facing this decision and the tight financial situation: the funding crisis over the past 14 years, forcing a number of local authorities to make those difficult decisions. A number of our areas are facing major in-year cost pressures from things such as temporary accommodation and special educational needs and disabilities provision. Does the Minister agree that we need to accelerate the house building plan in order to get local authorities back on a level playing field, so that our local residents do not see that cost increase in their council tax bills?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that question. She is absolutely right; after 14 years of the previous Government’s record in office, local government is on its knees. We have a system on the verge of collapse. We had multiple years when in-year spending pressures were ignored. The headroom that we have provided through the Budget—more than £4 billion in new local government funding, which I referenced earlier—will allow us to start to turn that system around and to get ahead of some of the challenges we are facing, whether the pressures on adult social care, children’s services or homelessness costs as a result of temporary accommodation. That is why our house building programme—within my specific remit of responsibility—and, in particular, the increase in social and affordable housing supply that we are committed to, is so important.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned that people are simply paying more council tax for fewer services. That is quite clearly the result of Conservative tax cuts and their failure to tackle social care. As a former council leader, I know that the burden on councils has increased to such an extent that they are forced to make impossible choices. The burden and the costs that councils of all colours have to shoulder as a result of the Conservative Government’s policies must be reviewed. Will the Minister ensure that councils do not have to close libraries, cut bus routes and reduce road repairs in order to meet the growing demands of the most vulnerable members of our community? Despite the announcement in the Budget, will the Minister recognise the LGA analysis that councils face a £6.9 billion shortfall because of inflation, increased wage demands and demand pressures on local services?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and we still have not had an answer: we do not know the Opposition’s position on thresholds. [Interruption.] We are in government, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) chunters from a sedentary position, and we have confirmed that when it comes to thresholds, we intend to maintain the position as it was under the previous Government, and as baked into the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast for the spending period. The Opposition really do have to answer this question: are they saying that the thresholds should be removed or increased, or are they saying that they should be reduced and core services cut?
Mr Speaker
Unfortunately, it is not for the Opposition to answer the questions—they are in opposition.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Chancellor and the International Monetary Fund are known to favour ending council tax and replacing it with a wider property tax. The Welsh Labour Government tried to revalue all the properties in Wales for council tax purposes. Can the Government rule out doing either of those things?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook
The national planning policy framework is very clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, including flood plains. We consulted in the national planning policy framework consultation and sought views on how the planning system can more effectively manage flood risk. As I say, my Department is analysing responses, with a view to publishing a Government response before the end of the year.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook
I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the changes to the national planning policy framework rather than to social housing specifically. We have made those changes proposed to the standard method. They will give London a realistic, but achievable, new target. [Interruption.] Let me explain why. The way that the previous Government applied the urban uplift unfairly to London gave it an unrealistic, fantastical target that it could not meet. We will ensure that we are pushing the mayor on a realistic, but achievable one.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
We share the ambition of seeing a big increase in the supply of housing, and of social housing in particular. Given that there are around 1.4 million new homes with planning consent already granted in this country, what process led the Government to prioritising the removal of green-belt protections rather than building the homes for which our councils have already given consent?
Matthew Pennycook
We are committed to working with councils, including with the signatories of the recent report on securing the future of council housing, to address the many challenges they are facing, including in connection with the housing revenue account headroom as many of them are feeling lots of pressure on that front. As a first step, we have given councils more flexibility to increase the delivery of council homes using right-to-buy receipts, and allocated an additional £450 million to councils to secure homes for families at risk of homelessness. We will set out plans at the next fiscal event to give councils and housing associations the rent stability they need to borrow and invest in new and existing homes.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Recent freedom of information requests by the Liberal Democrats found that four out of five councils that responded had someone on their social housing waiting list for more than a decade, and this shocking statistic comes all while the stocks of social housing have been reducing. Will the Minister consider reforming the land conservation Act, so that local councils can buy land at current value rather than hope value and get on with delivering the social housing that we so desperately need?
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I am deeply saddened to hear of the plight of Tracy and her children. Our renters’ rights Bill will protect tenants from arbitrary eviction and empower them to challenge unreasonable within-tenancy rent rises. I can assure my hon. Friend that Tracy and others facing similar insecurity will not have long to wait for that Bill’s introduction.
Matthew Pennycook
The Government are committed to ensuring that development protects and provides—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say to the Father of the House that that is not really the done thing? He should know that better than anybody.
Matthew Pennycook
As I was saying, the Government are committed to ensuring that development both protects and provides for green space. I am more than happy to discuss the particular challenges that my hon. Friend faces in her part of the country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Soaring service charges are placing an intolerable financial strain on leaseholders and those with shared ownership across the country. Among the main drivers of the eye-watering demands with which many have been served over recent months are staggering rises in buildings insurance premiums and the passing on of significant costs relating to the functioning of the new building safety regime. Given that many leaseholders are being pushed to the very limits of what they can afford, do the Government now accept that the service charge transparency provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill—and pleading with freeholders to take a temperate approach—are not enough, and that Ministers should explore with urgency what further measures could be included to protect leaseholders better from unreasonable charges and give them more control over their buildings?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
In resisting Labour’s efforts to strengthen the Renters (Reform) Bill, Ministers have repeatedly argued that the legislation as drafted strikes precisely the right balance between the interests of tenants and those of landlords, yet by watering down protections for renters and further delaying the long-overdue abolition of section 21 evictions, the package of draft Government amendments to the Bill that we saw last week will tilt the playing field decisively back towards the landlord interest. Are we to believe that the Government have honestly decided, at the 11th hour, that it is landlords who need more rights and powers, or is this not simply a crude attempt to manage an increasingly fractious Tory party at a shameful cost to hard-pressed private tenants?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is essential that we boost the number of new homes built each year for private sale, but just as important is the need to significantly increase the supply of new affordable homes to buy and rent. The National Audit Office has confirmed that the Government’s target for its flagship 2016 to 2023 affordable homes programme was 250,000 starts by March 2023. Can the Secretary of State explain how on earth the public can trust this Government to address the housing affordability crisis when recent figures reveal that they have failed to deliver on their share of that target outside London?
Nutrient Neutrality: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Oh, sorry. It has taken so long, I thought we must have moved on to Back Benchers. I call the shadow Minister.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a result of the Government’s failure over many years to make decisive progress in tackling the main sources of problem nutrients, namely farming and waste water treatment works, the requirements for nutrient neutrality in sensitive river catchments present a challenge to securing planning permission for new housing development. It is therefore right in Labour’s view that the operation of the rules around nutrient neutrality is reviewed with a view to addressing problematic delays and increasing the pace at which homes can be delivered in these areas.
However, we have serious concerns about the approach that the Government have decided on. Not only does it involve disapplying the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, but it does not legally secure the additional funding pledges to deliver nutrient management programmes and does not provide for a legal mechanism to ensure that housing developers contribute towards mitigation.
I put the following questions to the Minister: what advice did the Government receive from Natural England about potential reform of the laws around nutrient neutrality? Did it offer a view on the Government’s proposed approach? Given the amount of mitigation currently available in the pipeline, which is estimated at allowing for approximately 72,000 homes, did the Government consider an approach based on the habitat regulations assessment derogation and a revised credit mitigation system to front-load permissions and provide for future compensatory schemes? If so, why did they dismiss that option? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of their proposed approach on the nascent market in mitigation credits, and investor confidence in nature markets more generally? Why on earth do Ministers believe developers will voluntarily contribute to mitigation under the proposed approach?
Finally, the Government claim their approach will see 100,000 planning permissions expedited between now and 2030. Given that house building activity is falling sharply and the pipeline for future development is being squeezed—not least as a result of housing and planning policy decisions made by this Conservative Government—what assessment has the Department made of the number of permissions that its disruptive approach will unlock within the first 12 months of its operation?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is now over four years since the Conservatives promised to ban section 21 no-fault evictions. It needs strengthening, but the Government finally published a Renters (Reform) Bill in May this year. Given the desperate situation that many renters are currently facing, and the urgent need to provide them with greater security and better rights, why have the Government not lifted a finger to progress that legislation in the weeks since it was published?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
In an Opposition Day Debate that took place before the recess, the Minister claimed that there has been no Government U-turn on leasehold reform. She also refused to commit to the fundamental and comprehensive reform package that leaseholders had been led to expect was forthcoming. Can she give the House and the country a straight answer today: will the Government legislate to implement all of the Law Commission’s recommendations on enfranchisement, commonhold and the right to manage before the end of this Parliament—yes or no?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
They will only ever deal with a fraction of the problem at best, but the developer remediation contract and the forthcoming responsible actors scheme are welcome. Yet, as things stand, all we know is that the scheme will initially focus on sufficiently profitable major housebuilders and large developers, and it may then expand over time to cover others. Blameless leaseholders trapped in unsafe buildings deserve far greater clarity now as to whether or not the contract and the scheme may eventually cover their building. Will the Government give them that certainty by committing today to publishing a full list of all developers that the Department believes are eligible and should therefore ultimately participate or face the consequences—yes or no?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
May I once again welcome the new Minister to her place?
Over a quarter of a million people in rural England are on a housing waiting list, yet the Government are on course to miss even the paltry target of 13,000 new rural affordable homes set out in the current five-year affordable homes programme. At the same time, the steady erosion of our country’s social housing stock continues apace, with data released by the Department only last month making it clear that the Government presided over the net loss of 14,110 social homes last year. Is it simply not the case that, when it comes to providing rural and urban communities with the genuinely affordable rented homes they need, Ministers are failing woefully?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker.
The Government’s decision to signal the end of enforceable local house building targets has already resulted in a number of local authorities pausing work on their local plans. I have a simple question for the Minister: has her Department carried out any analysis or assessment of the impact on overall housing supply of the changes to national planning policy outlined in the national planning policy framework consultation that is now under way?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is almost five and a half years since the horror of Grenfell, yet the building safety crisis remains unresolved for the vast majority of affected leaseholders. Will the Secretary of State tell the House when the overdue developer remediation contract will be published? When will Ministers finally resolve the problems relating to mortgages and buildings insurance, and when will those leaseholders who are currently excluded from protections learn whether their Government intend to help or abandon them?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Last week Government sources told The Times that Ministers were planning to renege on their commitment to abolish section 21 no-fault evictions, only for the Prime Minister to stand up days later and deny that that was the case. Private renters need long-term security and better rights and conditions now, not chaotic mixed messaging from a Government in disarray. Can the Secretary of State give the House a cast-iron guarantee from the Dispatch Box today that if the Government are still standing come the time, a renters’ reform Bill will be introduced in the next parliamentary Session?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Opposition have repeatedly criticised the Government’s First Homes scheme on the grounds that, by top-slicing section 106 funding, it drastically reduces the number of social and affordable rented homes that are being built, but we also have concerns that the scheme is failing in practice to help large numbers of first-time buyers across the country. Given that the new build premium is continuing to rise, and given that UK house price index data suggest that average house prices in England have increased by 18% since the scheme was first consulted on, can the Minister tell us in how many local authority areas the discount on those homes has not already been entirely eroded?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for his response. He will, though, I know, be conscious of the additional strain that—[Inaudible.]
Mr Speaker
I think that unfortunately I am not going to ask the Secretary of State to comment on that.
Clean Growth Strategy
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
If we had succinct questions, we might get succinct answers. “No” would have been helpful.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The strategy rightly supports the continuing roll-out of district heating across the country. May I impress on the Minister the real risk that the environmental benefits of the technology will be overshadowed by systemic problems in the industry? There are scores of such schemes in my constituency and many more in the pipeline. In each and every case, constituents are convinced that they are not getting a fair deal on tariff pricing, standing charges, transparency on consumption and billing, and system performance. The situation cries out for effective statutory regulation. As the Minister takes the strategy forward, will she bear that issue in mind, so that we can win the confidence of consumers as the industry expands?
Point of Order
Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Lindsay Hoyle
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At business questions earlier today, I pressed the Leader of the House for a full debate on the Government’s proposal to allow Transport for London to run all the local metro train services in our capital, including those operated by Southeastern in my constituency. However, I and many other hon. Members representing London constituencies were amazed to learn of this announcement and of the Secretary of State for Transport’s supporting statement, not in this House but in an online article that appeared this morning on the website of the Evening Standard. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) was obviously aware of it, because he was at a press event with the Secretary of State, but the Leader of the House did not seem to be aware of what had taken place. Can you assure me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Secretary of State has at least had the courtesy to inform the House through your good offices of this welcome proposal, which will have serious implications, not least financial ones, for London?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there has been no written statement, and that I was not aware of this. He has certainly got his point on the record, however. As he knows, the Chair frowns upon statements being made outside the House before they have been made in the House. I hope that the Government will take on board the fact that this House is the place where statements should be made first.