Housing Developers: Accountability

6. What steps he is taking to increase the accountability of housing developers.

The Government expect all developers to build high-quality homes, delivered in line with their planning consent, and to treat customers fairly. The Government are actively considering mandatory standards of warranties for all new build homes, and we are committed to introducing a statutory new homes ombudsman to improve redress when things go wrong.

Constituents of mine living on the Kingsley Farm development have spent months chasing the developer, Stonebridge Homes, to finish elements of the estate that were agreed and outlined in the planning permission when it was granted. Residents of The Willows now find themselves in the exact same situation with the same developer. This is an issue not just in North Yorkshire, but across the country. My mum, a councillor in the neighbouring local authority, has outlined issues in her patch—in both Knottingley and Normanton—where developers are clearly taking residents and customers for a ride. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to give local authorities the additional powers they need and to ensure that they use them?

I am sure many Members across the House recognise the situation the hon. Member describes. One of the reasons building control in local authorities became so weak is that so many of them were underfunded for so long. Following the fair funding review, councils have funding in line with levels of deprivation, so local authorities have additional resources to beef up their building control functions and take action against the kind of organisations he refers to. Longer term, we are bringing in a new homes ombudsman, which will be a better and a fast way for people to seek redress in those circumstances.

Little Stanion in my constituency is a brilliant community with lots of first-time buyers who moved there to put down roots, but they have been let down time and again. The developer went into administration and the management agency connected to the developer continues to ask for more money, with no transparency in how it is spent. When the roads fall apart, they have no one to turn to; when the community centre still looks like a building site, they get no update; and when the play equipment starts to break, the Little Stanion Farm Management Company becomes hostile. Will the Secretary of State outline what more we can do for new build areas such as Little Stanion, so that they do not keep getting let down?

My hon. Friend raises incredibly important issues, and it is incredibly difficult for people buying their first home to find themselves in those circumstances. She will have heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing refer to changes in leasehold, including a consultation due to end within weeks, which for the first time will allow for far greater transparency in charges for leaseholders. We have also changed the regulations under the national planning policy framework, which will change the way that some of the problems she has mentioned can be dealt with; and the new homes ombudsman, when that comes on line, will provide a new form of much faster redress for her constituents in those circumstances.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

What many people see as the Government’s developer-led planning approach is draining local communities’ trust in the planning system. The new national planning policy framework proposes the most centralising changes in planning in my lifetime. It will mandate granting permissions under wider than ever presumptions in favour of sustainable development, which for the first time will overrule local plans. With no statutory protection available to them, even the most precious green spaces—not just national landscapes, not just land around railway stations—and the nature they support are under threat, including land at the Wellington monument in my constituency. As the National Trust launches its Nature equals Future campaign, will the Government allow this House to debate and vote on the proposed new national planning policy framework, which according to the Town and Country Planning Association signifies an “unprecedentedly permissive planning regime”?

I am very disappointed to hear the Liberal Democrat spokesperson arguing the case for nimbys, because in other circumstances I have heard Liberal Democrats recognise that we have a housing crisis, recognise that the number of families in temporary accommodation doubled under the previous Government, and recognise that the number of people left sleeping on our streets doubled under the previous Government and that young people cannot find anywhere they can afford to rent or buy. We fix that by getting a fair balance between the rights of people who need a home to buy and the rights of local people over their local area. They need local plan proposals to give local people the framework within which they can express their views, but we have to speed up the slowest planning system in the western world if we want to get people the homes they deserve and have a right to live in.

People will have heard the Secretary of State referring to people wanting to protect the most precious green spaces as nimbys. They are not nimbys; they are trying to protect the most important nature in our country. If the Government will not allow a debate on the NPPF in relation to green spaces, will they allow a debate on the NPPF in relation to the expected 430,000 mortgage prisoners that the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association has identified from houses that will be at risk of flooding under new NPPF policies? If they will not allow a debate, will the Government meet the Association of British Insurers, which wants to discuss its objections to the NPPF?

Just to be clear, I was not calling people who care about the green belt nimbys; I was calling the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches nimbys. We have retained protections for the green belt, but we need to get new homes built. I am sorry if the Liberal Democrats want to deprive young people of the chance to find somewhere they can afford to rent and deprive young people who want somewhere to buy to get that vital first foot on the housing ladder. They used to support aspiration; now they are slamming the door shut in the faces of young people who want to get on in their lives.