Matthew Pennycook
MP for Greenwich and Woolwich · Labour · United Kingdom
“The Government recognise the impact that persistent antisocial behaviour can have. I very much agree with both the spirit and the letter of what the shadow Minister has just said. Our inboxes are full of cases of antisocial behaviour, which absolutely blights the lives of individuals and, in some cases, entire communities.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our ambitions to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation will benefit from the Bill, but they are not entirely dependent on this one piece of legislation. The supply statistics speak for themselves. Let me give the statistics from 2024-25.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, seeks to ensure that at least 10% of new social housing dwellings meet the M4(3) wheelchair-accessible standard in the building regulations. I very much commend where he is coming from with the new clause.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have had this debate many times, to date we have not set a national social and affordable housing target.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome that clarification. I was going to say that part O does not prohibit any form of active cooling where designers can demonstrate that it is appropriate. As I say, part O encourages passive design measures before relying on mechanical systems.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They did consult, very late in the day, on a UK connection test to determine access to social housing. The majority of respondents to that consultation did not agree with the introduction of such a test, and feedback highlighted significant concerns about its feasibility and the cost of implementation. This is really important.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
7,282 held · 7,246 searchable for Matthew Pennycook. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“That is a very interesting line of argument. Is it now the Conservative party’s official position that “use it or lose it” powers should be introduced for brownfield sites?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A statutory requirement to produce a strategy for delivering such volumes within 12 months of Royal Assent is not a proposition that we can support. I say gently to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington that his party continues wildly to underestimate the costs of supplying social housing on the scale that he proposes. The Government’s estimate of the grant funding required to support the delivery of 150,000 social homes is in excess of £20 billion per year. For obvious reasons, the hon. Member’s party has escaped the kind of scrutiny to which the Government and the official Opposition are subject, but if his party wants that 150,000 figure to be taken seriously it will have to set out a credible funding strategy. To date, it has not done so.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are vigorously prioritising social rented housing, we are rebuilding the capacity of councils and housing associations to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, and we are reinvigorating council house building. In his more generous moments, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson acknowledged the transformative impact of what this Government have done on social housing supply. I understand—indeed, I welcome and embrace—his encouragement and support for raising our ambition further. However, given the nature of our inheritance from the Conservative party, with social housing supply averaging a historical low of fewer than 8,000 units per year from 2013 to 2024, following the purposeful and deliberate pivot to affordable rented tenures, a target of 150,000 new social homes per year is not currently realistic.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is fully aware, we are committed, in line with our manifesto, to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, to prioritising the building of new social rented homes and to supporting councils and housing associations to make a greater contribution to affordable supply. In the 27 months for which we have been in office, we have faithfully sought to honour those commitments. We have made the biggest long-term investment in social and affordable housing in recent memory, an investment that was topped up in yesterday’s Budget by a further £1.5 billion pounds, as the hon. Member rightly recognised.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our ambitions to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation will benefit from the Bill, but they are not entirely dependent on this one piece of legislation. The supply statistics speak for themselves. Let me give the statistics from 2024-25. Overall social and affordable house building: 64,921, the highest level since 2014-15. Social housing on its own: 12,267, the highest level since 2012-13. Council-delivered homes: 10,600, the highest level since 1991-92. That is this Government’s record on social and affordable housing—and, by the way, this was all prior to the initial allocations from our social and affordable housing programme, which have now been made. We have increased supply, we will increase it further, and the Bill will make a material impact on doing so. I turn to new clause 1.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings and to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. After the Opposition’s—to put it candidly—languid approach in our previous sittings, I welcome the fact that they have clearly woken up and are now fully participating in the debate. Partly for that reason, we had a remarkably productive first day in Committee on Tuesday. Our debates on many of the clauses and amendments were predictably spirited; nevertheless, they remained civil and, in the main, constructive. I hope we can proceed in that vein today. Before I respond to the new clauses, I will make a general point—a point that the shadow Minister is clearly struggling to grasp.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A requirement to produce a separate brownfield land social housing development strategy would be unnecessary and duplicative, as existing policy and relevant plans already sufficiently achieve its aim. On the point made by the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, policy in this area is already aligned; we do not need a separate brownfield land strategy. Such strategies are, as I have previously dubbed them, the last refuge of an Opposition scrabbling around for meaningful policy amendments to a Bill. For those reasons, and having given those assurances, we cannot accept the new clauses.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That arose from a challenge we received from the Opposition during the passage of the Act. Taken together, those measures demonstrate the Government’s strong and continued support for brownfield development in national policy. On social housing in particular, national planning policy reflects our commitment to the delivery of social rent homes. It requires local planners to set out minimum proportions of social rent required on new development. As everyone knows, the NPPF is a material consideration of critical importance in planning decisions and local plans are required to be prepared with regard to it. It is therefore the right place to set clear expectations for how and where development should come forward.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On 17 August, the Government published a new national planning policy framework that makes it clear that authorities should plan to meet as many of their development needs as possible on brownfield land. To strengthen support for the development of brownfield land, the new NPPF encourages higher densities in sustainable locations and greater intensification of urban and suburban sites. It also introduces a presumption that development inside settlements should be approved unless any adverse effects would substantially outweigh the benefits of doing so. Furthermore, through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, the Government have committed to make regulations requiring strategic planning authorities to have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on previously developed land.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As such, in our view it is not necessary to accept the new clause as there are no restrictions to remove. I turn to new clause 34, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Orpington. The Government are strongly committed—as was the previous Government, as several hon. Members have fairly pointed out—to a brownfield-first approach, including for the development of social housing. Let me be clear. I say this on every occasion I can: once permissions are granted, we expect to see them built out as quickly as possible. Opposition Members will not have to wait long for the build-out transparency package, on which we consulted some time ago, to be brought forward.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the Budget yesterday, it was confirmed that preferential borrowing rates for council house building will remain in place until at least March 2028 to support councils to borrow more cheaply for house building. There are no current restrictions exercised by central Government on the amount that councils can borrow via their housing revenue accounts for house building purposes. Councils are now free to borrow in line with the prudential code, which requires them to demonstrate that any borrowing is affordable, prudent, sustainable and proportionate. Those are precisely the types of test that the hon. Member’s new clause envisages. They are essential to ensure that local authority finances are managed sensibly and sustainably while ensuring sufficient flexibility to meet local housing targets.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have had this debate many times, to date we have not set a national social and affordable housing target. That is because, as I have explained on numerous occasions, social and affordable homes come through grant funding and through the section 106 process; it is for local authorities to set out the needs for their particular areas as part of local plans. As he knows, through the NPPF we have strengthened some of the expectations in that area. I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 4. The Government have already taken several steps to rebuild the capacity of councils to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, including the fundamental reform of the right-to-buy scheme at the heart of the Bill, as well as a 10-year social housing rent settlement, and social rent convergence.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In 2024, the regulator introduced a new proactive regulation regime and has since begun inspecting all large landlords at least once every four years. The regulator issues a consumer grading after those inspections, so that it is clear to tenants and the public how well the landlords are performing. In addition, the regulator retains the ability to engage with landlords outside these routine inspections if concerns are raised.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for Orpington for tabling and speaking to their new clauses. This Government are determined to ensure that social housing tenants live in safe and decent homes, and that they are listened to and have access to redress when things go wrong. However, I am not persuaded that these amendments are necessary. In the spirit of cross-party generosity, I will say that the powers taken under the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 under the previous Government did not do all bad things; there were some good things that the previous Government did, and we should acknowledge them. The Act provided the powers for that regulatory framework, which provides strong mechanisms for tenant voice and regulatory oversight.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For those reasons, I respectfully ask hon. Members not to press their new clauses.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although individual tenants can escalate issues to the regulator, as I have made clear, it considers performance against the regulatory standards at a landlord level and seeks assurance that the landlord is delivering the outcomes set out in the regulatory standards. The regulator directly inspecting individual homes would move away from its co-regulatory approach and would require significant additional resource. In addition, tenant views already play an important role in the existing regime, and the regulator draws on a range of sources as part of its inspections, including through the landlords complaints process, the Housing Ombudsman and direct referrals. The existing framework ensures that tenants already play an important role in the system, without the need for a statutory mechanism to trigger inspections.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, in our view, introducing tenant-triggered inspections risks cutting across that approach by potentially diverting regulatory resource away from higher-risk providers or issues, while undermining the regulator’s ability to act independently. Our view is that the existing framework already ensures that tenants’ concerns can inform regulatory action, by allowing the regulator to determine where intervention is most needed. On new clause 53, which the shadow Minister made clear is a probing amendment, I would have particular concerns about introducing a mechanism whereby the regulator would inspect individual tenant’s dwellings.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am always open to evidence that it does not have sufficient powers. My judgment is that it does, and that the consumer ratings it hands out—we are getting a steady stream of them now—really do have an impact in driving improvements in landlord behaviour. Central to the regime is the regulator’s independent and risk-based approach. That allows the regulator to target its engagement and interventions to areas where there is the greatest risk of harm to tenants. It is worth clarifying that tenants and other members of the public can refer matters to the regulator where they believe that a registered provider may not be meeting the outcomes of the standards, and the regulator may take those concerns into account as part of its wider regulatory activity, including inspections.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our call for evidence on this issue recently closed, and we are now working with partners to prepare updated guidance. We plan to consult on that updated guidance next year. With that comprehensive review already under way, we do not consider that there is a need to conduct separate reviews for specific groups such as former members of the armed forces or former offenders. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is sufficiently reassured to consider withdrawing the new clause.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 23, which we debated on Tuesday, will also ensure that veterans do not face local-connection barriers when seeking homelessness assistance. Statutory guidance is in place on improving access to social housing for members of the armed forces. There are not specific protections in the system for former offenders, who will have their housing need considered in the same way as other groups. They may fall within other existing statutory reasonable preference categories—for example, where they are homeless, need to move on welfare grounds or need to move because of medical or other relevant needs. Work is already under way to update statutory guidance on social housing allocation to ensure that allocations reflect local need and effectively support vulnerable households.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the hon. Member set out, new clauses 5 and 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish reports on access to social housing for former members of the armed forces and for former offenders, respectively. We want to ensure that the social housing allocation system works fairly and effectively. Current and former members of the armed forces community benefit from strong protections within the allocations framework, including receiving the highest preference where they have a housing need. Where local connection or residency tests apply to determine who qualifies for an allocation of social housing, legislation exempts the armed forces community, regardless of when they last served. That ensures that they are not disadvantaged when applying for social housing due to the mobility required by service life.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Social and affordable homes programme funding can also be used to support the delivery of much-needed new supported housing, including new accessible homes. In our view, national policy remains the most effective route through which planning reform should be pursued. Imposing such a requirement in legislation rather than in policy, as this new clause seeks to do, would be unduly rigid, could limit an authority’s ability to respond to local circumstances and could constrain growth. We therefore think it is right to continue addressing these matters through planning policy and guidance. For those reasons, I kindly ask the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to withdraw the new clause.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In our view, that is a significant step forward in ensuring that more wheelchair-accessible housing is delivered. However, we recognise that M4(3) is a specialised product for wheelchair users, with levels of need differing considerably between local areas. Our approach acknowledges that local authorities are best placed to assess accessible housing needs in their areas and to set out appropriate exemptions. A blanket 10% M4(3) requirement would risk undermining policies set at a local level. To support the locally led approach, we have committed to producing guidance to assist local authorities in assessing the housing needs of disabled people, to ensure that assessments of need are robust and consistent.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, seeks to ensure that at least 10% of new social housing dwellings meet the M4(3) wheelchair-accessible standard in the building regulations. I very much commend where he is coming from with the new clause. The Government recognise the importance of increasing the supply of housing for older people and those with disabilities. The hon. Gentleman is right that for many years it has been something of a postcode lottery. That is why the new national planning policy framework recognised the need to drive up, through planning policy, rates of M4(2) requirements, and we have set a minimum floor of 40%. It is also why, when it comes to M4(3), the NPPF requires plans to set out the proportion that should be delivered to that standard to meet or exceed identified need.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Part O also prioritises passive measures, such as shading and natural ventilation, which help to prevent homes from becoming too hot in the first place. In many cases, overheating can be effectively mitigated through passive measures alone, so part O helps to create homes that are resilient to hot weather while limiting energy use, carbon emissions and energy bills for residents.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government continue to keep these requirements under review, and a full technical review of part O is currently under way to ensure that the framework remains effective and proportionate. These requirements already apply to newly built social housing, ensuring that residents benefit from the same standards of overheating mitigation regardless of their tenure type. The accompanying statutory guidance, approved document O, sets out how these requirements can be met. The new clause would require active cooling, such as air conditioning, to be installed wherever an indoor temperature of 21°C cannot be maintained. Conversely, part O assesses the risk to health posed by overheating through an evidence-based methodology and does not rely on a single prescribed temperature threshold.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling new clause 7, which I will start with. He is absolutely right to draw attention to overheating, and I assure him that the Government recognise the scale of the challenge it presents. Overheating in homes is already a severe public health issue, and one that will grow only more acute in the years ahead, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has rightly stated. We know there are health risks and implications for excess deaths for particularly vulnerable populations. We take it extremely seriously, and we agree that new homes should protect everyone from the risks of overheating. That is why part O of schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 requires that new residential buildings in England are built to mitigate the risk of overheating.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are ensuring that the new homes that come forward, once the standard is in place, are zero-carbon ready, so they will not require further retrofit. The Government have also worked carefully to set a standard that delivers substantial carbon savings while remaining proportionate, technically feasible and deliverable at scale. In our view, introducing further new standards would risk creating a separate and potentially inconsistent regulatory regime for social housing, as well as additional cost and delivery pressures for the sector. Although I agree with the objective behind the new clause, I consider that the future homes standard already provides the appropriate means of achieving its aims. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman not to press new clause 9 to a vote.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It will apply to all new homes, including social housing. Homes built to this standard will have high levels of energy efficiency, use low-carbon heating and, in most cases, generate renewable electricity on site. These homes will also be zero-carbon ready, meaning that they will produce very little carbon and will become zero carbon once the national grid is fully decarbonised, without requiring further retrofit. That is the really important point: we are retrofitting homes that have been built over recent years—at great cost—because of a previous Government’s decision to remove the required standards that were in place. We could go into that and the costs that that entails, but they are outside the scope of the Bill.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that new homes, including social housing, support our legally binding net zero target. We share the hon. Gentleman’s ambition to deliver homes that are energy efficient, low carbon and fit for the future. That is exactly what the future homes standard will achieve. The reassurance that I was going to give him in my intervention was that that is not affected by the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday of an effective moratorium on major new regulations, setting aside the qualifications that he set out at Dispatch Box with regard to building safety issues. The Government legislated for the future homes standard in March, and it will come into force for non-higher-risk buildings from 24 March 2027, and for higher-risk buildings from 24 September 2027.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome that clarification. I was going to say that part O does not prohibit any form of active cooling where designers can demonstrate that it is appropriate. As I say, part O encourages passive design measures before relying on mechanical systems. In many cases, as I have said, overheating can be effectively mitigated through passive measures. Mechanical cooling, such as air conditioning, can be used to mitigate overheating where all reasonably practicable steps have been taken to minimise it through passive means. For those reasons, we think that the new clause would likely increase the unnecessary use of mechanical cooling, with associated costs for both developers and residents. I therefore ask the hon. Member kindly to withdraw the new clause. New clause 9 concerns zero-carbon standards for new social housing.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As set out in my letter to the Planning Inspectorate earlier this year, attempts to revisit fundamental issues of viability or planning obligations through section 73 applications should be carefully scrutinised and supported by robust justification, with due weight given to the impact of any reduction in affordable housing delivery and to the wider merits of the scheme.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It also provides the basis for the use of model obligations, as policy DM6(4) states: “Where national model planning obligations are relevant to the development, they should be used unless there are strong reasons for using a different planning obligation.” Following that, we launched a consultation on four standardised planning agreements for medium-sized sites, which will be expected to become the default for relevant applications in future. The consultation closed on 20 October 2026, and we are considering the responses received. The proper process for modifying or discharging planning obligations is set out in section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I know that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington knows this; he has great experience in this area from before he came to the House.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At the same time, the framework will retain flexibility for cases where negotiation is genuinely needed to enable sites to come forward. We are also acting to minimise friction and reduce the complexity involved in the negotiation of section 106 agreements, which are, and will remain, an essential mechanism for delivering social and affordable housing, but which in recent years have become synonymous with inefficiency and delay. The new NPPF formally introduces the category of “medium development”—sites of up to 2.5 hectares with between 10 and 49 units.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 10 seeks to prevent local planning authorities from agreeing to any reduction in the number or proportion of social homes required through a planning obligation or condition. The Government are committed to strengthening the system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide necessary affordable homes and infrastructure, and we have already taken a number of steps to that end. The new NPPF, published on 17 August, seeks to promote greater clarity on expected contributions at the plan-making stage, and to reduce cases of unnecessary site-specific viability assessment by clarifying when it may be appropriate at the decision-making stage. That certainty will help to minimise lengthy negotiations over developer contributions, including affordable housing, on specific sites.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Gentleman entirely, but I hope he agrees that, as it stands, the system carefully balances the need for that flexibility with trying to ensure that we maximise the amount of social and affordable housing supply that can be secured. We should avoid legislation that imposes, in our view, an unreasonable degree of rigidity, while obviously continuing our efforts to increase affordable housing delivery overall. On that basis, I hope he might be persuaded to withdraw the new clause on this occasion.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Taunton and Wellington, our concern is that it could create unintended consequences that may be contrary to our shared objective to boost the supply of social and affordable housing. Notwithstanding his concerns, which I recognise, it is important that the system retains sufficient flexibility for local planning authorities to respond to significant changes in site or economic circumstances after planning permission has been granted, such as a recession or a similarly significant economic change. We are concerned that new clause 10 could unduly restrict that flexibility, which could—this is the ultimate point—cause sites to stall and subsequently reduce overall housing delivery, including overall social and affordable housing delivery. I suspect that I will not have convinced the hon.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is for that reason that we made it clear in a written ministerial statement on 28 January that we expect all local planning authorities to take advantage of existing planning flexibilities to renegotiate section 106 agreements, and to allow the tenure of homes to be varied to secure a buyer where affordable homes secured in section 106 agreements remain uncontracted or unsolved. As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will know, this can be effected by a deed of variation that makes amendments or revisions to existing section 106 agreements, either by agreement of the parties to the section 106 agreement, or by formal application under section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. To pick up directly on new clause 10, which was tabled by the hon.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have already taken a number of steps to support demand for section 106 units, not least spending review measures designed to rebuild the capacity of registered providers. As a result, we are seeing tentative signs of improvement in appetite for acquiring section 106 homes. However, despite that positive shift in sentiment post spending review, we know there are still housing schemes where developers remain unable to secure an RP buyer for the affordable homes set out in an original section 106 agreement, and where local planning authorities and developers have not discussed or reached agreement on variations to planning obligations, with the result that many of these sites are stalling.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Alongside ongoing work relating to the implementation of section 73B of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, the Government intend to undertake a wider review of the statutory framework for modifying or discharging existing planning obligations, and we will provide further details about this in due course. I hope that will reassure the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on section 73B, but I am clear that our intention in reviewing this matter is not to allow developers to more easily reduce planning obligations already entered into, including for affordable housing. The Government have also acted to deal with the detrimental consequences of a declining market for section 106 affordable homes.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Viability pressures are acute across the country, and in certain parts they are particularly severe—London is a good example—so they are bearing on schemes and what they can bring forward. If I am honest, I struggle to see the direct link between the standard method, the five-year housing land supply and the housing delivery test concerns that I know the hon. Gentleman has raised in the past, but he and I could have a wider discussion on that outside the Committee. I am trying to remain focused on the intent behind the new clause, which concerns planning obligations and conditions. Let me just set out the Government’s position on section 73.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am going to be careful, because—as the hon. Gentleman will be fully aware—given the role of Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in the planning system, I obviously cannot comment on particular local plans or applications, and I do not know the specific circumstances of the case he cites. I make the general point—picking up on something that I think the hon. Member for Orpington mentioned earlier—that when we arrived in office, house builders across the country were telling us that the planning system was, in the main, probably the biggest barrier to house building they faced. Following the reforms we have made to national planning policy, they no longer say that; as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly highlights, viability is the chief concern at the moment.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am not responding to the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I want to make an offer to him, because he will know that I am genuinely interested. He will know that we have tried to strengthen national policy on rural exception sites through the NPPF, so I am very interested in whether he thinks there are particular reasons why that strengthening will not have the desired effect, or whether there are other barriers to bringingforward those sites. We want more of those sites to be brought forward, precisely for the reasons that he has set out.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A separate register for every local housing authority would duplicate information already collected and published, while creating additional administrative requirements. We will continue to monitor right-to-buy sales and council housing delivery via our existing published statistics to ensure that we are consistently delivering more social rent homes than we are losing. The numbers are considerable; I refer the Committee to the Government estimates in the impact assessment of the net gain in social rented homes as a result of the Bill. For those reasons, I kindly ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mr Western. I thank you and the hon. Gentleman for the birthday wishes. What better way to spend a birthday than with the fine body of hon. Members on this Committee? We understand the intention behind new clause 11: to improve transparency about right-to-buy sales and changes in social housing stock. Robust and accessible information about sales and housing delivery is, of course, important. However, in our view, a new statutory reporting framework is not necessary. Incidentally, a similar amendment was proposed in the other place and resisted because the Department already publishes statistics on right-to-buy sales and replacements, alongside wider information on social housing delivery.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We need to recognise, however, that registered providers sometimes have tough decisions to make. We also need to ensure that we use Government money as effectively as possible. I am therefore not able to commit to further funding that would ensure that homes that are uneconomic or unsuitable to invest in remain in the social housing sector. However, I hope that the Committee is reassured by the funds available, which I have already outlined. On new clause 68, we record and publish statistics on acquisitions. That enables us to assess what role they are playing in social and affordable housing supply. It is not clear what an additional report would add to that assessment.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“All homes acquired through the fund become part of the local authority’s stock of housing, providing a lasting asset for local communities. I reassure Committee members that receipts from the sale of social homes are not lost but retained in the sector. Receipts from disposals will also often contain an element of recycled grant. In those circumstances, Homes England already sets a series of conditions on how recycled capital grant may be used. Those include the expectation that providers deploy recycled grant in support of identified priorities and housing need, in line with investment priorities set out in local plans. There is a strong incentive for timely reinvestment: if recycled grant is not used within three years, it must be returned to Homes England or the GLA, along with the interest it has accumulated.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For example, we have lifted the acquisitions cap on the use of right-to-buy receipts. That removes previous restrictions on the number of homes that could be acquired using that source of capital funding and offers councils greater flexibility to meet local housing need. We have also made grant funding for acquisitions available through the social and affordable homes programme. We have confirmed that we will look to raise its existing cap, so that councils can purchase more homes from the private sector while they increase their capacity and capability to deliver homes directly. In addition, the local authority housing fund can be used by local authorities to purchase from private registered providers homes that would otherwise be lost from the social housing sector.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 15 and new clause 68, which has not been spoken to, explore the merits of additional funding and support for councils and other registered providers when it comes to acquiring homes. New clause 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, focuses on keeping as social housing homes that would otherwise be disposed of outside the regulated sector. Although the Government continue to promote new build land-led development as a way to increase overall housing supply, we are supportive of acquisitions because they increase housing stock more quickly than new build and therefore represent an efficient way to rapidly meet local housing need. As a result, we have taken numerous steps to provide councils with investment opportunities to acquire additional homes.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government’s priority, as I have stated numerous times throughout our proceedings, is to protect and increase the supply of social and affordable rented homes for those in housing need. That is why the Bill is reforming the right-to-buy and right-to-acquire schemes—both to retain a route to home ownership and, as I have said, to avoid unsustainable rates of sale and outflow from the system. We do not believe that it would be right to introduce an additional route for social housing tenants to purchase their homes. As I have said, such a route would risk reducing the supply of rented social housing available to future tenants and duplicate existing routes to home ownership. For that reason, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will not push the new clause to a vote.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗