House Building: London

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Munira Wilson

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Matthew Pennycook]

I recognise my right hon. Friend’s point. I cannot comment on specific applications, but it is important that I emphasise that applicants will be expected in the first instance to seek grant to maintain or increase the level of affordable housing in existing section 106 agreements. Only where that has been fully explored with the GLA, and has been demonstrated not to be possible, can schemes be renegotiated via a deed of variation with the aim of delivering at least the relevant level of affordable housing established in the new planning route, and on the same terms.

We are providing the mayor with new planning powers that expand his ability to intervene directly in applications of potential strategic importance in order to support housing delivery and maximise densities. Those powers are set out the policy statement that we published on 23 October. In response to the concerns raised around those specific powers, I think Londoners would expect, with the scale and severity of the housing crisis we have in our capital, the mayor to do everything he possibly can to ensure homes are not being ruled out without good reason on sites, and to ensure that sites are coming forward with appropriate density.

[Munira Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way briefly, but it will be the final intervention that I accept.

[Munira Wilson]

Does the Minister accept that sometimes the mayor’s intervening slows down development? Earlier, I cited the example of Stag brewery in Mortlake. That development of 1,000 units would have started years ago, but thanks to the mayor calling it in, it was slowed down and it has still not been built.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not going to comment on the use of the mayor’s planning powers in specific instances. We think these additional expanded powers are a sensible response to the crisis in house building that London faces.

Finally, we are providing £322 million of funding to establish a City Hall developer investment fund. Building on the success of the mayor’s land fund, which has already delivered 8,000 homes five years ahead of schedule, this new fund will allow the mayor to take a direct, interventionist role in unlocking thousands of homes, driving regeneration and creating thriving communities.

It is also worth noting that alongside the implementation of this package of support, the Government intend to clarify the use of section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 so that an application under the section to vary a condition of a planning permission should no longer be used as an alternative means of reconsidering fundamental questions of scheme viability or planning obligations.

In the time available to me I am not going to be able to respond to all the points that have been raised. There have been a number of very good points. I could speak, for example, about what more can be done on TfL land. I think it is worth noting that Places for London is on site, constructing nearly 5,000 homes, 56% of which are affordable. It has already delivered 1,600, but there is definitely more we can do on TfL land around train stations. There is more that the Government are doing on the release of public sector land. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) about that in particular. I can assure hon. Members that our new social and affordable housing fund will leave a role for acquisitions to be funded.

We know that there is no single simple solution to the development crisis that London is facing. Action to address the acute viability challenges facing residential development in the capital is a necessary intervention, but it is not sufficient. We know that a revival of house building in the capital is dependent on other factors, including increased demand for private for-sale homes, but taken alongside the reforms we are making to the Building Safety Regulator and the significant grant funding we are allocating to London for land, infrastructure and affordable housing, this time-limited package will give house building in London a shot in the arm, and the Government look forward to working with the mayor and the GLA to implement the package and kick-start house building in our capital.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Munira Wilson

Report stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Liberal Democrat spokesman tempts me to stray beyond the specific measures in the Bill and how that power can be used. We are clear and have recently issued guidance about how that power can be used.

That leads me helpfully to amendments 68, 88 and 89, which would expand the LURA power in question. Sympathetic as I am to the more frequent removal of hope value from the assessment of compensation, the use of the relevant power must be proportionate and justified in the public interest so that it does not fall foul of article 1 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights. Seeking to expand the use of the power beyond that test and apply it much more widely is problematic for that reason. I cannot accept the amendments on that basis.

However, I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) that use of the direction power can be sought on mixed use schemes that include sports or recreational uses, but within those schemes there must be education provision, health provision or affordable housing provision to justify the use of the power in the public interest. On that specific point, and to respond to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I confirm that clause 104 does not extend the LURA power to other uses or social objectives; it merely enables parish and town councils to make use of the existing power.

[Munira Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not give away any more. I want to bring our remarks to a close because, as hon. Members are aware, there is a statement to follow our proceedings on the Bill.

I turn to new clause 85, which would change the lost payments regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973. To be clear, lost payments are an amount of compensation paid to eligible claimants to reflect and recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused by CPOs. They are an additional payment to compensation claimable under the Land Compensation Act 1961 for the market value of land or property taken by compulsory purchase. The new clause would allow claimants to claim compensation for the market value of their interests twice, and result in over-compensation being paid. That would be disproportionate. It would also run counter to the established, overriding principle of equivalence in compensation law where a person subject to compulsory purchase should be left no better or worse off in financial terms after an acquisition than they were before. On that basis, we cannot accept the new clause.

I will touch briefly on new clause 42 in the name of the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), regarding loss payments. It would introduce a change to the loss payment compensation regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973, increasing the amount that occupiers of buildings or land subject to a CPO would be entitled to and placing them on an equal footing with owners. As we discussed at some length in Committee, the Bill already achieves in part what the hon. Gentleman is seeking in the new clause as it increases the loss payment compensation due to occupiers of buildings and land.

The purpose of loss payments is to reflect the inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase. It is occupiers, rather than investor-owners, who bear the greater burden in that respect: they are the ones who will need to close or relocate their businesses. Loss payments are a separate head of claim from compensation paid for land taken under compulsory purchase. The Bill rebalances loss payment compensation to allow occupiers to claim a higher amount and landowners to claim a lower amount. We believe that the rebalancing of loss payment compensation in favour of occupiers is the right approach and will benefit, for example, groups such as tenant farmers, for which Opposition Members have made a case in this afternoon’s debate. On that basis, I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment and I request that the hon. Member does not press it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Munira Wilson

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

In the London borough of Richmond we desperately need more social homes, but we are really short of sites we can build on. I have long run a campaign for the disused Teddington police station to be turned into a GP surgery and social homes, but understandably the Met wants top dollar to fund its services. Will the Secretary of State look at ways to incentivise public bodies to sell assets below market value for community benefit?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Member will forgive me, but I am not going to comment on the specifics of the case she raises. We are giving serious consideration to how we better utilise public land in general, particularly in areas with constrained land allocation such as her own.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Munira Wilson

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

When the Secretary of State looks at the rules around local authority compulsory purchase orders, and at removing hope value for house building purposes, will she look at having the same rules for playing fields that local authorities want to keep as playing fields and not build on? That would allow sites such as Udney park playing field in my constituency, which has lain derelict for a decade under private ownership, to be brought into community use again.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It sounds as if the hon. Lady has a response for the NPPF consultation that is in development. I welcome her views on playing fields. On CPOs, there is a discretionary power to disapply section 17 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 in relation to hope value. We need to ensure that that is brought into force; then we will take further steps to reform CPOs, as outlined in our manifesto.