Planning reforms could break housebuilders' ‘failed' dominance
Lord Best, who is vice president of the Town and Country Planning Association, hit out at the 'oligopoly' in the sector said the major firms for building homes had failed in their task of building enough.
He told peers that small building firms were responsible for 10% of new homes since 2000, down from a previous figure of 40%.
A Government report from 2024 found the 11 biggest housebuilders, including Barratt Homes, Taylor Wimpey and Persimmon made up 40% of all new homes built in 2021-22.
The crossbench peer said: 'A key question hanging over the ambition to build 1.5 million more and better homes is, who will the nation entrust to get this job done?
'For many years, the answer for most house building has been 'we will let the volume housebuilders acquire the sites, come up with the plans, design and build the homes, and make their profits, while we try to require them to allocate a modest proportion of their output for affordable housing'.
'My lords, this reliance on the large housebuilders has not produced the quantity or quality of homes we need.'
Lord Best's comments come a year after a report by the Competition and Markets Authority criticised the speculative model employed by many of the largest housebuilders.
He added: 'It's led to so-called 'fleece-hold' sales to homebuyers, to uniform, soulless design, and with little attempt to provide the green spaces and community facilities that are the making of any place.
'And the housebuilders have worked at a rate that suits themselves, a build-out rate that ensures no reduction in house prices.'
He said he believed the proposed development corporations, which form part of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill which was getting its second reading in the House of Lords on Wednesday, would make the Government less reliant on large firms which could see more homes built.
'(It) enables the use of this development corporation model for any major development, introducing an alternative to the failed business model of the oligopoly of volume housebuilders,' he said.
'Here is the breakthrough that the Bill could achieve.'
The Bill includes measures to help the Government achieve its central manifesto commitment of building 1.5 million homes by 2029. It restores mandatory housing targets, legislates for a generation of new towns, and will reform planning to make it harder to reject developments.
The debate heard that there are 1,000,000 planning permission applications for homes that have gone unbuilt in England, with 250,000 in London. ONS figures showed fewer than 185,000 homes were completed in 2024.
Housing minister Lord Khan of Burnley had hit out at his predecessor's 'mismatched territory of ill-fitting, short-termist reforms, tinkered around the edges rather than resolving our problems'.
The Labour peer said the Bill could 'turn this around'.
He said: 'Home building has fallen from already insufficient levels. There are simply not enough homes … this would be the lowest year for net-additional dwellings in England since 2015-16.'
However, his opposite number, shadow housing minister Baroness Scott of Bybrook said: 'In 2019 the Conservative Party committed to delivering one million additional homes over the Parliament. In 2024, before the general election, we delivered on that commitment.
'The Labour Party has now committed to deliver 1.5 million homes over this Parliament, and it is essential that they deliver on that manifesto commitment.'
Conservative former housing minister in John Major's governments, Lord Young of Cookham warned about a lack of planning officers in councils which could hamstring the Government's housebuilding hopes.
Lord Young recalled a discussion with a senior economist from his time as a Treasury minister. He said: 'I suggested a new policy that had been tried in New Zealand. He said it may work in practice, but it doesn't work in theory.
'Now, the risk of this Bill is exactly the opposite. It may work in theory, but it won't work in practice unless planning departments are resourced.'
Party colleague Lord Patten, who as John Patten served as education secretary in the 1990s, declared a shareholding in housebuilder Persimmon.
He said: 'The record sadly shows that no Conservative or Labour government since 1945 have ever met their stated aspirations or hopes or pledges to build this, or that particular number of homes in any one year or in any one decade.'
Tory peer Lord Lilley, who held ministerial positions under Mr Major and Margaret Thatcher said reforms to speed up the planning process were much-needed, as he decried sums spent on planning processes.
He said: 'Virtually every housing project in my old constituency, and in indeed parts of the country, has faced objections locally.
'We've created in effect, a 'vetocracy', objectors can impose such costs and delays on project developers that they can effectively veto those projects going ahead.
'We must find ways of reducing the power of that plutocracy and I welcome steps in this Bill to do that.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
32 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Reynolds: Port Talbot plant does not meet US rules to get steel tariff exemption
The steel industry faces uncertainty over the US-UK trade deal finalised this month, which slashed tariffs on aerospace and auto sectors, but left levies on steel standing at 25% rather than falling to zero as originally agreed. Negotiations are ongoing to secure the outstanding tariff agreements. The executive order signed by Mr Trump suggests the US wants assurances on the supply chains for steel intended for export, as well as on the 'nature of ownership' of production facilities. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has insisted the ownership structure of the British Steel plant in Scunthorpe does not need to change to complete the deal with the US. 'The issue with the implementation of the steel agreement is the melt and pour rules, which is the US interpretation of rules of origin around steel,' Mr Reynolds told reporters. He said that applies to the Port Talbot plant, where semi-finished products come into the UK and then go to the mills for processing to keep the business going. 'That doesn't meet their existing implementation of that in the US.' The British Steel plant is controlled directly by the Government, but is still owned by Chinese firm Jingye. Asked if British Steel's ownership was part of US trade talks, he said it 'comes up in the context of the US (being) very supportive of what we did' to take control of the plant. 'On British Steel, we have to resolve issues of ownership separate to issues around US trade,' he said. The ownership is something that needs to be resolved 'regardless' of the US talks. The Government plans to class Britain's steel and energy sectors as 'nationally important' to UK security under new procurement rules.
South Wales Guardian
32 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Starmer seeks to win round welfare rebels with promise of ‘fairness'
The talks ahead of Tuesday's Commons showdown come after 126 Labour MPs publicly backed a move to block it. Sir Keir told MPs he wanted the reforms, which will restrict access to sickness and incapacity benefits, to demonstrate 'Labour values of fairness'. The Prime Minister told MPs there was 'consensus across the House on the urgent need for reform' of the 'broken' welfare system. 'I know colleagues across the House are eager to start fixing that, and so am I, and that all colleagues want to get this right, and so do I,' he said. 'We want to see reform implemented with Labour values of fairness. 'That conversation will continue in the coming days, so we can begin making change together on Tuesday.' The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill has its second reading on Tuesday, the first opportunity for MPs to vote on it. If the legislation clears its first hurdle, it will then face a few hours' examination by all MPs the following week – rather than days or weeks in front of a committee tasked with looking at the Bill – with a plan for it to clear the Commons a little over a week later on July 9. Ministers have said they will listen to suggestions to improve the legislation, but opposition appears entrenched and the swift timetable for the Bill could add to critics' concerns. Commons Leader Lucy Powell told MPs: 'As the House would expect, the Government actively engages with parliamentary opinion throughout a bill's passage, as we are doing intensively with the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill.' Overnight, six more Labour MPs added their names to the rebel amendment that would halt the legislation in its tracks. The reasoned amendment argues that disabled people have not been properly consulted and further scrutiny of the changes is needed. The new names take the total number of Labour backbenchers supporting the amendment, tabled by Treasury Select Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier, to 126 out of a total of 162 backers from all parties. The plans restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability payment in England, and limit the sickness-related element of universal credit. The Government hopes the changes will get more people back into work and save up to £5 billion a year. One backbencher preparing to vote against the Bill told the PA news agency: 'A lot of people have been saying they're upset about this for months. 'To leave it until a few days before the vote, it's not a very good way of running the country. 'It's not very grown-up.' They said that minor concessions would not be enough, warning: 'I don't think you can tinker with this. They need to go back to the drawing board.' The Daily Telegraph reported that potential concessions being considered include a commitment to speed up payment of support to help people back into work and offering assurances that reviews of policies in this area will be published. Meanwhile, The Times reported some MPs opposed to the plans had blamed Sir Keir's chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney and suggested the time had come for 'regime change' in Downing Street. Asked if Sir Keir had confidence in his chief of staff, the No 10 spokesman would not comment on Downing Street staffing matters. Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) think tank indicated that 800,000 fewer working-age people are expected to receive a Pip daily living award in 2029–30 as a result of the reforms. The tighter criteria are set to lead to 430,000 new applicants – who would have received an award without reforms – receiving no award, and 370,000 existing claimants losing out following reassessment. Most of the 800,000 losers will receive £3,850 per year less in Pip. The 2.2 million existing claimants of the health element of universal credit who are expected to still be claiming in 2029–30 are estimated to see a £450 real decline in their support in that year because of the freezing of the payment. There are also set to be 700,000 new claimants who will typically receive £2,700 a year less than they would have done under the current system, the IFS said. NEW: Government's benefit reforms could reduce annual spending by around £11 billion in the long run – but still leave health-related benefit bill far above pre-pandemic levels. Read @TomWatersEcon, @LatimerEduin and @matthewoulton's new report: — Institute for Fiscal Studies (@TheIFS) June 26, 2025 It will be well into the 2030s before the reforms are fully rolled out and, in the long-term, the savings could amount to around £11 billion a year, the IFS said. A little over a quarter of the public are supportive of the proposed reforms, according to polling published on Thursday. Of 2,004 people surveyed by More in Common over the weekend, just 27% said they supported the planned changes to the benefits system and half (51%) said they believe the cuts would worsen the health of disabled people. A similar proportion (52%) said the cuts would increase pressure on the NHS while six in 10 said the Government should look at alternative cost-saving measures instead. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said the Government should pull the Bill and 'go back to the drawing board' instead of 'cutting vital support from thousands of vulnerable people'.
Rhyl Journal
32 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Starmer seeks to win round welfare rebels with promise of ‘fairness'
The talks ahead of Tuesday's Commons showdown come after 126 Labour MPs publicly backed a move to block it. Sir Keir told MPs he wanted the reforms, which will restrict access to sickness and incapacity benefits, to demonstrate 'Labour values of fairness'. The Prime Minister told MPs there was 'consensus across the House on the urgent need for reform' of the 'broken' welfare system. 'I know colleagues across the House are eager to start fixing that, and so am I, and that all colleagues want to get this right, and so do I,' he said. 'We want to see reform implemented with Labour values of fairness. 'That conversation will continue in the coming days, so we can begin making change together on Tuesday.' The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill has its second reading on Tuesday, the first opportunity for MPs to vote on it. If the legislation clears its first hurdle, it will then face a few hours' examination by all MPs the following week – rather than days or weeks in front of a committee tasked with looking at the Bill – with a plan for it to clear the Commons a little over a week later on July 9. Ministers have said they will listen to suggestions to improve the legislation, but opposition appears entrenched and the swift timetable for the Bill could add to critics' concerns. Commons Leader Lucy Powell told MPs: 'As the House would expect, the Government actively engages with parliamentary opinion throughout a bill's passage, as we are doing intensively with the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill.' Overnight, six more Labour MPs added their names to the rebel amendment that would halt the legislation in its tracks. The reasoned amendment argues that disabled people have not been properly consulted and further scrutiny of the changes is needed. The new names take the total number of Labour backbenchers supporting the amendment, tabled by Treasury Select Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier, to 126 out of a total of 162 backers from all parties. The plans restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability payment in England, and limit the sickness-related element of universal credit. The Government hopes the changes will get more people back into work and save up to £5 billion a year. One backbencher preparing to vote against the Bill told the PA news agency: 'A lot of people have been saying they're upset about this for months. 'To leave it until a few days before the vote, it's not a very good way of running the country. 'It's not very grown-up.' They said that minor concessions would not be enough, warning: 'I don't think you can tinker with this. They need to go back to the drawing board.' The Daily Telegraph reported that potential concessions being considered include a commitment to speed up payment of support to help people back into work and offering assurances that reviews of policies in this area will be published. Meanwhile, The Times reported some MPs opposed to the plans had blamed Sir Keir's chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney and suggested the time had come for 'regime change' in Downing Street. Asked if Sir Keir had confidence in his chief of staff, the No 10 spokesman would not comment on Downing Street staffing matters. Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) think tank indicated that 800,000 fewer working-age people are expected to receive a Pip daily living award in 2029–30 as a result of the reforms. The tighter criteria are set to lead to 430,000 new applicants – who would have received an award without reforms – receiving no award, and 370,000 existing claimants losing out following reassessment. Most of the 800,000 losers will receive £3,850 per year less in Pip. The 2.2 million existing claimants of the health element of universal credit who are expected to still be claiming in 2029–30 are estimated to see a £450 real decline in their support in that year because of the freezing of the payment. There are also set to be 700,000 new claimants who will typically receive £2,700 a year less than they would have done under the current system, the IFS said. NEW: Government's benefit reforms could reduce annual spending by around £11 billion in the long run – but still leave health-related benefit bill far above pre-pandemic levels. Read @TomWatersEcon, @LatimerEduin and @matthewoulton's new report: — Institute for Fiscal Studies (@TheIFS) June 26, 2025 It will be well into the 2030s before the reforms are fully rolled out and, in the long-term, the savings could amount to around £11 billion a year, the IFS said. A little over a quarter of the public are supportive of the proposed reforms, according to polling published on Thursday. Of 2,004 people surveyed by More in Common over the weekend, just 27% said they supported the planned changes to the benefits system and half (51%) said they believe the cuts would worsen the health of disabled people. A similar proportion (52%) said the cuts would increase pressure on the NHS while six in 10 said the Government should look at alternative cost-saving measures instead. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said the Government should pull the Bill and 'go back to the drawing board' instead of 'cutting vital support from thousands of vulnerable people'.
