National Policy Planning Framework: Housing

Question

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to compare the need for affordable housing with the need for council and social housing as part of the National Planning Policy Framework.

My Lords, I add my tribute to Baroness Randerson and offer my condolences to her family and friends. Her wisdom and experience were greats asset to this House, and she will be missed.

Our Government are committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation; I hope we have shown that through our movement. Our revised National Planning Policy Framework reflects the commitment to building a greater share of genuinely affordable homes and prioritising the building of new social rent homes in particular. It is, though, for local authorities to judge the right mix of affordable homes for ownership and for rent that will meet the needs of their communities.

My Lords, while the NPPF is welcome, does the Minister share the widespread concern that the technical term “affordable” does not mean affordable to those in acute need? Research by the National Housing Federation and the charity Crisis shows that at least 90,000 social homes a year are required to end homelessness. Will the Minister consider expressly requiring local planning authorities to reflect that acute need within their plans? It includes those who are on housing registers in need of supported housing, rough sleepers and the homeless.

I agree with the noble Baroness that the terms “affordable housing” and “social housing” have sometimes been conflated, with unfortunate consequences. To make clear the priority that we attach to delivering homes for social rent, we are amending the definition of affordable housing. It will be carved out as a separate category, distinct from social housing for rent. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness a sign of our intention. We will expect local authorities to assess the need in their areas, including in all the categories that she mentioned, and to make provision to meet that need in their local plans.

Has the Minister seen reports that more than 17,000 affordable homes have been made available by developers under Section 106, but no single housing association has been able to take them up? Against that background, would it not make sense for the developers to sell those homes to first-time buyers and discharge their Section 106 obligation by making a financial contribution to the local authority, which could then build some social houses?

It is possible for builders to change the provision if they need to, but that has to be in exceptional circumstances, because the need for social housing is so acute. The Government have set up a new clearing service for those Section 106 homes via Homes England. That was launched on 12 December, and we hope that it will enable us to match up registered providers with the social homes available under Section 106.

My Lords, in endorsing the condolences expressed to Baroness Randerson’s family and friends, I remind the House that she was also a stalwart champion of Wales, with a long record of public service that should be recognised.

Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that the 2010-15 Tory-Lib Dem coalition Government spent £10 on building new homes for every £100 on housing benefit? That was virtually a reversal of 40 years ago, when every £100 we spent on building homes was matched by £20 on benefit. Is that not another reason for building many more council houses and for public investment in social housing?

I echo my noble friend’s points about Baroness Randerson’s work in Wales. He makes a valid point: a good reason for building social housing is that it saves expenditure on DWP funds. In my own area, a private rented property costs around £1,200 a month; a social rented property is about £600 a month. Even those with my maths skills can work out that that would be a saving. That is why it is so urgent that we get on with building the social homes that we need. There are social reasons for doing so, but also very good financial reasons.

My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that consideration will be given to ensuring that supported housing at social rents, particularly for older citizens, will be emphasised in the review? In the spirit of joined-up government, will the results be provided to inform the Casey review on social care, because the two are inextricably linked?

The noble Baroness is quite right to raise the topic of housing for older people and for those with particular needs. For example, we laid regulations to exempt all former members of the regular Armed Forces and victims of domestic abuse from any local connection tests. We are actively working on issues around older people’s housing; in fact, I met Anchor this morning to discuss that very topic. We will bring forward further policies in the spring to look at the need for older people’s housing and how to make better provision for it in the planning process.

My Lords, in my time as leader of the Welsh Liberal Party I had the advantage of a close relationship with and enormous support from the late Baroness Randerson. I was shocked to hear of her passing when I was told yesterday, and I personally, like many others, will miss her greatly. She was a great public servant.

On the Government’s commendable ambition to build a very large number of houses, I remind the Minister that this ambition will be matched by an extraordinary visual effect on our townscape and landscape in general for hundreds of years. Can the Government try to ensure that the design of these houses to be built is of a high quality which reflects well on our age? Well-designed houses cost no more than badly-designed houses.

I could not agree with the noble Lord more; this is an important issue. I am not apologising for the ambitious targets we have—we certainly need the housing. However, I am also passionate not only about delivering well-designed homes—we are currently working on the future homes standard and will publish that shortly—but about those homes being situated in communities that really work for people. That was part of what the revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework were about, but it is also incumbent on all local authorities, as they pass their local plans, to make sure that they enable that too.

My Lords, many in the House will wish the Government well in their ambitious commitment to housebuilding, but in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework, will the Minister outline how the social objectives of the framework are guaranteed and monitored, specifically

“accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being”?

As regards well-being, will the Minister further consider restoring mandatory space standards for the construction size of British homes?

The right reverend Prelate raises a very interesting point about space standards. Coming from a new town, I remember the standards that were introduced when my town was built. On the issues around the National Planning Policy Framework and the social aspects of it, as the Planning Inspectorate goes through the process of assessing local plans—it is important to remember that fewer local authorities do not have them than those that do—it takes account of the social aspects of the plans as well as of the straightforward housing numbers. That is part of the work of my department, and we will be looking at that closely. The social aspects of the planning framework are equally as important as the technical aspects.

My Lords, first, I offer our condolences from these Benches to the friends and family of Baroness Randerson. She will be very much missed in this House.

Affordable homes should be built where they are most needed, meaning near jobs and existing infrastructure such as public transport networks, schools and doctors. With that in mind, can the Minister tell us why London’s mandatory housing target has decreased while some rural constituencies have seen increases in hundreds of per cent? Will the Government reconsider their targets to build more affordable homes in London, where there is the highest need for them?

The new methodology has been carefully considered. It strikes a balance between meeting the scale of need right across the country and focusing additional growth on places facing the biggest affordability pressures by more than doubling the affordability multiplier, which is in the method. It produces a figure for London of nearly 88,000—more than double recent delivery—and London has the biggest proposed percentage increase against existing delivery of any region in the country by a significant margin.