Grenfell Tower: Progress on Recommendations
Samantha Dixon Excerpts(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
The Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 was a national tragedy that highlighted profound failures across systems, safeguards and oversight, and led to the avoidable deaths of 72 innocent people.
Eight years on, the bereaved, survivors and immediate community continue to campaign for justice, truth and accountability. We are committed to delivering the substantial reforms needed to make sure that such a tragedy never happens again.
In February, the Government accepted all the inquiry’s findings and are taking action on all 58 phase 2 recommendations to build a more robust and trusted regulatory system and to deliver safe, quality homes for everyone.
Today my Department has published our third progress report. Alongside this update, we have published: a prospectus and consultation on creating a single construction regulator; the fire engineers authoritative statement and next steps document; and results of the Building Safety Regulator’s initial review of the definition of higher-risk buildings and plans for an ongoing review.
These are significant steps to deliver the reforms we committed to in the Government response to the Grenfell inquiry to tackle fragmentation and complexity in the regulatory system and to ensure those responsible for building and fire safety are competent.
Grenfell Tower inquiry Government progress report
This progress clearly demonstrates the Government’s determination to act decisively to deliver meaningful reform of the built environment. Since the progress report in September, we have completed a further five recommendations related to the construction industry, fire and rescue services, and protecting vulnerable people.
Single construction regulator prospectus: consultation document
The first recommendation from the inquiry’s phase 2 report was for Government to introduce a single construction regulator to tackle complexity and fragmentation in how the industry is regulated. In our response to the inquiry, we committed to consulting on our next steps this year. Today we have published the single construction regulator prospectus consultation document. This is a significant milestone in delivering this recommendation.
The prospectus lays out the Government’s vision for a better regulatory system. We will tackle fragmentation by integrating the regulation of buildings, construction products and professionals so that they work as an effective system. At the heart of the system will be a single construction regulator, who will consolidate the delivery of regulatory functions. The prospectus also sets out next steps for this Government’s wider programme of regulatory reform, including reforms to the construction products regime, which is to be set out in a White Paper by spring 2026, and a new overarching strategy for the built environment professions that goes beyond the areas highlighted by the inquiry, which is to be published in spring 2027. The purpose of this reform is a more effective regulatory system, which means better outcomes for residents and building users, clarity and certainty for industry and investors, and a fairer system that benefits those who prioritise safety and quality and sets clear accountabilities for all actors with a stake in the built environment.
Progress towards the single construction regulator has begun through significant reforms to the Building Safety Regulator. In June, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announced a new phase for the BSR, including strengthened leadership and steps to address operational challenges. Work is now underway to establish the BSR as a new arm’s length body sponsored by MHCLG. The new body and dedicated leadership will provide a singular focus for this complex area of regulation, clearer lines of accountability to Ministers and Parliament, and greater operational flexibility, while retaining its regulatory independence. Further reform, including integrating additional responsibilities, will be managed through a carefully phased approach to ensure the current regulatory regime is not destabilised and to set the future regulator up for success.
The prospectus and consultation can be found here www.gov.uk/government/consultations/single-construction-regulator-prospectus The consultation will run until 20 March 2026, inviting views on the proposals. We encourage as many responses as possible, to shape the future direction of the regulator and wider building system and to make sure these reforms lead to real change for residents and building users.
Fire engineers authoritative statement and next steps document
The fire engineers advisory panel, established in April, brings together leading experts to strengthen the Government response to the inquiry’s recommendations concerning fire engineers. In September, we committed to publishing an authoritative statement—recommendation 17—on the knowledge and skills to be expected of a competent fire engineer.
Today we have published the fire engineers authoritative statement, alongside a next steps document. This paper will set out MHCLG’s approach to recommendations 15,16 and 18. Together, these publications provide clarity for the sector and signal the start of wider reforms to make sure the fire engineering profession is fit for the future.
Higher-risk buildings review publication
Today we have published the results of the Buildings Safety Regulator’s initial review of the definition of higher-risk buildings as well as the regulator’s plans for an ongoing review.
The initial review found that the current definition appropriately reflects the available evidence on risks to individuals from the spread of fire and structural failure. Although no changes are to be made to regime scope at the present time, the ongoing review will ensure the data and evidence is regularly assessed to determine whether the categories of building subject to the higher-risk regime should be amended in any way. The presence of vulnerable individuals within designated building types will remain central to any assessment of risk.
Approved document B consultation
We will shortly launch a public consultation on proposed updates to approved document B, the statutory fire safety guidance within the building regulations. The consultation will seek views on targeted clarifications and technical changes, including new provisions for evacuation lifts in residential buildings above 18 metres, alongside measures to improve clarity and strengthen confidence in the guidance. These updates will be an important step in supporting inclusive design, safe evacuation strategies, and maintaining robust fire safety standards across the built environment.
[HCWS1195]
Quarries: Planning Policy
Samantha Dixon Excerpts(2 days, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing the debate, his constituents for attending, and all hon. Members who have spoken. A number of hon. Members have raised concerns about the development of quarries and referred to specific planning applications in their constituencies. They will understand that I am unable to comment on specific cases, but I hope that the position I am about to set out will provide some reassurance.
I recognise that proposals for new or extended quarries are often controversial and unpopular locally. Once permitted, minerals extraction at individual sites can often take place over very many years, so if it is not planned for and managed in an appropriate manner, communities living nearby can be faced with the impacts associated with the development for a long time.
However, I want to reassure hon. Members that the planning system provides a robust framework to make sure that the impacts of minerals development are appropriately considered and addressed through both the plan-making and decision-making processes. Chapter 17 of the current NPPF sets out policies on facilitating the sustainable use of minerals to support that. In relation to plan making, the framework is clear that planning policy should
“set out criteria or requirements to ensure that permitted and proposed operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health, taking into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality.”
Samantha Dixon
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will carry on.
In relation to decision making, the framework requires mineral planning authorities to
“ensure that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety”.
The cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites or a number of sites in a locality should also be taken into account. Mineral planning authorities should also make sure that
“any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties”.
As well as policies specifically on minerals, the NPPF includes policies in relation to air quality, which was raised by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, and pollution. They make it clear that both planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of air pollution.
Samantha Dixon
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will carry on with my speech.
The NPPF further states:
“Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality…Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects…of pollution on health, living conditions”—
Samantha Dixon
I am not going to take any interventions.
The NPPF continues:
“and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development.”
That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes).
Paul Holmes
On a point of order, Dr Murrison. I am desperately sorry, and I am not usually this kind of politician, but a number of Members have raised specific issues and contributed lived experiences, which relate directly to what the Minister is saying, yet she is not giving way. I seek your advice on how we can interact with the Minister and get some answers from her.
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Whether the Minister gives way is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the Minister.
Samantha Dixon
Thank you, Dr Murrison.
I know that the issue of increased HGV movements and congestion is important to hon. Members. Although quarry development can often result in additional HGV movements, where necessary, access roads can be constructed and routeing agreements can be made to reduce the impact on local roads, residents and the environment.
Dr Spencer
Brilliant. I am so grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I am glad that she has reflected on the importance in our democracy of Members being able to raise points with Ministers—something that I mentioned in my speech in terms of local representation. Given that she is explaining, in effect, that the system is perfect and there is nothing to see here, could she comment on why so many Members decided to participate in the debate?
Samantha Dixon
I will come to that point in due course.
Proposals in respect of transport impacts should be supported by a detailed transport assessment, which is considered as part of the decision-making process. Further information to support the implementation of the policies set out in the national planning policy framework is provided in planning practice guidance.
To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, I should highlight the fact that the Government are about to launch a consultation on a revised national planning policy framework, including a clearer set of national policies for decision making on mineral extraction and other matters. This is a great opportunity for all Members and the communities they represent to engage. In the light of the concerns that they have raised today, I encourage them to take part in that consultation.
Samantha Dixon
With your indulgence, Dr Murrison, I would like to continue.
As part of the planning application process, applications and supporting information, including statutory environmental assessments where required, are consulted on with stakeholders and the public. Where issues are identified, the imposition of conditions can assist in mitigating impacts to acceptable levels. Where planning conditions are breached, including during quarry operations, and issues arise as a result, the mineral planning authority has powers to take action to make sure issues are addressed.
Although much of today’s debate has focused on the negative impacts of quarrying, I would like to thank the hon. Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for recognising the vital role that quarries play in providing the raw materials needed to support our society. The Government have an ambitious growth agenda, which cannot be delivered without a sufficient supply of minerals to feed our construction and manufacturing sectors. The intrinsic link between growth and the provision of minerals is recognised in the national planning policy framework, which is clear that we need a sufficient supply of minerals to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. The framework also sets out that, when determining planning applications, great weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy, except in relation to coal extraction.
Importantly, what distinguishes quarries from most other forms of development is that their location is driven by geology, which is fixed. In this context, minerals can be worked only where they are found, which influences where quarries can be located. Working of minerals is a temporary land use, and all planning applications for extraction will require an approved restoration and aftercare scheme. The NPPF indicates that mineral planning authorities should provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity, to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions.
Robbie Moore
Great, that is very kind of the Minister. Seven days ago, the Campaign to Protect Rural England commented that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is working its way through the House, will have a detrimental impact on environmental regulation and reduce the influence of local people and their ability to have their views heard when quarry applications are put forward. I wonder whether the Minister might like to comment on that.
Samantha Dixon
I refer to my earlier comments about the consultation due to be launched on the national planning policy framework, which I hope the CPRE and all local communities will participate in.
Restoration also offers the opportunity to enhance the environment. Possible uses of land, once minerals extraction is complete, include the creation of new habitats and biodiversity, and use for agriculture, forestry and recreational activities, such as surfing centres.
I conclude by once again thanking the hon. Member for South Leicestershire and other hon. Members for participating in this debate. I want to reassure them that the Government take planning policy for quarries and the concerns that they and others have raised very seriously. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire has set out a number of issues and put a number of questions to me—
Samantha Dixon
I will just finish my sentence. I would be most grateful if the hon. Member for South Leicestershire set out his specific concerns to me in writing, so that I can make sure that a response to every point he has raised is forthcoming. Similarly, I would encourage other Members to write to set out their concerns.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for giving way. She will recall that in my speech I did not attack the Government at all, so I am not sure why her tone this morning is quite dismissive of other Members of Parliament. I think she should reflect on that. I asked specifically whether a Minister in the Department would meet with me about my case and she has not answered that. I wonder if she could, please.
Samantha Dixon
Dr Murrison, it is not my intention to offend anybody. I have previously referred to the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. If he writes to me, I am sure his concerns can be addressed in the appropriate way.
The Government do take these issues seriously, as is reflected in our robust planning framework, which protects communities and the environment while enabling industry to get on with the job of providing the minerals that we need to build 1.5 million new homes and new infrastructure, and to support our growing economy.
Draft Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026
Samantha Dixon Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. The establishment of the Building Safety Regulator was the most significant reform to the building safety regime in decades. The BSR has removed significant risk from the system and placed residents at the heart of house building. The regulator is an important and non-negotiable part of our built environment, particularly as we deliver 1.5 million new safe homes and accelerate the remediation of unsafe buildings. The BSR was first established within the Health and Safety Executive, and I want to express my gratitude for the invaluable leadership and experience the HSE has provided during its establishment and early operations.
It is now time for a new phase for the BSR. In June, my Department announced reforms to the regulator that included investing in strengthened and dedicated leadership; operational improvements, including the creation of a new innovation unit to improve the processing of gateway applications; and bolstered long-term investment in the capability of the BSR and its capacity to work with industry.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
What consideration can the Minister give to the regulator’s having Crown status, rather than making it a non-Crown status body, which civil servants are concerned will mean they risk losing their entitlements and access to the civil service pension?
Samantha Dixon
The classification of the new body was decided through a standardised Cabinet Office process, and its classification as a non-Crown, non-departmental public body is consistent with established practice. My Department is committed to protecting existing terms and conditions where possible, in line with the TUPE regulations and Cabinet Office statement of practice principles, and will continue to engage with staff and trade unions ahead of the consultation process.
Alongside the reforms announced in June, we announced the intention to move the BSR out of the HSE, establishing it as an arm’s length body of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. That is the specific purpose of the draft regulations. Provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 enable the transition to be made via secondary legislation. The change will support the BSR for the coming years, strengthening accountability and providing a singular focus on dedicated leadership for building safety regulation. It is also a first and important step towards establishing a single construction regulator, which is a key recommendation of the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 report.
The draft regulations will make sure that the BSR continues to deliver its statutory functions under the Building Safety Act 2022, while leading it into a new era. This will provide the foundation for a stronger, more accountable system that prioritises safety while supporting innovation across the built environment. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Samantha Dixon
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I point out that, since the new leadership took over at the BSR, progress has been significant. For example, between September and 24 November, a record 40 new build applications were processed from the previous model caseload, with the majority approved, allowing construction to begin on 10,000 homes since September. Overall performance continues to improve, with a record 578 cases closed since August 2025.
The Government are completely committed to the safety of residents. The Building Safety Regulator has seen a fundamental change in the built environment. The draft regulations will enable the BSR to move forward from the HSE and take us on the journey towards a single construction regulator, which is a key recommendation of the Grenfell inquiry.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Samantha Dixon Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
This Government are making a record £10.5 billion investment to deliver the largest flood and coastal investment programme in history. The floods resilience taskforce brings together experts and decision makers from across the UK Government, as well as from non-government and industry organisations at local and national level. The work of the taskforce will be considered as part of our ongoing planning reform programme.
George Freeman
In areas like Mid Norfolk, planning is the key to avoiding developments that cause and exacerbate flooding. In Attleborough, a recent planning application for 350 houses on a floodplain was turned down by the council on the basis that it would cause flooding, but fast-tracked by the Planning Inspectorate on the basis of the Government’s house building targets. The Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill contained nothing on flooding, which is why I am introducing a Bill. Will the Minister meet me and cross-party campaigners from affected constituencies—some of my constituents are now wading through sewage after the development I mentioned—to talk about how we can integrate planning with flood prevention?
Samantha Dixon
This Government will maintain the highest levels of flood protection, while taking decisive action to fix our broken planning system and to deliver 1.5 million homes through our plan for change. We will consider whether further changes are necessary to manage flood risk when we consult on planning reform, including national policy relating to decision making, later this year.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
Building Safety Regulator
Samantha Dixon Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
In June 2025, my Department announced changes to the Building Safety Regulator. Today I am laying before the House draft regulations that will move the functions of the Building Safety Regulator out of the Health and Safety Executive and to an Executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
This change will position the BSR for the coming years. It will strengthen lines of accountability and give a dedicated focus to BSR operations, and it is an important first step towards establishing a single construction regulator, the lead recommendation of the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 report.
I am grateful to the HSE for the leadership and experience it has brought to the establishment and early operations of the BSR, and for its ongoing support as this change is made.
[HCWS1042]
Houses in Multiple Occupation: Planning Consent
Samantha Dixon Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing today’s debate. I appreciate his speaking about this important issue with force and passion on behalf of those he represents. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate.
I acknowledge the concerns that my hon. Friend raises on behalf of the residents of Mansfield about the concentration of houses in multiple occupation in some parts of his constituency. As he mentioned, houses in multiple occupation provide relatively low-cost accommodation for rent and can play an important part in the housing market, as hon. Members from both sides of the House acknowledged. However, it is right that local authorities should be able to take action where necessary to minimise any negative impacts that concentrations of such accommodation might have on local areas.
As we have heard, national permitted development rights allow existing homes to change use to a house in multiple occupation for up to six people without the need for a planning application. Such smaller HMOs are also able to change to a standard family home under similar rights, but we acknowledge that those nationally set permitted development rights are not necessarily suitable in all areas. Therefore, local authorities can remove permitted development rights in a specific area by introducing an article 4 direction after consultation with the local community and an assessment of the local evidence that such a direction is required.
The introduction of an article 4 direction would mean that any change of use to large or small houses in multiple occupation would require an application to the local planning authority for planning permission. All applications for planning permission are considered by the local planning authority, in line with the development plan for the area and in consultation with the local community. A clear policy for HMOs can support the assessment of future applications. Indeed, when I served as a ward councillor on Cheshire West and Chester council, we took through an article 4 direction relatively smoothly and with the support of the local community, and it is still in force in that area.
Whether or not Mansfield district council chooses to consult on introducing an article 4 direction to remove the permitted development right that enables existing homes to change use to a smaller HMO will be a decision for the council to take locally. It is not something the Government should seek to influence. Having experienced it myself, I can say that the process is not costly or burdensome. Approximately 75 other councils have put in place article 4s for HMOs in parts of their boroughs. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield to continue to discuss this issue with the council if he believes that such a direction would be appropriate.
None the less, if the existing powers are not working—we have heard evidence of that today from hon. Members on both sides of the House—we want to engage and find out why. It is important that HMOs are managed well, which is why all HMOs are subject to management regulations. Those regulations set out duties for managers to take safety measures, maintain the supply of gas, electricity and water, and maintain common parts and living accommodation.
In addition, all local authorities are required to license HMOs with five or more people from two or more separate households who share facilities such as a kitchen or bathroom. Through additional licensing, local authorities also have the power to license HMOs with three or more people from two or more separate households who share facilities. That means that most HMOs can be licensed, providing local authorities with the means to address concerns around how they are being managed.
I note that Mansfield district council recently introduced selective licensing in designated areas, and since 12 June this year landlords have been able to apply. I hope that that begins to improve the issues that we have heard about today. Local authorities have strong powers where landlords breach HMO regulations. These include powers to prosecute, to impose penalties of up to £30,000 as an alternative to prosecution, and to seek banning orders for the worst offenders.
I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield for a useful and constructive debate. I hope that I have set out the measures that we have in place to enable local authorities to control HMOs in their areas, and that I have made it clear that the Government are keen to engage to see how the existing powers are being exercised and how they can be improved.
Building Safety Regulator
Samantha Dixon Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) for securing this important debate on the performance of the Building Safety Regulator, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for so ably setting the context of this debate around the terrible Grenfell disaster. I recognise much of what he and other Members have said. We will make changes where necessary and we are focused on the outcome, which is a country with the safe homes that it needs.
Colleagues will have seen today’s announcement from the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State concerning a package of support for house building in the capital. The package is designed to improve the viability of housing developments in the near term, boosting the number of new homes, including affordable homes, to be delivered in the next few years. This action to accelerate development goes hand in hand with our continuing commitment to make sure that homes are safe.
The regulator plays a vital role in ensuring the safety of residents in high-rise buildings. Since its establishment under the Building Safety Act 2022, it has been central to delivering post-Grenfell reforms and restoring public confidence in the safety of the built environment. I appreciate and acknowledge the concerns raised by industry stakeholders, developers and Members of this House regarding delays, operational challenges and the impact on housing delivery. These are serious issues, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss them openly today.
In June, MHCLG announced its intention to transfer the Building Safety Regulator from the Health and Safety Executive into a new dedicated body under the Department, making it clear where responsibility lies. A statutory instrument to enable the transfer is expected to be laid before Parliament next month. This move will ensure that the BSR provides a dedicated focus for building safety and will strengthen accountability to Ministers and Parliament. Furthermore, it marks an important milestone towards the Government’s commitment to an integrated single construction regulator, as recommended by the Grenfell Tower inquiry.
A dedicated programme team has been established to manage the transition of people and services from the Health and Safety Executive to the new body, ensuring a smooth and orderly transfer without the disruption of the BSR’s ongoing operations. As we heard today, Andy Roe has been appointed non-executive chair of a new board within the Department to take on the functions of the BSR as part of initial steps towards creating a single construction regulator. That is the technical explanation, but put simply, he is chairing the BSR. I have been truly impressed by how hands-on he has been.
Andy, probably more than anyone in this room, understands the necessity of balancing the need for new housing with the safety of those houses. He brings a wealth of experience in safety regulation and leadership from his previous role as commissioner of London Fire Brigade. He is supported by the new chief executive officer for the BSR, Charlie Pugsley, who was also a senior officer in the London Fire Brigade. The new leadership team are already implementing significant operational changes based on their extensive industry experience.
Turning to gateway 2, we recognise that delays are unacceptable, which is why the Government announced these changes to the BSR in June. They are not just personnel changes, but substantial changes that have improved the way the regulator works. As part of the reforms, a new innovation unit is already managing 27 new build applications, consisting of 6,192 housing units. The innovation unit is already demonstrating progress, with the majority of applications currently meeting or bettering the 12-week service level agreement for processing applications. The BSR has also recently announced a new batching process for category A projects. This consolidates the teams used to review applications into one organisation, significantly reducing delays. The BSR has also committed to recruiting 100 new staff by the end of the year to boost its capacity.
Since July 2024, the BSR has met weekly with industry bodies to address gateway challenges and has increased two-way engagement with applicants. We are clear that the conversation must deepen. The BSR also plans to introduce an account manager model, where applications from large developers will be grouped and assigned a dedicated point of contact to ensure that issues are identified at the earliest opportunity. New guidance, developed in partnership with the Construction Leadership Council, has been published to help applicants clearly understand what is needed for a successful submission. The BSR is actively supporting the Construction Leadership Council to publish a further suite of industry guidance—expected around mid-November—on the statutory documents accompanying building control approval applications, staged approvals and gateway 3. The BSR is continually reviewing its guidance to help duty holders understand the legal requirements and how to comply.
My hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North and for Northampton South (Mike Reader) both raised concerns about gateway 3 approvals. Gateway 3 is still new and only a few projects have reached it so far. As more projects reach this stage the backlog should clear, making specialist support more available to the BSR. Class 2 registered building inspectors are now able to handle simpler, high-risk work which frees up class 3 inspectors to focus on new builds and remediation, helping make the best use of available resources.
As of early September, BSR has received 16 gateway 3 applications for new build high-risk buildings, with nine already approved and issued with completion certificates, while seven remain under review. Those figures will grow as more schemes reach completion. Some applications have moved through quickly, demonstrating what a well-prepared submission can achieve. Others have required additional information before assessment could progress. This early experience is helping both developers and the BSR to refine the process, making sure it is consistent, efficient and firmly focused on safety outcomes.
The BSR has previously committed to improving operations by December. To support transparency and accountability, as we have heard, it published performance data on 16 October and will do so monthly to track progress publicly against that commitment. It reported that in August, gateway 2 determinations hit a record 209 across all application types. A total of 152 national new build applications are being progressed—that is 33,670 homes—with the newly established innovation unit handling 27 of these.
Most applications in the innovation unit are meeting or exceeding the 12-week service level agreement for new build applications, and the BSR expects nearly all new build applications to conclude by December, with the final three closing in January 2026.
The first recommendation from phase 2 of the Grenfell Tower inquiry was to create a single construction regulator to tackle complexity and fragmentation in the regulatory system. The Government have already begun implementation, starting with improvements to the BSR and plans to transition it into the new arms-length body. We intend to legislate when parliamentary time allows and will publish a prospectus later this year to set direction.
My colleagues asked a number of questions, in particular regarding skills and salaries. The BSR was designed to draw on industry experience while also managing the known shortage of skilled specialists. However, as the construction sector and partner regulators rely on the same limited pool, this continues to constrain the BSR’s capacity. While offering higher pay might attract talent, it risks destabilising partner organisations by shifting, not solving, the shortage. A long-term workforce strategy, like that under way in the fire service, is needed to build system-wide capacity, and we are working on it with local authorities, the BSR and registered building control approvers to help shape it.
In conclusion, the Government remain firmly committed to a building safety regime that is both robust and proportionate—one that protects residents while enabling the delivery of much-needed homes. We have listened to the concerns and taken decisive steps. We want to improve processes and ensure that they are fit for purpose. The reforms announced earlier this year are designed to address the very issues that have been debated today, and we will work closely with industry, residents and Parliament to ensure that the regulator delivers effectively. I am very grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North and for Northampton South for securing this debate, and I look forward to the continued dialogue ahead.
Social Housing: South Cotswolds
Samantha Dixon Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on securing this important debate and I thank the other hon. Members who have made contributions today. I have noted their comments carefully.
The Government recognise the acute housing pressures facing rural communities, and are committed to ensuring that the homes built reflect genuine local need, are affordable and are supported by appropriate infrastructure. This Government are committed to building 1.5 million homes during this Parliament, and social and affordable homes will make up an essential part of that. We also acknowledge that not enough social and affordable housing has been delivered in recent decades. That shortfall is now being felt acutely in areas such as the South Cotswolds, where 80% of the district lies within protected national landscape and further development must be carefully planned.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I support the Government’s ambition to build 1.5 million homes. This debate refers more to social housing and I wonder whether you could give an indication from the Dispatch Box—
Samantha Dixon
I will come to that point for the hon. Member’s benefit.
A crucial first step is ensuring that local authorities plan for the right number of homes. That means assessing housing need and then identifying how much development is realistically deliverable, taking into account land availability, environmental constraints such as flood risk and protected landscapes, and other relevant factors. Local authorities can choose to go beyond their assessed need to support wider goals, such as economic growth and infrastructure investment, and to accommodate housing from elsewhere. We expect local authorities to explore all options, including maximising brownfield land, collaborating across boundaries and, where necessary, reviewing green-belt land.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
In a recent hearing of the Public Accounts Committee on planning improvements, we heard from the Home Builders Federation that 34,000 social houses in England and Wales remain unsold. That seems to be an absolute tragedy when there is such demand for social housing. I ask the Minister to look at that urgently.
Samantha Dixon
I will certainly consider that.
The national planning policy framework sets out that local plans must deliver, where practicable, the amount, type and tenure of homes that communities actually need. That requires carefully striking a balance between enabling necessary development, and protecting and enhancing the natural environment.
Martin Wrigley
I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being very generous with her time. The numbers have doubled in my district of Teignbridge; 40% of Teignbridge is within Dartmoor national park, the rest of the area is constrained by the coast, and houses become more and more expensive to deliver as the numbers go up. Because of that expense, fewer and fewer affordable homes will be delivered. The standard method is not working to reduce house prices. Will the Minister reconsider how these numbers are determined, so that the standard method is no longer used to enforce a central number of homes, rather than the number of homes that the district actually needs?
Samantha Dixon
I note the constraints that the hon. Member raises, and I will certainly ask officials to consider that in any plans.
These are not just planning challenges; developing local plans involves human challenges. We are now living with the cost of more than 169,000 children in temporary accommodation and more than 1.3 million households on local authority housing registers. That cannot be allowed to continue.
We recognise the shared ambition of those from across the sector to build more, build better and build sustainably, and we know that in areas like South Cotswolds, where planning constraints are real and community character matters, they are essential partners in helping councils to meet targets and to safeguard what makes places special.
Strategic, evidence-led local planning will ensure that development happens in the right places with proper community buy-in. Housing associations must be part of that conversation from the outset. The national planning policy framework sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, which includes the provision of supporting infrastructure in a sustainable way. Local development plans must address infrastructure needs and opportunities, identifying what is required and how it can be funded and delivered. That is essential to ensure that new homes are not just built, but are part of the thriving, well-serviced communities that the hon. Member for South Cotswolds has described.
Samantha Dixon
I am not going to give way again, I am afraid.
The hon. Member for South Cotswolds raised very real concerns about flooding. Flooding can have a devastating impact on communities, homes and infrastructure, which is why we take it seriously. The Government’s approach is guided by the NPPF, which is designed to protect people and property from flooding. It sets out a clear expectation that inappropriate development in flood-prone areas should be avoided. The sequential test aims to ensure that new development is directed to areas of lower flood risk wherever possible.
Where development must occur in higher-risk areas, the exception test requires that it delivers wider sustainability benefits and is made safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Those safeguards are in place to ensure that new homes are not only safe but resilient to future climate impacts. We are also committed to delivering more sustainable drainage systems through the planning system.
As set out in our plan for change, we are firmly committed to delivering the biggest boost in a generation to social and affordable house building. To achieve that ambitious target, we need every part of the sector, including councils and housing associations, to be working in lockstep and delivering to their full capacity. We are taking steps to create the conditions to ensure that providers across the country can once again deliver social and affordable housing at scale. That includes supporting councils to update their local plans, locating sites for future development, balancing homes with infrastructure like schools and healthcare, and actively engaging communities through public consultation.
Since coming to office, we have sought to engage with the sector at every opportunity. We have listened carefully to the views of social housing providers and their tenants on the problems they face and how best to resolve them. But we have not only listened; we have acted. At the spending review, the Chancellor announced a record package of investment designed to ensure that councils and registered providers can increase development of social and affordable housing. As has been highlighted, the decade of renewal represents a step change in our ambition to deliver social and affordable housing, setting out a long-term vision for building more homes, improving quality and strengthening communities. We recognise that for many, the reality on the ground has yet to match that ambition, but we are committed to bridging that gap through practical action.
Step one of the decade of renewal has been to deliver the biggest long-term investment in social and affordable housing in recent times. We have confirmed a new 10-year, £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. During its lifetime, we hope to deliver around 300,000 new homes, with at least 60% for social rent. That would result in around 180,000 homes for social rent—six times more than the decade up to 2024.
We also recognise that certain types of much-needed social and affordable housing can cost more to deliver, particularly in areas with environmental constraints or infrastructure gaps. The programme has been designed to be flexible in order to ensure that it works not just for large urban developments, but for small-scale rural projects. We encourage applicants to be ambitious when coming forward with bids. The programme’s full prospectus will be published in the next few weeks and open for bids in the new year. I encourage all prospective providers to review their supply plans now—to think bigger, be bolder and come forward with ambitious plans.
The hon. Lady should be assured that we understand the scale of the challenge and that we know the strength of this sector, which is why we have pledged to forge a renewed partnership with the social and affordable housing sector to support building at scale. She raised many other points, to which I will fully respond in writing, with the support of my officials. The important point to stress is that together we can deliver the homes our communities need, not just for today, but for generations to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Samantha Dixon Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Government want more empty homes brought back into use across the country, including through the steps we outlined in the English devolution White Paper to strengthen local authorities’ ability to take over the management of vacant residential premises.
Bradley Thomas
I welcome the Minister to her new role. Will the Government consider introducing a policy whereby long-term empty properties brought back into use as homes will count towards a district’s housing target?
Samantha Dixon
Local authorities have a number of powers to deal with empty homes. The hon. Member raises an interesting point, which I will take away and consider with officials.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
There are 46 long-term empty properties in the community of Park End in my constituency. Park End desperately needs regeneration, so I am delighted that the Government have awarded it £20 million of Pride in Place funding, for the community to use for regeneration over the long term. Will the Government commit to working with me to make sure that the local community gets the best from that funding?
Samantha Dixon
Absolutely. I am really encouraged by the way that local communities are seizing the opportunity of Pride in Place funding, and taking it forward to deal with an issue that affects every council across the country.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
In June, the Department made the welcome announcement of legislation to allow proxy voting and remote attendance, which will help to drive up the diversity of councillors across the country, but the Government have not yet set out a timeline. Will the Minister advise the House on when a timeline will be shared, and whether the Government have considered including the changes in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
The Government are committed to an election Bill, which will be coming in due course—very shortly, I imagine—and I am sure the hon. Member will be able to explore those issues further at that time.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Samantha Dixon
As I iterated earlier, we want to see more empty homes brought back into use in Sheffield and across the country. As we outlined in the English devolution White Paper, we intend to strengthen the ability of local authorities such as Sheffield city council to take over the management of vacant residential premises.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
We in Leicestershire have three, if not four, plans for our reorganisation, with no agreement. We also have a county council run by Reform, which has already had not one but two reshuffles, losing its cabinet leads for social services and finance. While 70% of its budget is spent on social services and special educational needs and disabilities, what assurances can the Government give me that my constituents will get those services, and that those services will be protected, when there already seems to be chaos in the council?
Draft Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025
Samantha Dixon Excerpts(3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025.
Is it a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, in my first outing as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Building Safety, Fire and Democracy. This Government are committed to the remediation of residential buildings with unsafe cladding in England. Our remediation acceleration plan sets out how we will remove barriers so that buildings are fixed faster. Crucially, that will allow residents to be, and feel, safe in their homes.
The Government have already committed £5.1 billion of taxpayers’ money to the cost of remediation. We want to protect leaseholders and residents from further costs that are not of their making, and the building safety levy is an essential step in achieving this. Its purpose is to fund the Government’s building safety remediation programme—we estimate that we need to raise £3.4 billion over 10 years—and these draft regulations enable the levy to be imposed. The levy will be charged on certain building control applications for new residential floorspace in England. Subject to the approval of both Houses, it will start being charged from 1 October 2026.
Local authorities will collect the levy on behalf of central Government. They are well placed to carry out this role, as custodians of local building control with tax collection expertise. I thank local authorities for the vital role they will play and for the steps they are already taking to prepare. My officials are supporting them to ensure that they are ready for levy launch. We will provide collecting authorities with grant funding for set-up costs. All ongoing costs will be recoverable from levy revenue received.
The levy provides essential funding to deliver a safe built environment that meets residents’ needs. It complements our broader housing goals, including the delivery of 1.5 million high-quality homes over this Parliament. The levy is designed to minimise any detrimental impact on housing supply, while securing the required revenue. To achieve that, there are different levy rates for each local authority, reflecting local house prices. That protects viability in areas where house prices are lower. Development on previously developed land will benefit from a 50% discount rate. That discount compensates for the often higher cost of developing that type of land, ensuring that more sites remain viable.
The Government are committed to getting Britain building again. Small and medium-sized builders play a crucial role in driving up house building rates, but they have faced significant challenges in recent years. We are therefore helping SME developers by exempting developments of fewer than 10 dwellings from the levy charge.
Earlier this year, we announced the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation. The building of more good-quality, affordable housing must be accelerated. With that in mind, all affordable housing is exempt from the levy charge. However, we have gone further: any housing built by a non-profit registered provider of social housing is also exempt. Profits from sales of such homes are often reinvested into the provision of further much-needed affordable housing.
In addition, supported housing and other types of important community facilities, such as hospices and care homes, are also exempt from this charge. We will keep the rates and processes under review and will report at least every three years. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Samantha Dixon
I thank all hon. Members for their comments; I will try to respond to them as fully as I can.
First, on the ability of local authorities to respond to this change, the point is that the levy rates are set out in regulations, and any change would require further regulations approved by Parliament. We will undertake reviews every three years on the operation of the regulations. Should the amount of funding increase or decrease, decisions on those changes will be taken at that time. Our intention is to shorten or extend the anticipated duration of time over which the levy is collected, rather than increase or decrease the levy rates, which allows certainty for developers and landowners.
Of course, I would be more than happy to meet with my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe and his constituent Glenda to discuss the very sad case of Amanda. The whole point of these regulations is to remediate buildings, particularly for leaseholders, as soon as possible so that such anxiety and a sense of being trapped is no longer experienced by residents across the country, so I will certainly do what my hon. Friend asks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire asked about exemptions. I will write to him on the detail, but the point is that there is the exemption, or reduction in the rates, for brownfield sites, which may be appropriate in that particular case. I will ask officials to write to him on the details of that particular issue.
The building safety level is essential to fund the remediation of historic building safety issues without further burdening residents and leaseholders. The Government are committed to delivering 1.5 million homes this Parliament to meet the country’s long-term housing needs and unlock growth. That mission must work in parallel with our commitment to remedying the building safety failures of the past. The industry that contributed to such problems must pay to remedy them. The draft regulations before the Committee set out a fair approach to collect the required funds, while ensuring minimal impact on housing supply and industry.
Question put and agreed to.