Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Oliver Colvile and Lord Barwell

Monday 16th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Barwell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are far too dependent, at this point in time, on a small number of large developers. Therefore, we need to ensure that the land that has attracted small developers is released and that those developers have access to finance.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

10. What steps he is taking to promote the building of more homes.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)]

Since July, we have announced: a £3 billion fund to support small and medium-sized enterprises; an additional £1.4 billion for affordable housing; a £2 billion accelerated construction programme; a £2.3 billion infrastructure fund; funding for starter homes; and support for 17 garden towns and villages. The White Paper will contain further measures.

[Oliver Colvile]

As my hon. Friend knows, the all-party parliamentary group for excellence in the built environment, of which I am the chairman, published its findings into the quality of new build housing. Would he be willing to meet the all-party group to discuss our findings and our suggestions of inclusions in the forthcoming White Paper?

[Gavin Barwell]

I would be delighted. I have attended a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for the private rented sector, which my hon. Friend also chairs; he is a busy man. He is quite right to say that, as we address the fundamental challenge of getting the country to build the homes we desperately need, we must not lose sight of quality as well as quantity.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Oliver Colvile and Lord Barwell

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Gavin Barwell]

I can give the hon. Lady strong reassurance on that front. First, she has my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport completely wrong; far from wanting to further persecute hedgehogs, he is first to the barricades to protect and defend them.

Let us take the hypothetical example that the hon. Lady gave, where at some point in the future more and more developers are coming to the Secretary of State and saying, “There’s a real problem about the way in which the protection of bats is working and the onerous conditions that are being put on us.” If the Secretary of State was persuaded by those arguments, we would need to look at planning policy and whether we wished to shift it.

Broadly speaking, the test with all these things is one of proportionality. I think all of us would place significant weight on the protection of our wildlife and fauna. The test is always one of reasonableness, in terms of the costs incurred by the developer to do that. If a future Secretary of State decided that in his or her judgment that balance was wrong, that would involve a shift in policy. It would not be possible to outlaw a type of condition that is consistent with what current policy says. I hope that reassures the hon. Lady.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

It is not only a case of trying to talk to politicians at an early stage; it is also about engaging with the local community, so that it feels it has a say and has been involved in the decision-making process.

[Gavin Barwell]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Clearly, councillors and Members of Parliament are representatives of those communities, and engagement with them is important, but he is quite right that developers should also be talking directly to local people in the relevant area. They should be talking and listening. In my experience of the planning system, that kind of positive engagement is very good for the developer because it avoids problems later on when things come to a planning committee.

The broad point I was making to the hon. Lady is that my approach, were I on a local planning committee, would be to listen to concerns that developers expressed about planning conditions and judge whether the evidence backed up those concerns. If it did, I would adjust my policy, but if it did not, I would stick to my guns and do what I thought was the right thing for my local community.

On amendment 21, the hon. Lady made an important point about providing clarity for the applicant during the process. The amendment seeks to ensure that associated guidance is made accessible to inform parties of the appeals procedure, should an agreement not be reached on the application of conditions. I agree that we need to ensure that applicants are fully aware of the options available to them and how they can pursue that action. However, I would like to assure hon. Members that that information can already be found online as part of our planning guidance, and I believe it provides the right support to those looking to appeal against the imposition of certain conditions. On that basis, I hope the hon. Lady will accept that the necessary protections are there.