Further written evidence to be reported to the House
Housing and Regeneration Bill
12:00 pm
Kate Gordon: The extent to which the powers are likely to be used, and how often, needs to be clarified, as does the criteria that the Secretary of State might apply to designate the agency as a planning authority. That is not quite clear enough, because the Bill relates to a number of different Acts. I understand that there is a provision or duty in relation to a public health Act that has some sort of tangential requirement for the agency when there is no local planning authority to work with. It is not clear enough in the Bill, and we feel that there is a danger that it will be used to impose agendas on communities that do not want to go down a certain route. We think that meeting housing needs and increasing housing supply is best achieved by working with communities, rather than imposing particular solutions or actions on them.
The other thing worth bearing in mind—and we called for this in the evidence that we submitted earlier this week—is that the rules on best consideration should be clarified to allow, require or encourage the best outcome for communities regarding land disposals and land use, over which the Housing and Communities Agency has influence and control. That should be the overriding objective, which should secure the most effective use of land in the public interest—sometimes that will be development and sometimes it will be other things, but it should not be wholly focused on the best market return.
There is a good opportunity when dealing with publicly owned land, or an authority with planning powers, to achieve a broader outcome in the long term, such as homes and communities’ interests and better environmental standards. I therefore hope that the Committee will look at that as an avenue for providing appropriate affordable housing in rural areas.