Estate Regeneration

Debate between Nesil Caliskan and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

You’re playing catch-up!

[Nesil Caliskan]

Yes, and I have a long way to go.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this important debate and thank all Members for their contributions. Each one has provided an important perspective on the challenges of estate renewal and the need generally to build homes in a way that works for communities. My hon. Friend spoke powerfully about the difference between good regeneration and poor examples in his constituency. The Government recognise that good estate regen is critical to delivering our housing target and to providing decent homes for everybody to live in.

There are many reasons why estate regeneration might be the best thing for existing tenants or for a local area. In some cases, years of neglect from a Conservative Government that failed to invest in existing estates and mandated council rent reductions, which meant even less for housing revenue accounts, has left many estates in dire need of regeneration. I know that only too well, having led a local authority that felt the burden of pressures on the HRA account. Social housing was the tenure most affected by damp and mould issues—my hon. Friend correctly highlighted the impact that that has on many of his constituents, and I know that many other Members have cases involving the same problem.

An ageing housing stock not only impacts life chances, but costs the taxpayer more in the long term, because disrepair has a bigger impact on communities and also on the stock itself. In that context, it might make more sense for an entire estate to be regenerated than to take a sticking-plaster approach, particularly when some buildings reach the end of their life. In other cases, estates are the best places to build more affordable homes, particularly in our towns and cities, where there may be fewer development sites available, but more social infrastructure in local areas.

The people often forgotten in housing debates are the 1 million families on council housing waiting lists and the thousands of people trapped in temporary accommodation. I know that there are something like 4,000 on the housing register in my hon. Friend’s local authority area, and the figure is similar in my borough of Barking and Dagenham. Everyone deserves a decent home—a safe home, in a clean neighbourhood, with decent social infrastructure. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who spoke so passionately and accurately about the importance of the facilities that make a community, whether that is a youth centre or much needed GPs. I pay tribute to her long-standing campaign, which reflects the need to build neighbourhoods with homes that are more than just the buildings that house people.

In my view, the simplest, most powerful thing we can do to lift people out of poverty and improve life chances in this country is to provide more decent homes. First and foremost, we must recognise that the supply of homes is the foundation for everything. Indeed, we will only address the housing crisis by building more homes, period. I listened with great interest to the shadow Minister, who made important points about house building and getting on with it. I have to say, though, having been a council leader in and now a Labour Member of Parliament in London, that it is a great shame that Conservative and Lib Dem councils, councillors and MPs frequently object to house building.

Of course, brownfield sites are a really important part of the solution; but the idea that we can meet housing need in London or the rest of the country only by using brownfield sites or doing infill on existing estates is, I am afraid, misleading. That does not mean that we look at only one aspect of house building. I recognise that the picture is complicated, and it will take a multitude of approaches to make sure that regeneration delivers the number of homes to the decent homes standard that we need, but I also know that regeneration must be delivered in partnership with communities. Good regeneration puts communities in the driving seat. That does not just mean being transparent with decision making; it also means allowing those who live in the community to have a real say in shaping proposals. Decisions on property size, building height, materials, amenities and timelines for delivery are important for getting community buy-in. That approach is not new. Good developers, of which there are many, do that anyway, and the regulatory standards are clear: registered providers must communicate with tenants, provide information to them and take their views into account in decision making. That extends to providers undertaking estate regeneration.

It is difficult to set out realistic timelines, because each estate regeneration is different and unique due to their different sizes and ambitions, and good engagement with existing residents may further change those ambitions. Timelines for estate renewal are also highly dependent on viability, phasing, planning permission conditions, and ground and infrastructure prep, but I accept that families who live on an estate face huge anxiety when they do not know when their home is going to be knocked down. Indeed, there are examples in my constituency of families who have been told their estate has been earmarked for renewal; they can see their community being hollowed out, yet they do not know when they will need to move on. Timelines for estate renewal are complicated, but it is important that engagement takes into account the instability caused by estate renewal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked a valid question about whether the process for decision making should be through a ballot. I led a local authority that had a ballot for an area. It is hard work to say the least, but it is perhaps one of the most important things a local authority can do to secure community buy-in. However, to say that ballots in themselves are what secured that engagement would be to do a disservice to the engagement that the ballot provided.

Ballots in and of themselves do not solve trust issues among residents. They can force developers to do the meaningful engagement that they should be doing anyway, but they do not mean that we will get the outcome that we want. Where providers fall short, there is usually a complaints process and an ombudsman. In addition, the Government have also committed to introducing social tenant access to information requirements from this October, which will make it mandatory for providers to give information about property management in response to information requests.

Stoma: Public Toilet Provision

Debate between Nesil Caliskan and Jim Shannon

Thursday 18th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Nesil Caliskan]

That is exactly the point that I am making. I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting that very good example of what local leadership can deliver in the community. It is important that we empower local authorities and leaders to think outside the box, champion this issue and speak up on tricky topics. That gives me the opportunity once again to pay tribute to hon. Members for taking part in this debate. By talking about and giving attention to a difficult subject, we are able to shift views and encourage our public sector to provide facilities that meet the needs of our communities.

[Jim Shannon]

The role of councils is incredibly important. The Government’s 10-year health plan sets out a shift from hospital to community, from sickness to prevention and from analogue to digital. For stoma care, moving from analogue to digital could mean remote monitoring for high-risk people living with a stoma, app-based ordering of stoma appliances, reducing prescription errors and delays, and digital self-management for diet, hydration and troubleshooting. Those are all critical issues for the health service to consider when moving from analogue to digital. I ask the Minister, whether or not it is in the notes I gave her, to look at that point as well. I also ask that she meets Colostomy UK with all Members present. That organisation has much more knowledge than me, and we look forward to that opportunity.

[Nesil Caliskan]

Absolutely. I am very happy to meet any campaigning organisation to discuss this important issue. I note that other hon. Members have also made that request. If charities would like to contact me, I will happily meet them to talk about how we can better support the needs of all our communities.

On the important point the hon. Gentleman makes about the NHS plan and healthcare support, he is absolutely right. It is all the more reason why we need a joined-up approach to what local authorities and NHS local boards are doing. I take the opportunity to highlight health and wellbeing boards across the country, which will play a really important role in making sure that, as one part of the local authority is delivering something, it is making the most of what it is doing so that it meets the objectives of a different part. In the case we are talking about, health is a really obvious example.

To return to my general point about local authorities thinking outside the box and doing things differently, one area we should encourage them to consider is how they conduct procurement. There are many examples across the country where public toilets in parks and open spaces have fallen into disrepair. Some local authorities are addressing that through procurement processes by stipulating, for example, that the owner of a new café must look after the toilets in that space. Those are good ideas that should be encouraged and will ultimately make it easier for our communities to access facilities.