On Wednesday 2nd November there was a debate on Housing in Kent in the House of Commons, the summary of the debate is as follows:
Gordon Henderson (Con, Sittingbourne and Sheppey) led a Westminster Hall debate on housing in Kent. He recognised the need for new homes in the UK but felt Kent was taking more than its fair share of house building, which was putting pressure on local infrastructure and services.
Gareth Johnson (Con, Dartford) added more housing was adding to congestion at the Dartford crossing.
Helen Grant (Con, Maidstone and The Weald) thought local authorities needed to be much bolder in using the legitimate constraints provided for in the national planning policy framework (NPPF) to set more sensible and sustainable housing need figures in their draft local plans.
Rehman Chishti (Con, Gillingham and Rainham) called for “severe penalties” for developers that sat on land on which they had permission to build.
Henderson highlighted that the estimates for job growth by 2031 in Kent was lower than the number of homes targeted to be built in the same period. He said this was unsustainable and would lead to a loss of agricultural land and natural habitats, criticising the planning system for encouraging greenbelt development despite brownfield sites being available.
Kelly Tolhurst (Con, Rochester and Strood) said the high housing targets across Kent were undeliverable and would do nothing to benefit or improve the lives of the people who already lived there unless there was more investment in infrastructure and services.
Henderson agreed with Johnson on the need for another Thames crossing but added it was needed for existing residents and communities, not to encourage more housing.
“We have a national housing crisis, yet certain areas are taking the brunt of the new building” he argued.
Minister for Housing and Planning Gavin Barwell recognised the concerns raised but contended the Government did not set housing targets for local authorities.
Barwell explained there was a local plan-led system, whereby local councils were required to carry out a robust assessment of housing need and then, subject to land constraints, to meet that housing need.
He said the evidence showed that if people wanted to live in an area but not enough housing was provided to allow them to live in decent conditions, they still came.
The minister continued “if, as a country, we do not build the number of homes necessary to accommodate our population growth, we will continue to see…housing in this country becoming increasingly unaffordable for people to buy or to rent, with all the consequences that that has for inequality”.
He admitted there was “a huge imbalance” in levels of house building around the country but argued this was a reflection of a market economy and of where people wished to live.
Turning to Chishti’s point on land banking, the minister gave “a categorical assurance” that measures to deal with this would be included in the forthcoming White Paper. He added it would also look at the “huge potential in major centres and around public transport hubs to have denser development”.
He said it was “the absolute priority” of the Government to ensure development was concentrated on brownfield land and a number of interventions had already been made to make that more likely.
Back