Grant Shapps MP answers your questions

Grant Shapps, Shadow Minister for Housing, answers the questions you asked here (sorry for the delay).

NigelC: Is the Green Belt safe under the Conservatives? Labour talk about maintaining the total acreage by compensatory additions when one site is redesignated for building. This defeats the purpose of the Green belt in containing urban sprawl and encouraging urban regeneration. Do the Conservatives recognise the real benefits the Green Belt brings in forcing hard planning decisions for our towns and cities? 

Yes we will rigorously protect the Green Belt and won’t pull the wool over people’s eyes by saying that we’re enlarging it, whilst simultaneously deleting parts and creating new green belt where there’s no real development pressure. The only caveat to this very firm policy would be if local people wanted to use Green Belt for a community based facility. I’m thinking here of the kind of development that may well provide a community sports facility on Green Belt in my own constituency. This would be subject to all the safeguards that you would expect, including final sign-off by the Secretary of State. The message would be simple though. We’ll protect the Green Belt and we won’t play tricks by deleting one part and creating it elsewhere in the country.

Secondly will the Conservatives abolish regional plans (whether drawn up by regional assemblies or regional development agencies) and return to county structure plans and district local plans?

Yes. We’ll scrap the Regional Assemblies, as the Government have now said that they will do. But rather than giving those powers to the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), we will hand the powers to Local Authorities either at Parish, District or County level as appropriate.

Our entire approach to planning will emphasise bottom up, rather than top down and so it’s only natural for decision making to happen through incentivised local communities, rather than because Whitehall knows best.

The public are savvy. They understand that the power of locally elected Councillors has been diminished over the years and none more so because of the growth of Regional Quangos. Last year I completed a piece of research which demonstrated that the cost of Regional Government, by which I mean just administering it, had hit £1m per day. Centrally inspired, unelected and pen-pushingly bureaucratic, this regional approach to governing us uniquely distant from everyday lives. We’ll scrap this structure and in the process give people good reasons to go out and vote for local councillors who will once again have real power over what happens in our own communities.

Tony Makara: What can be done to sort out 'Problem Families' living on council estates? Often it only takes one such family to move onto an estate to completely ruin it as they act as a magnet for other troublemakers in the area, encouraging youths to congregate, holding noisy parties and so on. I'd like to see tough measures taken against such families but I'm worried about forced evictions where children are involved. Is there a way to deal with such families while still ensuring that the children don't become homeless?

It is not acceptable for one family to cause problems for their neighbours and strong action needs to be taken by councils to tackle the situation. Of course the all too frequent reality is that hard-pressed councils find it difficult to provide sufficient resources to neighbourhood teams who deal with this kind of anti-social behaviour and yet it’s my firm belief that if standards are allowed to drop in a street or vicinity, then the problems will escalate.

I’m always very wary of suggestion that there is one silver bullet or simple fix to any problem. The causes are complex and relate to the breakdown in the structure of society, lack of backing given to families through successive Governments and in particular this one. But I’ve been impressed by the work I’ve seen carried out by some particularly proactive councils who have put teams in place to tackle the problems from an early stage. Eviction should always be the ultimate threat, but with this in mind I’ve seen many instances where early intervention has paid dividends.

It’s tempting to write a book on the answer to this one question, but I’d summarise my response in two ways. First, you’ve got to deal with the day to day problems in a much more proactive, professional and speedy manner. Just as I’ve seen some of our best councils doing. Second, problem families have become more prevalent because of the breakdown in society that we’re all familiar with. The solutions are therefore short-term, better intervention, and long-term, a project that will take generations but will put families back in the front and centre of every aspect of policy.

powellite: How are you going to reconcile the visceral nimbyism in our party with the housing shortage and desire for people to own their own homes? I don't have a chance of getting a home in the south east at the moment with prices as they are, and yet any scheme to increase housing provision sees Tories throw up their arms about 'concreting over the countryside.' Are you going to make us the party of social aspiration again, like Cameron said in his conference speech last year?

First we need to be absolutely clear that there is a housing crisis and a large, though not only, part of the solution is to build more good quality homes.

Second we must reject the Government’s mistaken belief that the way to build more homes is to decree them from above. ‘3m Homes By 2020’ might make a good headline, but ask Ministers how many cars they’re going to produce over the same period, or tractors? The reality is that the Government doesn’t construct houses and its centrally-driven, top-down approach will always fail.

Third we need to understand that what the Government terms as Nimbyism is sometimes about people’s natural desire to protect their own quality of life and neighbourhood. The previous Housing Minister was forced to concede this point when the people opposing development turned out to be six of her own Cabinet colleagues.

Fourth we need to work with, rather than against, the grain of human nature. If we accept that local people probably know what’s best for their own areas and we believe in localism, then we must scrap the Whitehall targets and get serious about incentivising local communities to want and welcome development.

Now before you stop reading in the belief that this approach cannot work, let me provide you with some solid examples. Let’s say that a local community whose Maternity or A&E units are under threat understand that one way to protect them is to welcome more residents to their area and expand the patient base. How would public opinion be affected then?

When large scale development takes place money is generated from the developer under a so called Section 106, but by virtue of the guidance issued alongside the Section 106 legislation, investment has to basically go into the new development. This means that residents who are yet to live in the neighbourhood benefit. However, if the challenge is to get communities to welcome development, then surely a more constructive approach is to focus that S106 money on the existing community instead. A new town centre, swimming pool or whatever the popular local requirement happens to be.

Now imagine that with a larger Council Tax base as a result of more homes being built, all residents got to benefit with lower Council Tax bills. In reality this doesn’t happen at present because Government amends the Revenue Support Grant, but what if it agreed to keep the money with the local community? That way local people could benefit financially from welcoming new neighbours.

And here’s the real change. Now with the word ‘development’ having thrown off its poor reputation, local politicians begin to stand as pro-development Councillors. Instead of the town hall being full of people who are ready and waiting to reject the next Planning Application, some have been elected on the basis of a new town centre, lower Council Tax or keeping vital local services running or improved.

In fact benefits of this more enlightened bottom-up approach might not even stop there. With some politicians being elected on a pro-development ticket, in return for the benefits they can bring to their existing communities, the cumbersome planning and appeal system could be radically reformed. Most importantly it could speeded up as appeals would be lessened or perhaps scrapped entirely in the long-term. Local people suddenly have a real say in their own community’s destiny and so voting becomes worthwhile once again and democracy is renewed.

But if you’re thinking this will all take too long then you can be reassured in the knowledge that there would be a transition to this new world, with the existing structure only gradually being removed.

We’ll do plenty of other things, like end Garden Grabbing by redefining gardens away from being regarded as Brown Field in Planning Guidance documents, we’ll protect Green Belt as previously explained and we’ll scrap density targets which lead to the wrong kind of dwellings being created in the wrong places – most recently too many flats and not enough family homes.

It’s a radical agenda which aims to put power right back in the hands of local people who will be properly incentivised to reap the rewards of the high quality development of their own communities.

Iain: Are we going to see the Cameron's Conservatives coming out fighting, laying the blame of the housing crisis where it rightly belongs on Gordon Brown's Labour, their mass immigration policy, their destruction of pensions and savings, driving investment into property and to the buy-to-letters, or will it be more self censorship on immigration lest it upsets Cameron's new found friends in the BBC, Guardian newspaper and metrosexual media, and result in the Conservative councils having to take the flack and abused as being 'nimby's?

There can be no doubt that the Government needs to shoulder the blame for much of the current housing crisis. They have built less social housing in every year of their Government than we did under any year of Margaret Thatcher or John Major’s administrations. Housing numbers in every category are down from around 175,000 completions a year to 145,000 under Labour.

They have concentrated solely on the supply-side of the Housing problem, but have entirely left out any consideration of the demand-side, which is made up of three elements; fortunately people are living longer, changes to society mean that people are living apart more often and there is net migration into the country of around 200,000 people per annum.

We would look for some of our policies on supporting the family to eventually feed into living arrangements; though this must be viewed as a long-term generational policy.

David Cameron recently made a very thoughtful speech, praised by Trevor Phillips of the Commission for Racial Equality, about the strains that migration placed on public services and housing in particular. By the Government’s own figures it accounts for 73,000 new housing units a year, out of the 240,000 it would like to see built. If you haven’t had a chance to read David Cameron’s speech then do because it answers your question in more detail than the few lines here allow. You can find the highlights on ConservativeHome here.

601: Do you think the meaning of the green belt should be changed to include back gardens?

We do plan to redefine back gardens away from automatically being considered as brown field and therefore ripe for development. This will tip the balance away from a presumption to develop gardens, without making it completely impossible under the right circumstances.

malcolm: What lessons do we need to learn from Ealing and Sedgefield?

That Parliamentary by-elections are tough and there’s a basic dilemma for any Party and Conservatives in particular. If you build up excitement about a by-election then expectations can outstretch the final result, but if you sit on your hands then you’ve actually lost before you’ve started because few workers are going to turn up at an election that no one is excited about.

The Ealing Southall result was interesting because whilst we would have loved to have made more progress, we did in fact marginally expand the Conservative vote by 1%. Since our vote didn’t collapse, this was sufficient to ensure that the LibDems failed to come from third to first place which bucked the trend of every Parliamentary by-election in the previous 18 years.

Incidentally, one enduring outcome of the election is that there are now five Conservative Councillors right in the heart of Southall, where previously there were none. By all accounts they’re working pretty hard within the Conservative Group and beginning to make a mark in advance of fighting as Conservatives next time round.

 NigelC: As shadow minister will you still be able to support the "No way to 10k" campaign and other similar campaigns like StopHarlowNorth.com?

Yes, just as Labour MPs - including six Cabinet Ministers - are fighting unsuitable development in their areas I too will support campaigns against unsuitable development around my constituency. If the Government are serious about developing in a way that local people can support then they could start by not having announced the closure of our A&E, Maternity, Paediatrics, Elderly and all surgery from our local QE2 Hospital in Welwyn Garden City.

Felicity Mountjoy: You are expert at the internet. What role do you think blogging has in today's politics?

Big and growing. Not necessarily for us insiders who read it everyday, but because the stories which start off on the blogs frequently end up on the pages of the daily papers and then on the broadcast media. It’s a grass roots approach which has the capacity to excite and interest new generations of voters.

I also know that many Ministers have Google Alerts set up on their name, so when someone writes about them it's drawn to their attention. As a result the influence of a blog can far outstretch other forms of less immediate written communication.

Oddball: As we accept that HIPs is fatally flawed, do you have any new ideas as to how to speed up/simplify the buying and selling of houses?

Yes and we are currently working on this and would invite you to contribute! We have a policy review called the Home Buying Review currently underway and it’s head up by property expert and former PPC, Owen Inskip, property presenter, Kirstie Allsopp, and me. We are asking experts, industry, academics and ordinary people for their views and ideas. Anyone wishing to contribute should visit www.HomeBuyingReview.com

We will report back by summer.

Comments

[NigelC]

Grant,
Many thanks for your answers.
My question on regional plans is similar to the question about the EU Treaty. Will the Conservative abolish them if they have already been adopted? The East of England Plan will probably be published at the end of Feb/ early March. If the Conservatives are elected in 2009 or 2010 will you tear these documents up immediately or at least not enforce them?

[Malcolm Dunn]

Yes thank you for your answers. I am however still a bit peturbed by your promise to build more houses than Labour have promised. If Gardens are no longer to be classified as Brown field sites, the Green belt is going to be protected properly and local people are going to have more responsibility in determining their own area growth then where are the houses going to be built?

[Treacle]

Thanks for the answers but

Wear a tie mate, it isn't cool..just rude

[Nick]

How refreshing to hear a Member of Parliament who seems to really know his stuff, and be on top of his brief. Thanks Grant, I predict that this man is one to watch for the future!!!
One comment I would make to you is rather than just building new houses we really need to look at getting residential homes back into our towns. I live in Great Yarmouth and there are so many unused properties ( in particular above retail units ). Surely if we can incentivise owners to develope these, it will also have the knock on effect of re-generation of our towns. I am sure my home town is typical of many areas where there is plenty of investment going into out of town development, but not in the town centres, where there is already a good transfort infrastructure, therefore would be convenient for low income / singles to live there. There are growing numbers of people living alone for all the reasons mentioned. If we can incentivise these areas, maybe through levels of council taxation, this would make these areas popular places to live again.

[Tony Makara]

Great to see such in-depth answers to the questions put. All too often politicians tend to skirt around the answer, so its refreshing to see a more focused approach. I like the idea that Mr Shapps is not going to tolerate estates drifting into decline. "if standards are allowed to drop in a street or vicinity, then the problems will escalate" Something as seemingly innocent as an unkempt garden can send out all the wrong signals. Perhaps there should be a general fine for gardens with mounting litter? Just class such a garden as an act of social vandalism, or creating an eyesore? I know the council do have a policy of trying to keep gardens tidy but perhaps they ought to be given more teeth to do the job.

[deborah]

Thoughtful and knowledgable answers in plain English from someone who has done their homework.
If only there were more like you, Grant....

[Matt Wright]

Like the idea of wider and stronger Sec 106 legislation to increase planning gain to a community, something I advocated in the Welsh Assembly elections. Lots of examples of how that might benefit all sorts of projects but thinking of supermarkets for example, then we should say that if they must build the project is instituted as a proper town centre regeneration exercise with all necessary building work the council desires and showing how the trade will interact thropughout that town centre.

Other than that and on housing, I think current planning law is entirely the wrong way round. At the moment there is a total presumption against building in the open countryside and housing has to be packed into tight little areas while other areas have very tight lines darwn round them permitting nothing more than relatively minor in-fill.

I think that other than in designated areas of nature importance, the presumption against building in the open countryside should be changed BUT with major safeguards. Building in the open countryside should be permitted but at ultra low density with planning law being skewed to numerous small hamlets that would rejuvenate rural life. Communities should also be allowed to get together and build their own small hamlets next to a village using les traditional materials. Many young people cannot afford homes but councils prevent them building perfectly good high quality log cabins.