PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Responsibilities of Housing Developers - 11 December 2024 (Commons/Westminster Hall)

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the responsibilities of housing developers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am pleased to have secured this debate on housing developers and the challenges that my constituents face around the multiple housing developments that are currently taking place in our area.

Housing developers have a huge impact on local communities and our national potential. We are all acutely aware of the challenge of our national housing supply. It is vital to supply the right houses in the right places and to the right people, and without developers that would not be possible, but new housing also has a huge impact on local people. Done poorly, new developments can completely change the existing settlement. They can reduce access to local services and make it harder for a child to secure a school place. They may also make it more difficult to get a doctor’s appointment, or they may add to traffic congestion. Those practical effects make a huge difference to people’s lives. For towns such as Silsden in my constituency, a perfect storm of planning regulations can change the character of the local area.

From a town of a few hundred properties, Silsden has grown by hundreds of houses in just 10 years and looks set to grow even further. Given the huge power that local developers have in both urban and rural communities in areas like mine right across Keighley and Ilkley, it is vital that we regulate them and ensure that they act responsibly. We must not forget that developers are businesses and must rightly consider their profitability first, but it is beholden on this place and local councils to ensure that the desire to make a profit does not come at the expense of local people.

I want to talk through some of the challenges that my constituents face when developments take place. I will start with early consultation. It is vital, when new housing schemes are developed and initially thought through by a developer, that consultation with local people takes place before a planning application is submitted.

Since I became an MP in 2019, Silsden has seen Persimmon, Harron Homes, Countryside Homes, Barratt Homes, the Lindum group, Newett Homes and Skipton Properties all developing houses. Those multiple developments took place in one town. It is right for the local authority to look at the masterplanning associated with the whole town when looking at the collective impact and the level of services provided, and therefore work out any negative consequences of those individual developments.

The planning system currently struggles to take separate developments properly into account when consulting with the public. Proper early engagement is vital. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that in my constituency.

My hon. Friend speaks well about the challenges in Keighley and Ilkley. On the point about consultation, residents in my area might not object to the location of a development, but they are concerned about the impact on doctors and schools. When those concerns are raised with the developer, it pushes back and says that that is not its problem, but rather a matter for the local authority and the Scottish Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that that balance needs to be changed? Developers should take greater cognisance of the impact that their developments will have on services, working with the local authority to address those concerns as part of the consultation stage.

My hon. Friend’s excellent intervention gets to the nub of the point that I want to make. When multiple applications or developments are coming down the pipeline, they must all be considered duly and properly by the local authority. Bradford council, the unitary authority for my area, does not do that, which is incredibly frustrating because in order to work out the negative consequences, or indeed the positive impacts, that multiple developments will have on a community, those issues all have to be considered in the round. Residents need to feel that infrastructure and services are being properly considered.

That brings me on to a point that I had planned to make later about section 106 money and community infrastructure money. All too often, a local authority awards planning consent and then enters into a negotiation with the developer to agree the section 106 moneys that must then be paid to the local community, via the local authority, to mitigate any negative effects of the development. Unfortunately, in my constituency Bradford council is not taking a sufficiently robust negotiating position with the developer to extract as much financial benefit as possible for the local community so that that money can be spent in places like Silsden, Keighley and Ilkley and properly set against any negative impacts of the development.

I will give an example. With the development on Occupation Lane on the outskirts of Keighley, it was agreed that Barratt Homes would put in play facilities for children of all ages, up to the early teens. But what did we see when the development was complete? We saw play facilities that were more suitable for one or two-year-olds. The developer did the very bare minimum, which was obviously not what the residents expected when they purchased the homes. I could give other examples.

Many of these planning issues hark back to the Eric Pickles reforms, which the hon. Gentleman will remember all too well. One issue that I find in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes is that when it comes to section 106 funding, the power lies with the developers: they have much more negotiating strength. They do not want things like social homes as part of their developments, because they think that they will impact on the profits that the hon. Gentleman says are so important to securing the developments in the first place. Does he think that we need to regulate to ensure that the section 106 funding goes to the areas it was intended for, and ensure that local authorities are properly supported to acquire the expertise that they need to work against these developers?

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. The reality is that section 106 money should be spent within a closely defined community area to mitigate any negative impacts resulting from the development. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that in my constituency.

Bradford council, which is Labour-controlled, has the power to hold developers to account so that they ringfence money for the specific communities in which it should be spent. My worry is that the local authority is not spending that money in Silsden or Keighley; it is taking it back to Bradford city and spending it within the city heartlands, rather than allowing my constituents to benefit from it. That is a real challenge.

I would like a specific response from the Minister on how we can make sure that we hold the developers, and indeed the local authorities that have these powers, to account in order to ensure that section 106 money and community ownership money are spent in the communities where they should be spent.

My next point is about on-site conditions when a development takes place. Unfortunately, in my constituency I have far too often seen new developments—I will give the examples of Harron Homes in Silsden and Accent Properties in Long Lee just outside Keighley—where the quality of the build has been so poor that I, as the local MP, have had to chase the developer on snagging-related issues. Indeed, there have even been challenges with highways or drainage. A Long Lee resident contacted me to say that their property, which bordered on the development, had been negatively impacted by the work of Accent Homes, because the developers had not taken proper access provisions or proper boundary-related issues into account. That resulted in huge holes appearing in the gardens of neighbouring properties. Those properties had nothing to do with the development taking place, but they were still negatively impacted.

This should not be happening. Conditions of build should be properly assessed, and the developers should be held to account by the local authority through the enforcement powers available to it. Again, I fear that Bradford council is not being robust enough, when it has awarded planning consent for a build to take place, in going on to hold the developers to account throughout the build process. I have repeatedly raised that issue since becoming the Member of Parliament for Keighley and Ilkley.

This is a timely debate, because I have just written to Solihull council about the Arden Triangle in my constituency and the lack of sufficient detail around the masterplan that is being put forward and considered tomorrow. Does my hon. Friend agree with me about this? One of the points I raised was that developers need to give consideration to infrastructure such as GP surgeries, but also to the road network, so that it can deal with the increase in housing.

Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes an excellent intervention. All too often, we see little pockets of development taking place on the outskirts of relatively small towns, without due consideration of the wider challenges with traffic congestion on highways, schools, doctors’ surgeries and indeed the retail offering. Crikey, how many huge developments do we now see taking place where no thought is given even to having a local corner shop within easy access of the residents? Masterplanning and properly considering the impact of these developments on communities such as mine are vital.

That brings me to the next issue, which is that when a development has gone through the planning consent process and been built, and residents start moving in and to reside in the development, there is a challenge around how the site is maintained. I will use the example of the Miller Homes development in Eastburn, which is just next to Silsden and Steeton in my constituency. Miller Homes had completed the development, and then all residents were expected to pay a levy charge to a maintenance company, for the maintenance company to then use that money to instruct a contractor that would carry out any maintenance of the grassed areas or hedging within the development. What we were finding was that a resident had no control, necessarily, over how much levy they were paying that maintenance company, but neither did they have any control over the quality of the work being undertaken or over how regularly grass was being cut or hedges were being maintained. The system was not working.

I have had many meetings with residents on the issue. I have written to Miller Homes; I have also written to the management company dealing with the matter, because I feel that the situation is geared up for it to be able to make too much profit, and the quality of the service delivered for residents in Eastburn is so much less sufficient. In effect, those who have contacted me are trapped: they are paying for a service that they are not receiving and they cannot escape the situation without moving entirely. That cannot be fair. Better regulation of maintenance levy money for carrying out works on the ground and having a proper quality of work being carried out need to be looked at.

As I have said many times in this place, local people are not opposed to new housing, but they want guarantees that services and infrastructure will be upgraded to accommodate the new influx of people. We should be encouraging our housing sector to see the benefits of extra engagement and extra investment in order to open up public support so that more developments are able to take place further down the line. We must also convene developments and developers that work collaboratively with communities, so we can ensure that local communities are getting what they want. Based on the ambitious targets that the new Labour Government have released for increasing the number of houses and on their willingness, effectively, not to take into account local consideration and local consultation, I fear that there will be a dramatically negative impact on many small communities.

I will give a further example. In the village of Addingham in my constituency, people went through a very long process of negotiating their neighbourhood plan. They came to the conclusion that over the next 15 years Addingham would be able to accept about 75 new homes being constructed. Bradford council, which is Labour-controlled, comes along and effectively says, “No, no: we are going to ignore what you have spent the last God knows how many years developing, and say that another 181 new houses in Addingham would be far more appropriate.” That goes against all the work that the local community had done and against any need assessment that had been properly established for that community to grow. I urge the Government to ensure that they always take into account local need and local assessments, as well as the negative impacts on local communities.

I would like to make two quick points. Constituents of mine who live in the Brockhill area have been waiting 20 years for roads and areas of grass to be adopted, for upkeep discussions to happen and agreements to be made. That has happened under both blue and red local administrations, so I do not think this is a party issue. This is about a system that has been failing residents for a very long time.

Secondly, at the last election the Labour party proposed 1.5 million houses, but the hon. Member will remember that his party’s manifesto proposed 1.6 million houses. When we are talking about building houses that people need, we should also have honest discussions about the fact that homes will need to be built.

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but he started off by saying, “I’m not going to make this political,” and then went on to make a very political point.

I secured this debate to raise the concerns that residents have been raising. I robustly say to this new Labour Administration that communities like mine in Keighley, Silsden, Addingham and Ilkley, across the Worth valley, are fed up of having housing development after housing development approved by our Labour-controlled local authority without any due consideration of the negative impacts on our communities and infrastructure. There will be impacts, for instance, on our community’s ability to get a doctor’s appointment and on the development of our proper road infrastructure. This is political if Labour’s ambitions are to effectively get rid of the green belt and open up the grey belt when there is no due consideration of the local impacts that that will have.

My constituents and people across the country will want to hear from the Minister what plans the Government have to address the concerns that I have raised. The public must have confidence in the housing process. Otherwise, they will resist new developments, and quite rightly so. If the Government are truly ambitious in their plans to build new homes, they must tackle the issues that I have raised before the impacts are exacerbated and have negative consequences on, I suspect, most of the constituencies of hon. Members speaking in today’s debate.

It concerns me deeply that the rhetoric from the Government now seems to be that we need to loosen the housing and planning systems even further, yet we have heard no comments so far from the Government that address the existing concerns about the current system and the services and infrastructure being put in place. As I said, no one can object to the right houses for the right people in the right places—that is why local consideration is so important. If we want to achieve that, we must ensure that our developers behave responsibly and do not damage the vital link of trust between them and the public. Towns like Silsden in my constituency, villages like Long Lee and, indeed, the whole of the housing market rely on it.

Order. I am afraid I will have to put a three-minute limit on speeches, because this debate is so popular and oversubscribed. For new Members and those who may have forgotten, there is a clock on either side of the Chamber to encourage you to keep to the time limit.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for raising this important issue. I will try not to be too party political, but that is maybe working against instinct. I will do my best, anyway.

The key point is that it is very obvious that the planning system is broken from top to bottom. It is not delivering for anybody, and a lot of the anger that the hon. Member brought to this Chamber is reflected by my constituents. There is a particular focus on frustration with the developers and their contributions and a lack of trust. Trust has broken down, and a lot of residents doubt whether any of these contributions will ever be delivered. It is eroding faith across the board.

One of the things that is missing in planning is planning. We seem to have lost the grip of strategic planning being able to look at whole neighbourhoods, networks and regions to see what is needed. When the modern planning system was started in the 1940s, one of its central aims was to look at places and ask whether they could be structured so that all the required services were included. That was part of health delivery as much as anything else. I was pleased at one point in my career with the NHS to work with the healthy new towns programme, which brought a lot of testing and research to what is really needed in new developments, and what can enhance the health and wellbeing of residents.

Sometimes that works. In some areas of my constituency, planners and developers have come together to deliver things, such as a new ground for Sittingbourne rugby club. Demelza children’s hospice has used its developer contributions to extend its site. These are way beyond things that just local people need as a local resource. However, far too often, as was the case with the proposed Bell Road development, the option for a new health centre or new GP surgery is gradually whittled away by the developer to the point where the NHS no longer needs it. That has eroded faith and that is what needs to change.

I welcome a concerted effort from the Government to look at planning, particularly at whether we can improve training for planning officers, but we also need to bring the responsibilities of central planning in Whitehall closer to the ground. Hopefully the devolution settlement will help with that, but I look forward to seeing the actual detail. I genuinely think that that is a massive opportunity that we should all get involved in to ensure that devolution meets our needs.

Beyond that, I want to hear from the Minister how we will guarantee that the things that developers promise are actually delivered. I want it in writing—in blood—from those developers. If the Minister can help with that, it will be really appreciated.

It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this much-needed debate, and I will try to avoid party politics, because I do not really think this is about that. Although it is less often said, I see a responsibility that housing developers ought to fulfil post construction: the appointment of reliable management companies to ensure the upkeep of estates. One of the reasons why I am here today is to talk about that.

Developers should ensure a smooth transition to reliable and reputable management companies but, as I am sure hon. Members know from their casework, that job is often not completed. Unfortunately, for a number of my constituents in Rochford, some housing developers have failed to do their due diligence and appoint reliable and accessible management companies. For example, residents in the Elizabeth Gardens estate on Hall road in Rochford are being forced to pay a lump sum in excess of £300 in annual service fees. They are asked to pay that in one go, rather than in instalments, which is one example of how inflexible some management companies can be with new residents who move into certain communities.

As I am sure we have all heard before, grass is not being cut, areas are not being maintained and fees are unaccounted for, and the list goes on. Thus far, residents have not been offered the opportunity to pay in monthly instalments, which goes to show that again they are not necessarily being listened to. Although the service is supposed to be for them, as the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) said, they are not really part of the decision-making process. That is a real source of frustration, and residents would not mind so much if they were getting the services they were promised. Does the Minister agree that it is important that housing developers take responsibility and appoint reliable, reasonable management companies?

Another key issue that I am keen to raise is the over-zealous housing developers who maintain a financial interest in the properties to the detriment of residents. A housing developer in my constituency is maintaining their financial interest by imposing an annual fixed rent charge of £1. That may sound insignificant to many people, but some mortgage lenders are reluctant to lend on the said properties due to such technical financial interest. That prevents young families looking to either remortgage or move out of their property from doing so. Residents can request a deed of variation, which is one way in which they can come out of that situation, but the fees for those deeds are £1,200, so it is prohibitive. This is about being responsible and reasonable with residents’ money.

I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley again for securing the debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this debate. I echo his comments, especially on early consultation and problems with maintenance companies. In West Suffolk the population has increased by 5.3% over the last decade. The population of Haverhill, the biggest town, has nearly doubled over the past three decades, and the size of Newmarket has grown by 50%.

Some of the developments have been contentious but, on the whole, people are not opposed to new house building in West Suffolk. We have had around 3,000 new homes built in just the last five years, and one of the things that our whole area has in common is the relationship with the economic geography of Cambridge, which is obviously only going to develop in the decades ahead. Most of the residents I speak to support the need for new, attractive family homes in the right places. Recently, I had a very constructive meeting with small developers in West Suffolk who are keen to grow their market share, and who often provide homes that are more attractive and sensitive to the community than some of the bigger companies. That is part of a new approach that I would like to see, but a new approach should go wider than that.

I want to cite some examples of the experience in my constituency. In Mildenhall there is a proposed development of more than 1,000 new homes to the west of the town. We are going to need a relief road there to help manage the extra traffic that will inevitably follow the development. There are similar issues in communities such as Kentford and Red Lodge, where residents are worried about the growing volume of traffic because of the number of houses that have been built nearby in recent years. In Haverhill, residents have felt let down because the relief road that was promised with the large development that was constructed over the past few years is still not open to use.

I will quickly make a few points in principle. First, we need new homes in this country. My points are not about nimbyism, but about ensuring that homes are sensible and in the right places. We should be building for families, not just transient tenants. Secondly, developers should be required to contribute more to the communities that they profit from building in. Thirdly, new infrastructure should arrive in advance of expansion; residents should not have to wait years for the benefit.

Fourthly, we need to build communities, not just “units”, which is the dreadful word used too often by council offices. We need communities that build a neighbourly spirit and encourage trust—not antisocial behaviour and crime. The quality of the housing needs to be much better than some of what has been thrown up in recent years. There should be no more building on floodplains, and we need proper accountability, so that when developers do not do what they promise, there are proper consequences for them.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I rise to raise a specific issue in my constituency: the Clee Meadows estate, which is just off Ladysmith Road. It is an ex-industrial site that previously held the Birds Eye factory and was left to fall into a derelict state. It is in the heart of Grimsby town, and for years local residents complained about the lack of development and the fact that nothing was happening. Under the previous Labour council, decisive action was taken to start to build on that site and very nice housing was put up.

This debate is so relevant because it is about the long-term responsibilities of housing developers; despite the homes on that estate being very nice, the shortcuts taken by the developer have had long-lasting consequences. I was there the other week and I saw collapsing driveways, poor quality paths and paving, and pothole-ridden roads. It is only now, after I have raised the issue once in this place already, that the developer has started to get back in touch with the local authority and to take action to remedy some of the problems that residents have put up with for far too long.

I have been struck by the rest of the area that the estate sits in. It is a plot for 101 houses, but the rest of the area is a complete and utter bombsite, exactly as the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) put it. It is ripe for fly-tipping, which happens on a regular basis. There are storage facilities for the developer’s other activities, such as the Strawberry Fields development, just outside my constituency, which has taken the developer’s interest and means that he has taken his eye off the ball with Clee Meadows.

The thing that strikes me about the discussion around section 106 funding is that we do need houses in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, but the question is: what kind of houses? My local authority is Conservative-run at the moment, and the people there say to me, “We can’t sell some of the houses on these new developments.” I say, “That’s because they’re five-bedroom executive homes. They’re not the homes we need.” If we did not need the houses that we do, we would not have houses in multiple occupation popping up all over the place, we would not have massive waiting lists for housing associations, and we would not have people stuck in temporary accommodation. But that is exactly what we have.

There is a massive opportunity for social homes. There must be a better way of working out which housing sites have planning permission and the housing need in local areas. There is an opportunity for the Minister to share her wisdom on that with us today.

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this very important debate. Natalie Harrison lives in my constituency of Wokingham and, along with other leaseholders in Mulberry House, faces constant challenges due to the failure of her former managing agent, Eagerstates, and its associated company, Assethold. I recognise that neither of those companies is a housing developer, but the situation faced by my constituents could very well apply to properties leased by a housing developer, so I hope it is treated with the same principle. Natalie tells me that Eagerstates’ two-year tenure as managing agent of Mulberry House has turned the leaseholders’ lives into a living hell. It increased the service charge by 48% in its first year of management and by over 200% in its second. After the leaseholders secured a successful right to manage application, Eagerstates continued to bill residents over £16,000 despite no longer being appointed.

Another constituent is in a top-floor apartment in the same property and is now forced to live in damp conditions surrounded by mould due to the poor quality of the roof. The roof, which was fully replaced six years ago, carried a 30-year warranty that is no longer covered, due to a failure by Eagerstates to commission a once-yearly inspection. Eagerstates has left the property in a shocking state of repair, forcing residents to pay an additional £29,000 between 12 flats for roof repairs and £45,900 for a completely new lift. My constituents feel that they are being robbed and left completely unprotected by a system that is seemingly unable to protect people who are being ripped off by companies that have the money to intimidate them.

Can the Minister tell me, Natalie and the residents of Mulberry House what plans the Department has to get the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 fast-tracked as quickly as possible? People need action to protect their livelihoods. They would also be grateful to know how the Government’s plans will stop the abuses by Eagerstates that they are facing from happening now and in the future. Will the Government ensure that undue power is taken from housing developers? Finally, will the Minister investigate the cases I have talked about and provide me with a written response that I can pass on to those affected?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this wide-ranging and important debate. Colleagues have made salient points about the need for more housing, and more housing in the right place. I will focus my comments on the responsibility of developers to build quality, safe homes.

When it comes to development, I am quite straightforward: I want developers to build more housing and I want them to get on with it, but they have to build good, safe homes. Too many do not have their own house in order, and I worry about them being awarded contracts in the future to build more as part of Labour’s ambitious plans for 1.5 million more houses. The time for asking nicely is over; we have to demand that people’s safety is put first. We do not want to be here dealing with the same issues in 10 years’ time under new developers.

This is also about ensuring the wellbeing of the very people we are talking about, namely our constituents—those on waiting lists, and those saving hard to buy their first home or put down rent deposits. Their overall wellbeing and financial stability have been compromised too much in the past. We are putting right the mistakes of the past. In my constituency of Southampton Itchen, I have met constituents who have painstakingly shared stories of how their families are struggling. They set out with these great new developments—they have bought or rented houses that they could afford—only to now be saddled with unscrupulously high service charges to cover the cost of remediation works for leasehold buildings. Some of those constituents are young couples and families who have bought their dream first home but now find themselves in a long and drawn-out nightmare.

I have met the building safety Minister to discuss some specific cases in my constituency: Oceana Boulevard and French Court, among others. They require immediate attention and they are getting it, for which I am grateful. But let us be clear: the housing industry has to act very differently in future on the issues that hon. Members have raised, to ensure that we avoid the gross mistakes of the past. I want the industry to learn those lessons from my constituency, and to ensure quality in what it builds from here on.

None of us wants to be here in a decade, clearing up a different housing mess—whether that is to do with location, quality or form of ownership. It is the developers’ responsibility now to guarantee that quality and get it right the first time, rather than remediating later. It is the Government’s responsibility, of course, to hold developers to account when they do not get it right, so I would appreciate the Minister’s assurances on how we will ensure that those things are right the first time. On that, and on other issues rightly raised by hon. Members, we cannot allow developers to wash their hands of their responsibilities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this debate. I agree with his comments at the start of the debate about pre-consultation on planning permissions, and about developers learning from consultations that are carried out on regen projects, where communities’ aspirations are often captured and then delivered, whereas they are not on brand new applications.

I also declare that I am a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Prior to entering the House, I worked in social housing for 15 years. My experience in the housing sector showed me the importance of community infrastructure being at the heart of developments. I am concerned that current planning processes do not prioritise the essential facilities needed for communities to thrive.

In many developments, primary schools, community centres, recreational areas and other facilities are delivered later into the phase-in of the developments. That leaves families on the estates—many, for years—with nowhere near what was promised in the glossy vision and the sales catalogues. This reduces the chances for new communities to come together to form that important bond needed for those communities to be sustainable. I believe that the Government can do more to support the delivery of crucial infrastructure—from updating their planning policies through to helping with funding vehicles to ensure that new communities get the infrastructure delivered at the earliest possible time.

Another pressing issue is the maintenance of roads in new developments. I recently visited Lancaster Park in Hungerford, in my constituency of Newbury, where residents shared their frustrations about unadopted roads. In Lancaster Park, residents now face management costs for the upkeep of the roads, on top of paying their council tax. The developer does not want the roads to be adopted, and the council—already underfunded by central Government and under financial pressure—is keen not to take on new cost liabilities. That just is not right, so I am proud that my party, the Liberal Democrats, is calling for a change so that all local authorities must adopt roads. That will guarantee the roads’ standard, and stop those costs being passed directly to a small group of residents. Developments must reduce homelessness, and improve standards and lives, not place additional burdens on those they are aimed at helping.

Finally, I want to speak briefly about the decent homes standard. Currently, 3.3 million homes do not meet the standard. Social landlords are leading the way on improving their stock, but in the private sector more than half a million homes contain the most serious hazards. The Government must get on and consult on the decent homes standard, and enforce its implementation across all homes in the private and social sector.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard—[Interruption]—in the company of the John Deere air horn orchestra.

This debate is very important to me. I have met Persimmon, Oakgate, Banks Group, Joseph Rowntree, Taylor Wimpey, Barratt, David Wilson, McLaren and countless others. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing the debate. I greatly respect him as a fellow Yorkshire MP, so let me be Yorkshire, direct and bold and say that he forgets an important point: it was the last Government who oversaw the broken planning system.

That brings me to the challenges we face in York. Housing developers have struggled to build good homes over the past 14 years, but it is not for lack of trying. I am afraid to say that some councillors in certain parties have been the blockers for too long. Let me tell hon. Members a story. New Earswick was the brainchild of Joseph Rowntree. For Members familiar with model villages, it is the Bournville or Saltaire of York—a place built on the principle that better housing can be provided for lower-income families.

Recently, there was a proposal to build 14 new affordable houses. It was compliant with the national planning policy framework. No need to worry, right? Unfortunately, that was not the case. If Members want to know why, I will need to refer to one of my son’s favourite films, the 2006 animated comedy “Over the Hedge”. The plot, for those who may not know it, is about a group of woodland animals led by a cautious turtle named Verne. The problem is that Verne’s overly cautious approach has bled into the local authority’s cautious planning approach for too long. I hope Members will forgive that slightly unexpected reference, but the reason why those 14 homes were delayed for three to six months was that planning committee members from a certain party did not want to go ahead over a hedge. Families had been left waiting for months for housing—over a hedge.

Let me move on from that harrowing tale and make a slightly bold suggestion: rather than just focusing on the responsibilities of housing developers, we must focus on the role of local councillors. If committee members are homeowners, they should have to declare it as an interest. It is easy to block the homes of the future when you have one yourself.

I find some of the hon. Member’s remarks quite extraordinary. Is he genuinely saying that if concerns about wildlife, the environment or what is proposed are put forward by local residents, and particularly by the Environment Agency, they should simply be ignored in pursuit of this house building agenda?

Absolutely not. The example I gave was—to go back to that 2006 movie—about a hedge. The power that planning committees have must be exercised with restraint. We must consider the opportunity costs. Disabled families and other families, my constituents, have been left waiting six months because of a landscape issue over a hedge.

There are a couple of practical considerations I would like to raise. The future homes standard is great, and developers have a responsibility there, but we cannot just focus on air source heat pumps. We must have battery storage linked to photovoltaics as well—that should be the new home standard. We must also have extra planning committee resource so we can properly hold developers to account. I would really welcome the Minister updating us on when the 200 new planning officers are likely to be in place. They are desperately needed in York.

Let me also touch on pre-application discussions. These are important to let developers get on and consider local need in the right way and at an early stage.

We are sent here not to consider anecdotes and individual case studies, but to consider legal frameworks and systems. If the hon. Gentleman wants to remove some of the systemic barriers to house building, which regulations—particularly pertaining to the environment and biodiversity—might he be interested in seeing removed?

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions are part of our regular work, and it is entirely up to the speaker to take them. However, when an intervention is taken, it adds one minute to the speaker’s time slot, which takes time away from others.

Forgive me, Mr Pritchard, but I thought that the intervention was on my point about the pre-application process, which should be welcomed on all sides. It can be really helpful to developers and local authorities, because additional resource—an independent resource that the local authority agrees to—can be brought in to provide support, enabling things to be scrutinised more closely and in due time.

I hear so much from developers about statutory consultees, and orchestrating them—landscaping, drainage, water, highways and so on—is a critical part of the planning process. But so often in the planning process, when one respondent is late, it has a knock-on effect on everyone else. We realistically must ensure that planning authorities are better at orchestrating those statutory consultees.

I would welcome the chance to meet the Minister to discuss some of these ideas further. York Outer is a unique place in terms of the concept of grey belt. I welcome recent NPPF statements. I really believe that we will be turning Tory stumbling blocks into Labour’s building blocks.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I am glad that the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) secured the debate, because this issue is vital. I will focus on the premature handover of sites from housing developers to management companies before the developers’ responsibilities are fulfilled. I will do that by giving a couple of examples from the area I represent: Pebble Beach in Seaton and Acland Park in Feniton, both in east Devon.

In Pebble Beach, construction began on a site for 220-odd homes in 2014. I saw the Bovis Homes advert on YouTube earlier, and it shows drone footage over beautiful Seaton. It is absolutely stunning. Who would not want to live there? Sadly, the experience of people who have moved to the site is that it is very much incomplete. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley talked about a play area that was never finished; well, these people had a play area that was never started, despite having been pledged. The kerbs are so high that a child could sit by the road and eat their lunch off the pavement—such is the incompleteness of the construction.

There are trip hazards and blocked drains, and the site has been more or less handed over to the property management company FirstPort without the developer having fulfilled its responsibilities. That has resulted in poor maintenance and the deflection of responsibilities, with the property management company pointing at the developer and the developer pointing back at the property management company. The residents are stuck in the middle, not knowing quite who is accountable.

Last week, Liberal Democrat MPs met FirstPort and took the issue up with it. Also last week, the Business and Trade Committee met Vistry in Exeter. Vistry takes on board its responsibility as a developer, but it needs to get back to the site and fix the things it said it would. I will have to leave to another day my comments about Acland Park, which I have talked about in this Chamber before.

The key point that I would like the Minister to take away is that we cannot have a situation where property management companies essentially take responsibilities from developers, and developers are therefore not held accountable.

I call James Naish. [Interruption.] Yes, I called you.

It didn’t sound like my name.

The Clerk doesn’t know it and I don’t know it, but I hope you know it.

It is James Naish for Rushcliffe.

I apologise for my Hereford-Shropshire accent. Some of us from the west midlands are still in this place.

Thank you, Mr Pritchard, for calling me to speak, whether I know my name or not. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore)—I do know where Keighley is—for securing this important debate on the responsibilities of house builders.

I want to speak briefly to highlight the fantastic work of one of my constituents, Sarah Postlethwaite, who is a senior planning ecologist. In March this year, in her own time, Sarah conducted a detailed audit on the implementation of ecological planning conditions in her home village of East Leake. I have a copy of her report here, and it makes for fascinating reading. She looked at 11 built-out sites from the past decade, and the headline figure is that the overall compliance rate for ecological planning conditions was 9.5 out of 36 conditions, or a meagre 26%.

At one development by Persimmon Homes, which had 294 homes built out, there was an inadequate number of bat and swift boxes, which were badly installed and/or in inappropriate locations. It was also not possible to determine whether the promised meadow grassland and flowering lawn mixes had been sown appropriately. At sites by other developers, hedges were removed, despite commitments to retain them. Grassland areas were not created as required, and sustainable drainage systems were not fully built, despite people occupying nearby houses.

I acknowledge that time has passed since the audit was completed earlier this year, but I thought it would be useful to highlight the bottom-up work taking done by constituents such as mine who are keen to see house builders deliver on the conditions that are agreed when planning permission is granted. I commend Sarah’s work, which was reported by the BBC and which, as a result, secured apologies from both Barratt Homes and Persimmon Homes. Miller Homes said it was finalising its ecology measures at the time of reporting.

I sympathise to an extent with the position of local authorities that have neither the resources nor the expertise to hold developers to account, as they would wish. None the less, councils need to take their enforcement responsibilities seriously and to be appropriately financed and resourced, so that we can make sure that developers meet their ecological and other varied and important commitments; if not, swift and effective remedial actions should be taken. I would welcome hearing more from the Minister on how we empower councils to do that.

I am afraid that we are down to two minutes each for the last two speakers. I call Olly Glover.

Thank you, Mr Pritchard. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I join my colleagues in praising the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this important debate. I am going to focus my remarks on the challenges of estate adoption, generally unaccountable management companies and fees. I thank the House of Commons Library for its comprehensive briefing on this subject, but I confess it rather blew my mind. The legal and contractual concepts are quite bewildering, and I do not know whether to be saddened or reassured by how many colleagues have raised similar issues to the ones that I am about to describe.

Since our election in July, I have been contacted by people across my constituency about issues relating to estate adoption and management companies, including Highcroft and Winterbrook Meadows in Wallingford, Fuller’s Grove and Hamilton Drive in East Challow, Dida Gardens and Great Western Park in Didcot, Kingsgrove in Wantage, and Cholsey Meadows in Cholsey. With 30,000 more homes planned in the surrounding area by 2041, which will account for 20% of all the housing stock, it is important that we collectively get a grip of the issues so that we prevent their recurrence in future.

Problems experienced by my residents include huge and disproportionate hikes in estate management fees, which they pay in addition to council tax, endless arguments between parties, and a lack of accountability regarding who exactly is responsible for maintenance on some of these new estates. They also include lack of timescales for the adoption of roads and other items, a lack of transparency and clarity on how to influence and hold to account the management companies, and complicated ownership and financial models, which vary from estate to estate.

I lack the legal and contractual PhD needed to understand all of the framework, but I can be clear on the simplicity that my residents seek: a simpler approach to planning and development, clear and consistent adoption policies and processes, the ability to hold developers to account, value for money, and proper funding for local authorities to remove any perverse incentives around planning agreements and adoption decisions.

First, may I say that it is a pleasure to speak in this debate? I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for setting the scene.

The UK is screaming out for new homes for large families, small families, single people and first-time buyers. I am fortunate to have a first-class working relationship with numerous developers in my constituency, and I think that that makes a difference. Whether it is Fraser Homes, Hagan Homes, Dunlop Homes or Rock Developments, I support them and they support me. In the constituency of Strangford, they have helped transform the towns and provided forever homes to so many people.

I want to see urgency in the planning process, which clearly is not there. There is an issue with the adoption of roads and footpaths. In Northern Ireland, we insist on developers providing a bond. Should they go bust, that bond can be used to finish the roads, footpaths or drainage system. But as costs have risen, as they clearly have, there is a need to have a bond that is satisfactory. That is the first thing.

The subject of snag lists comes up all the time. When residents move into their newly developed house, they want it all to be perfect, but suddenly it is not perfect, because there are snags that need to be addressed: cracks in the walls, unfinished woodwork, plumbing, electrics and perhaps subsidence. Communication is a large part of addressing those snags, so developers need to tighten up in that regard.

An effort must be made with buyers and third-party organisations to ensure that processes are done and that local planning, the Department for Infrastructure back home, private developers and purchasers—

Order. I call Gideon Amos.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this important debate, and my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for Newbury (Mr Dillon) and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on their contributions.

Too often, in my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, big housing developments are not completed as they should be and fail to come with the infrastructure that is needed. In one close in Taunton—a development substantially completed over a decade ago—the developer still has not finished the road surfacing, making the adoption of the close by the local authority impossible and meaning that there are no streetlights there.

Liberal Democrats support the construction of more homes. About 5,800 homes in Taunton, and about 1,000 in Wellington, have been approved or constructed since 2012, but we believe that the focus and priority should be the 150,000 social homes a year that the country needs. It would therefore surely be right for private developers to be given “use it or lose it” permissions—losing them, for example, when they have not completed developments to the required standard and with the required infrastructure. A “use it or lose it” system might mean ensuring that developers that do not comply are not able to avail themselves of subsequent permissions.

Despite the construction of over 6,000 new homes in Taunton and Wellington, no new doctor’s surgery has been provided. Although local councillors are working hard to secure land and buildings for a surgery, there is a real worry that no doctors will be available to fill it; the Blackdown GP practice in my constituency is closing in the afternoons to save money in the face of higher national insurance and staffing costs.

As we have heard, estate management agencies often charge large sums to freeholders for the upkeep of shared areas or assets. Such arrangements are often referred to as fleeceholds, given that the charge paid to the management company is so high and it is effectively a form of leasehold arrangement. Liberal Democrats are therefore calling for it to be the norm for shared assets in freehold estates to be adopted by the local authority, rather than by housing developers or estate management companies. If an estate has been constructed by a rogue or cowboy developer, freeholders can often pay extortionate fees for the upkeep of infrastructure that has not been properly completed or is not even fully in place. In addition, residents do not receive any reduction in the council tax that they are expected to pay to account for the estate charge or to reflect the specific services offered, because of course council tax is collected to deliver a broad range of services.

As we have heard, the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 received Royal Assent in May, with the aim of strengthening the regulation of the housing sector. Will the Minister give us a clear date when the relevant sections will be commenced to give residents the powers of redress that they urgently need? Liberal Democrats have called for further regulation of management companies such as FirstPort, including to ensure that they respond to all correspondence and hold regular AGMs. If they fail to do so, we have called for residents to be given the power to take ownership for themselves.

Liberal Democrats have often called for zero-carbon homes and better standards. We welcome the decent homes standard proposed in the Renters’ Rights Bill, but we want it extended to military service family accommodation. Why should those people be excluded? We also want to see local authorities better funded to enforce those planning conditions that can be enforced. Somerset council has been handed what the outgoing Conservative leader of the county council has called a “ticking timebomb” of social care costs—which are falling on local authorities across the country. According to the National Audit Office and the BBC, the promised £1 billion of funding for social care was taken away exactly 12 months ago, leaving many councils, especially Somerset—with its historically low council tax base—having to make massive savings and often heartbreaking decisions.

Finally, it is important that we do not leave the provision of homes just to the private sector. It has a role to play, of course, but housing need will not be met unless we build 150,000 homes for social rent per year. That is the Liberal Democrat focus: genuinely affordable homes for local people, with properly funded local authorities to look after the infrastructure that needs to come with them. Unless Government support is provided for social housing and social care around the country, councils will be unable to cope with the need to properly regulate housing developers and ensure that they meet the obligations placed on them.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this important debate. I am delighted that the tractor beeps have stopped, partly because anyone watching the debate might have thought that the beeping was in case I swore pre-watershed. I assure people that it was the tractors outside.

I thank hon. Members for their important contributions. I will pick out a few, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley, and then address a number of issues raised by Members around the Chamber. My hon. Friend made several important points, which many Members understand because we go through the same things. As in his constituency, there is an excessive amount of development in mine, where it is being led by the Liberal Democrat local authority. We know there are similar cases around the country, and we know that developers do not always stick to the standards that we need them to and that consumers are entitled to when buying something as big as a property that they expect to live the majority of their lives in.

My hon. Friend also mentioned early consultation, which is an important concept, and talked about local plans. It is important that the new Government take a strong line, like the previous Government, to ensure that local authorities deliver a feasible local plan. I hope the Minister, in keeping with the Minister for Housing and Planning, will reassure us that she will stick to the importance of neighbourhood plans. Local people know what they want in their area, and they deserve the Government’s protection from excessive and speculative development.

It was interesting to hear hon. Members talk about their constituencies and housing. I worry that many of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley will be exacerbated by some of the policies announced by Ministers. I am worried that the centralising zeal of the new Government will take power away from local councillors. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) said that he wanted planning decisions made closer to the ground, and by people who know their local area. Unfortunately, the policies announced this week will take planning decisions away from locally elected councillors, who act on behalf of his constituents.

The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) wants a bolder and more ambitious offer in his area, which I know well because he is my constituency neighbour and we served on the same local authority together. He might want a word with his ministerial colleagues who have reduced housing targets in his city from 1,450 to 1,100, while doubling or tripling targets in neighbouring more rural areas. If he wants bold and ambitious plans for his area, perhaps he should speak to his Government about taking targets away from Labour areas and putting them in Tory and Liberal Democrat ones.

The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) mentioned hedges and local features of his constituency. I am sure it is beautiful, but I say the same to him: if he wants more resources for planning departments across the country, he should have a word with his Ministers, who are taking power to say yes or no away from local authorities and putting it in the hands of Ministers in Westminster.

Residents of Watery Lane in Lichfield know fine well that these powers already exist. There was significant local objection to a 750-home development right on the edge of the city. It went through every single possible stage of objection from the local authority and local residents, and it was still just signed off by a Minister in Whitehall. These powers have existed for a long time, so will the hon. Gentleman ensure that he does not make the point that some type of new power is being brought in?

That is not what the Minister for Housing and Planning said in the Chamber on Monday. He said that local authorities and councillors can make decisions about their area as long as the Minister is able to call applications in. It is a bypassing of locally elected councillors and a bypassing of local authorities, and the Government need to look again at the power that they are taking away from people at the grassroots and putting into the hands of Ministers at their desks in Westminster. The last Government would never have done that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley also mentioned section 106 agreements. It is really important that we make sure that section 106 funds are allocated to local areas as much as possible. Experts have criticised systems such as section 106, with Professor Christian Hilber of the London School of Economics describing them as “inefficient—even counterproductive” and arguing that they potentially drive up house prices instead of delivering the affordable housing and public goods that they are meant to provide. Research by the Home Builders Federation highlighted that, troublingly, local authorities in England and Wales are holding on to £8 billion of unspent developer contributions. Those funds could transform communities: 11,000 affordable homes could be built, 12 million potholes could be repaired and 126,000 new school places could be created.

We agree that it is time for policies that empower local councils and deliver tangible benefits for residents when it comes to the standard of developments. It is vital that local authorities have up-to-date local plans to ensure that people have a say in shaping the vision and framework for their communities over the next few years. That is why I am concerned about the centralising structures that this Government have introduced. They are bringing forward planning reforms before the revised national planning policy framework, which we think will be released tomorrow, has been published. That does not seem transparent, and it does not seem like joined-up government. They really need to look at bringing in wider reforms together.

There are also fears that the Government’s ambition to build on the green belt could extend to undermining local democracy itself—that even includes hedges. In their reform of planning committees, the Government are planning to strip back the democratic role of local government and impose top-down reforms at a later stage. How will the Minister ensure that the local voices of elected councillors are heard in this process? Her constituents and the constituents of every Member in this House elect councillors to represent them, and I do not understand why the Government seem not to have confidence in local authorities, even those controlled by the Labour party—because its local authority leaders have said that these plans are not deliverable—to make decisions themselves.

We must ensure that consumers are protected from abuse and poor services from developers, especially when it comes to the management of their homes and estates. The Government must work hard to ensure high standards among managing agents and hold them accountable for their actions. It is essential that any reforms under this Government enable our communities to take positive steps towards building more homes, regenerating local areas and supporting economic growth. The last thing we want is for these reforms to inadvertently create barriers to progress or leave communities disempowered.

I recognise the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley about the fees charged to maintain estates, particularly where communal areas remain under construction. The law is clear that service charges must be reasonable and the work or services paid for must be of a reasonable standard. Leaseholders have the right to ask for a breakdown of these charges and the evidence supporting them, such as receipts, and it is a criminal offence for a landlord to withhold that information. If leaseholders believe a charge is unreasonable, they have the right to apply to the tribunal.

I say to the Minister that we will work together on leasehold reform. The last Government made great strides in making sure that leaseholders are looked after and that they have protections under the law. The Minister has announced further measures. Will she confirm when she will bring those proposals to the House? Another Minister in her Department said that extra leasehold protections may not take effect for the lifetime of this Parliament. We ask the Government to move faster than that and to introduce those powers as soon as possible.

On infrastructure, I encourage councils to make use of the powers available to them to achieve the best possible outcomes for their communities. However, I do not believe in imposing overly prescriptive mandates from the centre. There are instances in which a more tailored approach may be necessary.

Finally—many Members may be happy that I am winding up my contribution—I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley again. One thing I will say about this debate is that despite our political disagreements, everybody around the Chamber has the best interests of their constituents at heart. They want their constituents to have accessible housing of a good standard, whether that is private housing, socially rented housing or housing for affordable rent. All of us in this Chamber have a responsibility, across parties, to ensure that the houses built across this United Kingdom are fit for purpose, and that they are ones that are wanted by local people and not imposed by central Government.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this debate and on his introductory speech. He made important points about the importance of consultation, the responsibilities of housing developers and the need for quality service provision, community infrastructure and a range of other issues. Those are important points that we can all relate to from our own constituencies.

Other Members raised the important issues of housing supply and the housing crisis. We can all agree about the need to address the housing shortage in our country. It was helpful to be reminded of the Conservative party’s manifesto commitment of 1.6 million, along with my party’s commitment of 1.5 million over the next five years. On this important agenda, there is much that we can agree on. It is vital that national Government, regional government, local government and, of course, developers, on which we rely to deliver good-quality, safe and secure housing fit for communities and our country, work closely in partnership. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity—the first since the developments of the 1950s—to provide the housing that our country desperately needs.

We are in the middle of the most acute of crises in living memory; I see that first hand in my work as homelessness Minister, given the pressures of the housing shortage in many parts of our country. For too long, too few homes have been built and even fewer have been affordable, putting the dream of home ownership out of the reach of too many. That is creating an intergenerational set of tensions. Today’s under-30s are less than half as likely to be homeowners as those of the same age in the 1990s. There were only 210,000 first-time buyers last year, and they were particularly concentrated in the younger generation. That is the lowest figure since the global financial crisis.

We have seen house prices rise during that period, too. I know that across parties we can agree that we need to ensure that the younger generation have the hope of home ownership, should they wish to be homeowners, and that those who want to live in other forms of housing can get access to good-quality, affordable accommodation, be that shared ownership or other types of accommodation. We have inherited a set of challenges that we must address. That requires serious work across parties, where possible. There are 123,000 households, including 150,000 children, in temporary accommodation, which affects communities and constituencies up and down the country. We have a shared responsibility to tackle those issues.

As for the points made on planning and local consultation, we take those very seriously. The suggested changes to the national policy and planning framework, which we consulted on this summer, are first steps to correcting some of the issues that have arisen. By strengthening the housing targets and allowing development on poor-quality grey belt land, we will get Britain building again to kick-start our mission for delivering those 1.5 million homes. We are clear that our mission cannot be at the expense of quality. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley and others have made important points, and although I will not be able to address them all, I will make sure that officials pick them up. Colleagues have raised a number of specific constituency cases, and I am happy to pick those up in writing as well.

I want to pick up on the point about the grey belt. I will use an example from my own constituency where we have challenges. The local authority is developing its local plan, but genuine concerns have been raised that where houses are being allocated, the need is not being identified—in other words, green belt or grey belt is being prioritised over brown-belt land. Could the Minister outline what conversations she is having with the likes of Bradford council, which is Labour-controlled, so that brownfield sites can be prioritised rather than green belt and greenfield, which has negative implications?

I will come to that point, which picks up on the hon. Gentleman’s earlier point about consultation, proper partnership working and engagement. We very much want to see that partnership with local authorities and communities, and I will come to the points about planning requirements as well.

We have been in government for only just over five months, but I hope colleagues can see that we have hit the ground running on a number of agendas, including leasehold reform and decent homes, which have been mentioned. We recognise that there is an urgency and a backlog of issues that need to be addressed. I hope that we can work on those issues collectively, because our constituents desperately need us to bring improvements.

Since coming into government, we have taken immediate steps to support the rapid delivery of homes by launching the new homes accelerator and establishing the new towns taskforce. We believe that the generation of new towns will provide new opportunities for millions of people and unlock much-needed economic growth. The construction sector, for instance, will generate additional jobs for communities up and down the country. These are important opportunities for our country.

We have also secured investment through the investment summit, including £60 billion and £0.5 billion on housing specifically. We need to see that investment in housing in our country. The Government have also put a down payment on our commitment, announcing £5 billion towards a housing supply package for England over the next five years, including £0.5 billion for social and affordable housing schemes.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley is absolutely right about developers. We need to ensure that developers fulfil their responsibility. He is very aware of safety, and other colleagues also raised that issue. The remediation action plan, following the recently published Grenfell phase 2 report, set out some of the issues relating to quality and safety. It is vital that the next wave of housing that is built is safe and secure. The legislative programme that will come with the remediation action plan and the response to phase 2 is critical to ensure that we address those issues.

More widely, it is vital that we do not compromise on the quality of housing when increasing the supply. We are mindful that we need to address both issues. The points about the contributions made by the community infrastructure levy and section 106 planning obligations are well made. In particular, section 106 delivers nearly half of all affordable homes per year. The hon. Gentleman made some important points about the need for local communities to benefit, which is crucial. He will be aware that local authorities have that strategic role. We have seen some great examples in different parts of the country—I have seen it in my own constituency—of how well that can work if communities are engaged and involved. I hope that happens with the hon. Gentleman’s local authority and with others, whether they are Labour or Conservative-controlled. We all want to see that benefit to our communities.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues related to consultation. Local planning authorities are required to undertake local consultation as part of the process of preparing a plan for their local area, to comply with the specific requirements in regulations 18 and 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. He will be aware, as will others, of the requirement to consult and involve communities, including the commitment to a statement of community involvement.

We are committed to the devolution agenda. Contrary to what the shadow Minister said earlier, that means giving more power to local communities, including devolved budgets, to empower local leaders and mayors to work strategically with national Government, in order to deliver on the housing agenda. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley also raised issues in relation to section 106, which I have already addressed.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) made a point about 200 planning officers. The Government have already committed £46 million to boost the capacity and capability in local planning, which will be crucial in local areas.

Will the Minister give way?

I am afraid not, because I need to wrap up my remarks, but I am happy to pick up afterwards.

We have already invested significant resources to tackle the housing crisis. As a Government, we are very aware that we need to make sure that the national planning policy framework is fit for purpose, and that communities are engaged and involved with it. I hope that the work under way will be an opportunity for hon. Members to engage early on to make sure we get the process right and they can feed in the concerns and interests of their constituents. I look forward to continuing the conversation and to making sure that we can develop an agenda grounded in the interests of communities up and down the country, with local leaders and national Government working collectively.

Due to time constraints, I am unable to address all the points made but I am happy to pick up on any that I have not addressed, either in writing or in follow-up discussions. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley for securing this debate and for raising the issues. I should say that work, including a written ministerial statement, is already under way to tackle the concerns about the responsibilities of leaseholders, as well as in relation to housing standards.

As Members of Parliament, I often think that our role is to be both problem solvers and place makers. That is why today’s debate has been so important.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The common themes have been obvious: early consultation is really important, as well as addressing the challenges around multiple developments and their cumulative impact on wider communities. We also talked about section 106 and community ownership moneys and the importance of the quality of build when it comes to place making. It is right that we get the right homes built in the right locations, designed around the need that has been identified.

We have been joined by the farmers protesting outside Parliament, whose noise has been coming into the Chamber. The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) rightly said that he welcomed the John Deere orchestra. I only hope that all Government Members are listening to the reasons why those farmers are here today.

On behalf of right hon. and hon. Members, I thank the broadcasting and sound team for an excellent job this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the responsibilities of housing developers.