Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

Nesil Caliskan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[John Grady]

rose—

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

rose—

[Ellie Chowns]

I am happy to take as many interventions as hon. Members want to make, but I am concerned about the timing, Mrs Hobhouse.

[Ellie Chowns]

If Members feel that they have additional things to raise, they should feel free to speak.

[Nesil Caliskan]

I was rising to make my speech, Mrs Hobhouse, not to intervene; I apologise. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.

A crucial component of the ability to deliver homes across the country will be to deliver transport and other infrastructure projects. The measures in the Bill go some way towards speeding up the statutory processes of consultation in the delivery of infrastructure projects. As I outlined in my speech on Second Reading, the pre-consultation period for infrastructure projects is a major cause of delay for infrastructure being delivered. To echo the Minister’s remarks, the status quo in this country is simply not working to speed up the process.

As matters stand, applicants operate in what I describe as a hyper-risk-averse context. Delays caused to pre-application contribute not only to the length of time that it takes for infrastructure to be delivered, but to the cost. Other Members rightly identified the lower Thames crossing, which impacts my constituency; 2,000 pages and £800 million spent are figures that have served absolutely no one, and certainly not the taxpayer.

[Lewis Cocking]

Does the hon. Lady not agree that getting rid of the pre-planning application consultation completely will disenfranchise residents and constituents from engaging with the process? Sometimes that process can solve some of the issues down the line. I understand that it takes too long—I agree with and have strong sympathy for her points—but should we not be able to speed it up while allowing that engagement to take place?

[Nesil Caliskan]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I do not think that the change would prevent applicants from continuing to engage with residents and elected Members. All it would do is avoid putting additional onus on a process that is costing the taxpayer a huge amount of money.

I will go further. Having spoken to members of our community, I have heard over and over again that there is consultation fatigue with the endless stream of negotiations. Before we even get to a statutory consultation period, we have had many years of something that has been proposed with no statutory framework. This proposal has the good intention of a material change that will shorten the consultation period.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way as she makes an interesting and good speech based on her expertise in local government. I pay tribute to her for that. She outlined how there can be delays in pre-application. Does she not accept that that very length of time shows that there are issues to be resolved? Does she understand why some people are concerned that the proposals to remove that pre-application process place the onus on applicants to conduct the consultation, and without any safeguards? Potentially, residents and residents groups, constituents and local organisations, such as wildlife trusts will go without their genuine concerns being met by a system that now puts an onus on the people who want planning applications to go ahead.

[Nesil Caliskan]

I do not accept that, because the statutory consultation period will still be in place and thresholds will still have to be met. The reality is that, as things stand, the pre-consultation period has become a beast in itself, which I do not believe is serving our communities. Years and years of endless consultations, including pre-consultations and pre-application consultations, is not true engagement with communities. That part of the process has become a period in which the applicants just try to derisk their approach to crucial infrastructure in this country, which will see land unlocked so that homes can be built.

[Ellie Chowns]

I do not think that anybody wants “years and years” of contest, but is it impossible to retain the requirement for a degree of pre-application consultation—perhaps within a shorter timescale or with a more tightly drawn set of consultees—so that issues can be dealt with informally and in advance, to prevent more problems arising further down the line? To sweep everything away seems excessive.

[Nesil Caliskan]

Manifestly, we do not want years of delay before the delivery of infrastructure, but the truth is that that is exactly what is happening in this country. There are years and years of delay, in part because of the pre-application consultation period.

There is nothing preventing applicants and local authorities, or communities and organisations, from working pre-application on the sort of engagement that the hon. Member is referring to, but including it in the proposals in this way would heighten the legal risk for applicants, making them very resistant to submitting their application formally before going through every single possible step. As hon. Members have highlighted, there is a very long list of examples where the status quo has created a huge burden, made the processes incredibly long and cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money. I think I recall the Minister saying that the proposed amendment would save up to about 12 months and £1 billion, which could be the difference between an infrastructure project being viable or not being viable. Infrastructure projects being viable will mean the land value will increase, and the potential for land to be unlocked and millions of homes to be built across the country will be realised.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

I am intervening on a different but still very much related point. What is also really important for me is that we remain attractive as a country to foreign investors and others who are looking to invest here, including in the infrastructure that enables our country to grow and creates jobs. It is important that investors want to come and invest here. The longer the process or the greater the burden, the less likely they are to invest here, and we will lose out to other places across the globe. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to tackle that issue?

[Nesil Caliskan]

I am so glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend, because that was precisely the point I was going to make and he has made it incredibly well. If we are serious about building homes across the country and about seeing the growth that investment in infrastructure, not least in transport infrastructure, will deliver, we absolutely have to give industry certainty. We have to be able to say to the public, “This will happen with speed.” The amendment seeks to deliver that and it is absolutely in line with the aspiration to speed up the planning process in this country, which at the moment is holding back investment, and to unlock land for development and infrastructure investment.

[David Simmonds]

I have a lot of sympathy with the comments made by the hon. Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme and for North Herefordshire. I appreciate that the clause was tabled quite late, and the evidence that we heard last week was mixed. The National Infrastructure Commission gave us its views on the impact of pre-application consultation, and local authority representatives who are responsible for that section of the planning system’s decision making said that they have quite significant concerns.

The Opposition have sympathy with what the Government are trying to achieve, but it seems to me that, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington outlined, we need to look at alternatives. It may be that a regime of deemed consent is a mechanism we could use to speed up elements of the process, or perhaps altering how we set out the requirements of pre-app consultation.

I know that you have extensive experience in local government, Mrs Hobhouse, and you will be aware that, as a matter of law, Parliament has set numerous obligations on local authorities in respect of the quasi-judicial process that they follow in planning, and numerous other obligations in respect of what they do for their communities. The pre-application process is a means drawing out, before a major application is made, how the impacts may play out.

I can draw a good recent example from personal experience. The Chancellor, at the Dispatch Box, said that Heathrow expansion, and airport expansion more generally, would be enabled because sustainable aviation fuel would reduce emissions. It is true that sustainable aviation fuel mandates reduce the overall lifetime emissions from a given quantity of aviation fuel, but they do not reduce the level of pollution at the tailpipe of the aircraft at all. So when we look at Heathrow airport, it does not matter whether the fuel burned there is sustainable aviation fuel or conventional aviation fuel; emissions within the locality, which are what give rise to the legal obligations on the local authority regarding air quality, remain the same. It is not a solution. When a developer proposes to create a solar farm, a battery storage area or a nuclear power station—or any kind of major infrastructure—the pre-application process gives the local authority an opportunity to begin to understand which of its legal obligations may be engaged by the application.

I am conscious of the experience that the hon. Member for Barking described, illustrating the need to streamline the process as much as possible, but clearly, as several hon. Members have said, the major risk of that is that a developer comes along and sets out an ambition for a development, and residents are consulted and their response is, “In general—in principle—that sounds okay, but what will the impact on us be? Do we understand that from what the developer is putting forward?”

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

Nesil Caliskan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

Q I thank the panel members. I would like to dig down a bit on local plans, and to build on Ms Hills’s comments on the need for a chief planning officer. There are two parts to my question. The first is: what do you think about the lack of capacity in local authorities at the moment? It is all well and good having a chief planning officer, but planning and strategic planning does not depend on one person; it depends on a large team. The second part is around local plans. Are strategic planning and growth being hindered by the fact that the majority of local areas do not have an up-to-date local plan?

Victoria Hills: Very briefly, capacity and capability have been a hindrance in local authorities for a number of years. We have lost 25% of local authority planners alone in the last seven years, and that cannot continue. We are working with the Department and many partners; Public Practice and Pathways to Planning are both really important at this moment in time. The chief planner is there to advocate for those resources at the top table of local government and to ensure that they have a statutory basis on which to retain the budget.

Despite everything that everybody is doing to bring in more planners—with private sector money as well; we are working with the British Chambers of Commerce on a new planning scholarship, using private sector money to solve the crisis of lack of capacity—our biggest burning platform at the moment is the uncertainty regarding the level 7 apprenticeship. Some 60% of apprentices in local government come from under-represented groups within the profession. Unless we have urgent clarity soon as to whether or not our chartered town planner apprenticeship can continue, we are seriously worried about the pipeline of planners going into local government. It would be remiss of me not to mention that in the context of your capacity question.

On local plans, of course it is not good enough that only 40% of local authorities have an up-to-date local plan. That is an urgent priority. Of the 25% of local authority planners who have left local government in the last seven years, we suspect the lion’s share were in those local planning teams, and we need to work urgently to put that capacity back in. The apprenticeship will go some way, as will Pathways to Planning and the planning scholarship, but there is no time to waste in ensuring that we put that capacity back in. We think that the statutory chief planning role will not only have the right level of seniority to advocate for it, but they will actually help restore planning departments as a real career choice for graduates coming out of planning schools now.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I would like to ask a few questions—

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan]

Q May I take this opportunity to thank both of you for talking about the housing crisis in this country, and the people who are living in temporary accommodation and find themselves homeless? We have had some excellent panel members today who have made outstanding contributions, but I think you are the first two panellists who have spoken about the crisis affecting my constituents and many constituents represented by members of the Committee. To answer an earlier question, housing policy has a number of purposes. One is to deliver a fundamental human right, which is to have a roof over one’s head. I hope you do not mind, Mr Twigg, but it was really important to me to thank the panellists for their contribution.

May I ask you about land value? I am a London Member of Parliament and an ex-council leader, and land value is by far the most cited reason—by local authorities or the private sector—for development not coming through the pipeline in the last couple of years. To what extent do you think the challenges around infrastructure are impacting land value, and so holding up development? Do you think that the Bill goes far enough to tackle the length of time and the current cost of developing infrastructure that could contribute to land value going up and ultimately deliver homes?

James Stevens: All infrastructure is critical, but by “infrastructure” are you referring to really critical infrastructure, such as utilities, energy and water?

[Nesil Caliskan]

Q And transport. There are good examples across the country where just the prospect of a train station unlocks thousands of homes because the land value means that developers are more interested in that area, but the lead up to granting that permission is so lengthy that it feels like a blockage. Does this Bill address that problem, which has long been criticised in this country?

James Stevens: London’s public transport network is probably the densest anywhere in the country. I do not necessarily see transport infrastructure as the No. 1 barrier to housing delivery in London, but you probably have local experience of that. I live on the Old Kent Road. It has been promised the Bakerloo line extension for a couple of decades, but that has not stopped increasing investment in that “growth zone”, as it is defined by the Mayor of London.

[Nesil Caliskan]

Q I was thinking more about areas outside London because the demand in London is so great.

James Stevens: That is why the devolution White Paper would give the mayors enhanced powers to do things such as bus franchising, drawing in investment, taking over trains, and increasing passenger numbers. Development of public transport infrastructure is really critical, and the lack of it is holding back the growth of many of our major cities in the north. I go up to Sheffield, which is a city region that is underperforming against its potential because it does not have the public transport infrastructure.

Kate Henderson: We know that infrastructure provision, whether of new reservoirs, or of capacity on our roads or rail is the key to unlocking a lot of strategic sites. The Bill’s larger infrastructure regime, its speeding-up of processes and the ambitious target for 150 decisions on major infrastructure are all welcome, but we must look at the long-term housing strategy alongside our transport and industrial strategies, which are coming forward, and be able to co-ordinate them all.

You asked whether land value is a barrier. Let me touch on the clauses about compulsory purchase, particularly clause 91, about hope value. We strongly support the clause, which specifically provides for hope value to be disregarded for affordable and social housing where that is in the public interest. We want that to be embedded across the planning system, not only because of the children in temporary accommodation but for the ability to create fantastic, inclusive places that meet the needs of people throughout their lives, and of people on different incomes.

We should be clear that the act of granting planning permission is a public good. This issue is about fair and reasonable land prices, so we should compensate at a fair and reasonable level, ensure that the public can capture the uplift after planning permission has been granted, and ensure that that leads to more viable developments with a higher proportion of social and affordable housing.

I put on the record that we support the CPO powers. CPOs are rarely used, but stronger CPO powers for public authorities are a good thing to encourage land to come forward. Of course, to do that effectively we need legal expertise, capacity, and risk appetite in the local authority. That is a challenge, but it is welcome that the Bill gives the tools to do that. Some capacity building is needed in local government. I commend the Government for bringing forward the measures on hope value, because that is really important in how we meet the housing crisis.

[The Chair]

Order. We have come to the end of this session. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the panel for their evidence.

Examination of Witnesses

Matthew Pennycook MP and Michael Shanks MP gave evidence.

Residential Estate Management Companies

Nesil Caliskan Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. My constituents tell me over and over again about the poor performance and lack of accountability of residential estate management companies. In this country, the truth is that there is a complex web of operating companies, parent companies and, in some cases, companies registered in offshore tax havens, with no individuals to hold to account. It should not be like that, and it does not have to be like that.

Some management companies have turned dreams of home ownership into absolute nightmares, and that is certainly the case for my constituents in Barking. Residents of John Miller House and Leslie Hitchcock House on Minter Road face ongoing issues with their management company, RMG, and the district heating system that is in place. They face high, unexplained charges for their energy, including service charges that are not itemised. RMG has failed to install energy meters in individual properties, despite residents asking for them and RMG promising them. In the meantime, constituents in these properties have been charged arbitrary estimates for their energy, including for energy they have not used. RMG has threatened them with legal notices and has in some cases demanded £6,000, be paid in 10 days. That is simply unjustifiable.

In my most recent interaction with RMG, it showed some willingness to engage and to rectify the situation, but it has also been clear that it is acting on behalf of a freeholder—a company called HomeGround. After a little digging around at Companies House, I have established that Baron William Astor is a director of HomeGround. This is a family with a long-standing connection to Parliament who have made their fortune through land and property. Now, they are seemingly exploiting my constituents through unfair energy bills and threatening them with legal action. Frustratingly, I am still waiting for a response from HomeGround. That is just one of the many examples faced by my constituents.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Nesil Caliskan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend is right to express her concerns. What everyone wants to see is fairness. We would expect everybody to carry a fair share of the extra housing, but that is not what is happening. [Interruption.] Labour Members should go and have a word with the House of Commons Library if they do not agree. They can check the numbers out.

The fact that housing delivery provided by new towns will not contribute to the targets will shock many councillors and local residents alike. Neighbourhood plans do not have to be consistent with the NPPF; they merely have to “have regard to” it. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm whether that will be changed? There is nothing in Labour’s plans about adequately resourcing or having process reforms of the Planning Inspectorate, which is clearly a key part of the system. Why has she scrapped all the work we did on design codes to move away from identikit housing towards building more beautifully?

We welcome the greater emphasis on local plans, but we would like to see more ambitious requirements for sites to be made available for small builders and for self-build. Currently, it is a 10% requirement on local authorities, but we would like to see a 20% allocation, as requested by the Federation of Master Builders. We would also like to see Homes England’s remit extended to include micro-builders.

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

Does the shadow Minister recognise that, under the previous Government, communities were hindered in being able to shape proposed development by only a third of local authorities having up-to-date local plans?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree with that, and I made the same point from the Back Benches on many occasions, including about Labour-run York, which has just put a local plan in place for the first time since 1956.

There are understandable concerns that compulsory purchase orders are an extension of the Government’s attacks on farmers. Tim Bonner of the Countryside Alliance said that

“giving councils more power to reduce the value of land is a step too far, especially in the context of…the inheritance tax fiasco.”

The Deputy Prime Minister and her colleagues should heed the words of National Farmers Union vice-president Rachel Hallos, who said:

“This Bill comes at a time when the UK farming industry is under immense financial pressure due to the loss of direct payments, extreme weather and the impacts of the family farm tax. So, farmers and landowners must be fully consulted every step of the way.”

Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm whether that will be the case?

The grey belt, which was sold to the public as a few abandoned garage forecourts, has now been exposed as the Trojan horse we predicted it would be. Although not directly part of this Bill, it clearly interacts directly with it. It has been described as a death knell for the green belt due to the removal of parts of the definitions and protections of villages. Villages can now merge together or into nearby towns.

To conclude, we will not oppose the passage of the Bill this evening, but we will seek to amend it in ways that do not undermine the ambition to accelerate the delivery of new homes while ensuring that there are checks and balances that protect communities, rural areas, farmers and the environment and that deliver well-designed, affordable homes for everyone, not least those on lower incomes and first-time buyers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Curtis]

I note the length of time that that reservoir has taken to be built. It would be nice if someone on the Conservative Benches started by acknowledging their Government’s lack of ability to build the infrastructure that this country so desperately needed for decades. The barriers that they constantly put in the way of building it are one reason why we are in this situation.

Our national security is only ever as strong as our economic security. Sure, we should be investing in defence, but we can do so only if we have a strong economy. One of the biggest reasons why we have not had a growing economy or economic security is because it has become too difficult to build in Britain. I am proud to support a Bill that will get Britain building again.

I will talk briefly about the nature restoration fund, which in principle is a policy masterstroke. What is most shameful about our current nature legislation set-up, including the habitats regulations, is not just that it stops us from building the homes and infrastructure that our country needs and that it damages our economy in the meantime, but that it does not even work on its own terms. As was mentioned earlier, Britain is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world; I am told that it is second only to Singapore. Why is that? Because the money that we force builders to pay for nature projects is not being spent in the most efficient way.

Take for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson) pointed out, the infamous bat tunnel, which cost us more than £120 million to protect a tiny proportion of bats, all while critical infrastructure projects were delayed or cancelled. Imagine what we could have done for nature not just with that money, but with the extra money that would have been provided to our economy by not stalling that project for so long. Although the nature restoration fund is a welcome step forward, we must ensure that it works. It is heavily reliant on Natural England bringing forward workable delivery plans in a timely fashion.

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that open green spaces are not always the most biodiverse, and that we need a more joined-up approach to providing investment in those spaces?

[Chris Curtis]

I agree, and I hope that the nature restoration fund can be an opportunity to make those spaces more biodiverse. I am trying to support a wetlands art project in my constituency that would use such money to improve biodiversity. I hope that all the organisations that, like me, care about nature recovery will do the right thing and support these changes—they will be the best thing for nature in decades—rather than trying to defend an indefensible status quo.

Finally, as somebody who owes much of my fantastic upbringing to a development corporation, I turn to the crucial issue of how we will fund development corporations when we start building the new towns. Although the changes introduced by the Bill are promising, at some point we will need to think about that financing. For every pound that was invested in Milton Keynes, many more were given back to the Treasury—somebody said the ratio was 14:1, but I have not found a source for that. Currently, any debt issues by development corporations to private capital must be added to the Government’s balance sheet. However, a simple change to Treasury accounting, to count those corporations in the same way as the banks that fell into public ownership after the financial crash, could unlock huge sums of international private capital to fund these vital homes and projects. That approach is consistent with those taken by many European counterparts, and we should actively explore it as a priority.

I will support the Bill today, but I urge Ministers to be honest that this is not a moment for self-congratulation. We need to continue to go further and faster to build the homes and the infrastructure that this country so desperately needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as the vice-president of the Local Government Association. I support the Bill because we must do everything we can to deliver the building of more housing in this country. As the Member for Barking, I see and hear at first hand the impact of the housing crisis. Every week, I meet constituents who share their personal and desperate housing stories. To fix the housing crisis, we require political will alongside national initiatives and investment from the Government, but we must also change the policy foundations, because the national planning system is not fit for purpose.

As a former London council leader who delivered a local plan that designated land for 30,000 new homes, I know only too well that the existing planning frameworks frustrate house building and that the voices of those opposing new homes—often individuals who already own their own home—are prioritised. The truth is that our planning system relies too much on the political bravery of local councillors. Local plans for new homes are stopped by a vocal minority in too many cases. This creates a national patchwork of house building, and the planning systems are used to slow down decision making in the hope that the applicant will eventually just give up.

I welcome the fact that, through the Bill, the Government will create a national scheme of delegation. This will allow planning professionals to work more effectively, ensuring consistency across the country. Allowing planning authorities the flexibility to set their own fees and recover costs is an important step, but given that there is a £360 million deficit nationally, will the Minister reassure us all that the councils will be held responsible for ringfencing that income in their planning departments so that local authorities can improve their performance?

Transport and infrastructure form a crucial component in unlocking the potential for house building, because both private and public sector developments need clear business cases to build. Strong business cases rely on land value, which is boosted by infrastructure, including but not exclusively transport connectivity. The measures in the Bill to streamline the process for agreeing nationally important infrastructure are therefore welcome, but I would like the Government to consider whether the Bill goes far enough.

The HS2 bat tunnels are frequently mentioned in this Chamber, but there are other examples, including the Lower Thames crossing, which has been delayed for over three decades. It has become the UK’s biggest ever planning application, with over 2,000 pages and costing £800 million in planning costs. Taking applications through the national significant infrastructure projects process—a mouthful to say—is too costly and takes far too long. A large part of the problem are the statutory pre-application consultation requirements. This means that all the parties involved operate in a hyper-risk-averse manner, focusing on endless negotiations. That serves the taxpayer and our communities in no way, so I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to look again specifically at reforming the pre-application process to reduce delays and get essential infrastructure consented faster.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady rightly talks about ambition and ensuring that we get planning applications delivered quickly. Does she think that the 56% reduction and the 1,694 fewer homes that her local Labour council will have to deliver will speed up the length of time it will take for them to get through?

[Nesil Caliskan]

The hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to highlight the fact that my local authority has been building homes far faster than most local authorities across the country. The general slowing in the delivery of housing over the past two years is absolutely to do with the fact that the previous Government crashed the economy and that interest rates and inflation went through the roof. I have yet to come across a developer or local authority that does not say that all its pipeline was impacted by the economic crisis.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady is correct to say that there were some issues with housing supply during the last economic crisis, but the numbers that I am asking her about relate to her Government’s proposals under the new scheme. Will she tell her constituents or her Labour councillors—who she does not think should make planning decisions locally—whether she supports the 1,694 fewer houses that her Government are requiring her council to deliver?

[Nesil Caliskan]

My local authority has committed to building homes and it has a good record. One barrier to being able to deliver homes at speed is the fact that we see infrastructure delayed year after year. With the Bill’s proposals to allow CPOs and land assemblies to happen far quicker, we will see homes built at pace in a way that we have not seen in a generation in this country.

I take this opportunity to thank the Ministers and their teams for their work. The Bill provides a generational opportunity for us to get house building back on track in this country. It is a welcome shake-up to the planning system. It will help to deliver the homes and infrastructure that are so desperately needed in this country. It is the first step of many that will allow us to tackle the housing crisis that my constituents in Barking and Dagenham are so badly impacted by every single day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Powell]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point. The housing target for London is 88,000. She will know well that the previous target was never remotely close to being hit under the previous Government. With targets not being hit, we are interested in net new dwellings: affordable and social housing for the people I am most concerned about in my constituency. That is what the Bill will help to achieve.

I am delighted that we finally have a Government who have the ambition to tackle the problem. On energy, I am pleased that the Bill will deliver faster and more certain planning consent for critical infrastructure, including upgrading our electricity networks and maximising new clean energy sources. The Bill will move us on decisively from the era of the onshore wind ban, plummeting investment, and reliance on Putin and his fossil fuel oligarchs. If we are serious about speeding up delivery, however, we must address the capacity crisis in planning departments, so it is welcome that the Government have committed to 300 new planners. What assessment has been made of the total need for planners across the country to get to the level of approvals we need to meet our housing targets? Can the planning fee reform in the Bill support that recruitment through full cost recovery? We know that planning reform must be matched by the people and resources needed to make it work.

[Nesil Caliskan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his speech and for highlighting the gaps that exist in local government. I am sure he will recognise that, as the Local Government Association and the National Housing Federation have said, only 80% of local authorities have the capacity at the moment—in fact, it could be far less. Does he agree that that is a real concern?

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Nesil Caliskan Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Adam Thompson]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I will cover some of those points shortly. I broadly agree with the sentiment of what she said.

The Bill’s aims, in promoting the installation of solar panels on all new homes, feed into the Government’s overall intent, and I am pleased about that. I note, however, that it is undeniable that solar farms, especially the larger ones, are much more efficient than rooftop solar for a whole spectrum of reasons. Rooftop solar panels are constrained by the size, orientation and structural limitations of individual buildings, while solar farms are optimised for maximum energy generation. The difference in output can be as high as 30%. Economies of scale mean that the cost to install, maintain and centralise the supportive infrastructure notably reduces the ratio of cost per unit of energy generated by solar farms. That is not to say that I do not support rooftop solar, because I very much do, but solar farms are a highly scalable, cost-effective means through which to achieve the green energy transition.

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

Is that not exactly the point—we need to do both, because that creates a subsidy for more opportunities to have rooftop solar panels?

[Adam Thompson]

I completely agree. It is not about one solution versus another, but a diverse, broad array of solutions, all feeding into a grand, greener future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Lady makes a fair challenge, but the Government do not intend to proceed on the basis of primary legislation. She might find that the primary legislation route is ultimately slower than the way in which we intend to introduce the future standards later this year. Speed is absolutely an issue we are grappling with, but I gently challenge the idea that this private Member’s Bill is the fastest way to proceed, even leaving aside the points I have raised, which I do not consider to be minor or technical.

In contrast, the future homes standards consultation sets out two options for transitional arrangements, which we believe are far more robust. The first option involves a six-month period between the laying date of the regulations and the regulations coming into force. The second option involves a period of up to 12 months. That approach to transition will ensure that as many homes as possible are required to meet the new standards in a way that is structured and achievable.

It is our responsibility to ensure that the standards we set for new homes are ambitious, but also technically feasible and deliverable, as I have said. For the reasons I have set out, and others that I have not covered today, we believe that forthcoming future standards, developed as a clear and coherent response to the 2023 consultation, are a more appropriate and arguably faster means of achieving the Bill’s aims, which we fully share with the hon. Member for Cheltenham.

[Nesil Caliskan]

Reflecting on the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) about industry using excuses to push back on delivering homes, can the Minister give assurances that in their efforts the Government will push ahead with renewable energy, particularly solar, and do everything they can to ensure that industry and housing companies do not use viability as an excuse not to deliver the many new homes that we need?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am afraid that the time to go into it is not available to me, but I would mention the Government’s intention to revise viability guidance this year to strengthen the section 106 developer contributions system rather than implementing the infrastructure levy that the previous Government devised. In lots of different respects, this Government are absolutely ensuring that developers are held to the commitments they make, and, as she will know, we gave significant weight to the benefits of renewable and low-carbon energy proposals more generally in the NPPF.

As I was saying, maintaining consistency with the established direction of travel is vital. There is a history of environmental standards being committed to and then withdrawn by previous Governments, which has understandably left industry reluctant to invest in preparing for new standards. However, since its announcement in 2019, the future homes standard has become a world-recognised framework, giving industry time to develop the necessary supply chains, skills and construction practices, and many developers are already building to higher standards in anticipation of its roll-out. Introducing conflicting legislation at this stage could create significant confusion and risks reversing the confidence and momentum that we have worked hard to establish.

Let me reassure the House that it is our firm intention to legislate for future standards later this year, as I have made clear, and to increase rooftop solar deployment significantly as a result. I understand that hon. Members and industry will need more details about what the standards will entail before they can arrive at a judgment as to their efficacy. Although we need to take the necessary time to get that right, my intention is to set out further details as soon as I am able—in the not-too-distant future, I hope.

Building Homes

Nesil Caliskan Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

Local authorities are already required to put in place plans for infrastructure delivery, and to set out how that infrastructure is funded and should come forward. We have made a number of targeted changes to the framework today, to support the delivery of infrastructure. That will not be not the last word on our reforms to the housing and planning system, and we are considering what more we can do to ensure that we get infrastructure for developments up front, in the way that communities want.

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

One in four Barking households is privately renting, which is higher than the national average, and 40% of residents are homeowners, which is 20% below the national average. The number of people in temporary accommodation is through the roof because of the housing crisis. My constituents will welcome the Government’s steps to address the housing crisis. Viability and land value considerations often hold up shovel-ready development schemes, which then cannot be built. The six infrastructure commitments that the Government have made since the general election are critical. Can the Minister give assurances that the Government will deliver infrastructure to ensure that land values increase, viability is met, and homes can be built?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Viability is stalling development in lots of areas in the country. We need to look at what support can be put in place for particular schemes—our new homes accelerator, for example, is providing planning capacity support and other forms of support—and at why some schemes, particularly consented or near-consented large schemes, are being held up. As I have said before in the House, we are giving further thought to how we examine these issues, and to what more we can do to ensure that consented schemes are built out in good time.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Nesil Caliskan Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Badenoch]

Private landlords react to legislation, which is why we say that such legislation will reduce housing in the private rented sector. Fifty-six per cent. of landlords cited our Renters (Reform) Bill as a factor in their decision to sell. We already recognise those flaws, and such a reduction in supply is bad for both tenants and landlords. We are losing homes in the private rented sector.

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Lady recognise that the reduction in supply over the past few years is primarily down to the increase in interest rates, which has driven landlords out of the sector? A sector that is fundamentally broken requires the Government to take action to provide security for those who need a home for themselves and their children.

[Mrs Badenoch]

Of course we want people to have security in homes, but to do that we need to increase supply. We did what we could when we were in government, and we will help this Government to deliver. The fact of the matter is that this legislation is not going to help. We would love it if it did—we tried to make it work and we could not—but it would have a negative effect.

Landlords provide a vital service. The private rented sector is essential for those who cannot yet afford a mortgage, for young people and for those who need to move for work. Landlords selling and giving up homes for rent for mortgages do not help many of the people who need to rent. The overwhelming majority of landlords are responsible—I am glad the Secretary of State acknowledged that—and law abiding, and they see their property as a sustainable long-term investment.

The Government claim the Bill will reform the rental market. We do not believe it will—it will break it. Respect for property rights is not just an abstract principle. It underpins confidence in our economy and legal system. If the Government do not protect property rights, investment is damaged. If investment is damaged, growth is hit. It is painfully clear to anyone who understands markets that the Bill will act as a powerful disincentive for anyone to rent out their property. Most tenants do not have friends and family to rent from and, unlike Members of the Labour party, they do not have millionaire donors to put them up, so they will suffer most when supply goes down and rents go up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I stand to support the Second Reading of this Bill, particularly the abolition of section 21 no-fault evictions. It falls to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to introduce a Bill that will fulfil the hopes of the former Member for Surrey Heath to abolish section 21 evictions, which are the sole cause of crisis for homeless families right across our country.

We currently have 117,450 families in temporary accommodation, including 151,630 children and—disgracefully—more than 20,000 babies under the age of one. That comes at a cost to the British taxpayer of £1.6 billion a year—all of it public money badly spent; all of it undermining the finances of local authorities of all sizes and in every part of this country.

What bothers me most, however, is the families who present to me in my Mitcham and Morden constituency who are going through a section 21 eviction and know that temporary accommodation is on its way. Merton is a small south-west London borough and does not face the pressure that many others do, but those families know that they are going to be placed tens of miles away, if not hundreds of miles away, from their families and support networks.

[Nesil Caliskan]

On the point about temporary accommodation, does my hon. Friend agree that there is something perverse in this broken market when a family is faced with an eviction notice and a local authority has to rehouse them again in the private sector, costing the taxpayer more money?

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Local authorities have to rehouse those families in identical accommodation, only in worse repair, because there are not the same legal provisions for temporary accommodation.

Children lose their places at school and their educational attainment falls, parents lose their employment, and babies die. We know through the work of Dr Laura Neilson, who works with me on the all-party parliamentary group for households in temporary accommodation, that between 2019 and 2023, 55 babies in temporary accommodation—in the 21st century, in the fifth biggest economy in the world—died for the want of a cot. Members right across the House know this, because we see the families and we talk to them, but most of our friends and neighbours would be shocked to the core that these things happen in our country.

I will give two examples from my last surgery. Mrs S is a nurse at St Helier hospital and Mr S works morning shifts at a local supermarket. They have three children, one of whom is non-verbal and has autism. Following a section 21 eviction from their home, they were placed 31 miles away from Merton, in Windsor—but only after they had spent eight hours in the reception of the civic centre and got their accommodation so late that when they turned up at Windsor, the estate agent was closed and they had nowhere to go. Mr S had to pay £300 for them to be in a hotel that night. Next day, when they turned up at the house, there were no beds, because nobody from the local authority—nobody from any local authority—checks the accommodation before the families move in. I say to hon. Members, “Don’t believe your local authority if they tell you they do, because they simply can’t do it.”

My second example is just in case anybody thinks this issue only affects families. Mr H has dementia. When he was evicted, he was placed 8 miles away, in Croydon. That is not far, but it caused South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust to remove him from its list and he lost the support he got from the geriatrician. We are doing these things to the most vulnerable people. That keeps me awake at night, and I think it should keep all of us awake at night.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I support this long-overdue Bill. Almost a quarter of households in Dulwich and West Norwood are renting privately, and many of them live with the instability caused by an under-regulated market. I am contacted every week by constituents who are living in unacceptable conditions, facing unaffordable rent increases or threatened with a section 21 no-fault eviction. Private renting is fundamentally unsustainable and unstable.

Too many local renters are living in poor-quality accommodation, suffering with damp and mould, but with limited levers to hold their landlord or letting agency to account. Those who complain risk reprisal evictions, from which they have no protection. Tenants are forced by rent hikes and section 21 notices to move frequently, and they are denied the security of a long-term home. Parents put children into school not knowing whether they will be able to afford to stay in the area for the duration of their education. Increasingly, young families are being priced out of London, and that contributes to a dramatic drop in school rolls, so I warmly welcome this Bill.

[Nesil Caliskan]

I recognise the crisis that my hon. Friend describes. Does she agree that individuals and families are paying the cost of this crisis, not only with money but with the trauma of being moved from home to home?

[Helen Hayes]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. This crisis in private renting is taking an unbearable toll on the health and wellbeing, the financial security and the stability of families across the country, which is why this Bill is so welcome.

I will table an amendment to the Bill. Last year, constituents of mine tragically lost their son to suicide. He was in his first year of university and had signed a tenancy for his second-year accommodation shortly before his death. The tenancy, which had not started when this young man died, included a guarantor agreement signed by his parents. After their son’s death, the letting agency insisted that the agreement applied even in the event of a tenant’s death and, shockingly, began pursuing my constituents for rent payments. While facing the unbearable loss of their son, my constituents were forced to find another student to take on his tenancy in order to be relieved of their responsibility for the rent. This type of clause is not in every guarantor agreement, and it is wholly unnecessary. Landlords can insure themselves against loss of rent in the event of the death of a tenant. My amendment would outlaw the pursuit of guarantors for rent owed by a deceased tenant, to protect other families from this cruel treatment while they are grieving.

I am grateful to the Minister for Housing and Planning for his positive engagement on this issue, both in opposition and since he has been appointed to the Department. I hope the Government can accept my amendment, which was drafted with assistance from lawyers at Shelter, as a straightforward solution. I hope Members from across the House can all agree that no one facing bereavement should have to worry that they will be pursued for their loved one’s rent.

Finally, on affordability, rents in Lambeth and Southwark have grown rapidly in recent years. I welcome the measures in the Bill to ensure limits to rent increases under the section 8 process, and to ban landlords from accepting rents from prospective tenants above the asking price. However, the scale of the crisis in London is so significant that there is a need for further action on rent rises. I hope that as the Bill progresses through the House, my hon. Friends will listen to the calls of the Renter’s Reform Coalition and the Mayor of London, and will consider what more can be done to stabilise rents and assist with affordability.

For too long, reform of the private rented sector has been neglected, leaving renters in Dulwich and West Norwood suffering with insecurity, poor accommodation and rising costs. The effect of this crisis in private renting is destabilising for our communities and harmful for health; I see the impact of the crisis every single week in my constituency. The Renters’ Rights Bill will be transformative for my constituents, and I will be proud to support it this evening.