The noble Earl was a bit too quick for me. The Opposition gives its full support to the noble Lord, Lord Best, in moving his amendment on the exclusion of certain rural dwellings from the preserved right to buy. He is seeking to deal with an unintended consequence of the planning system. Many social homes in rural areas are built through Section 106 agreements. An issue can arise where housing is transferred from the local authority to housing associations. In these cases, existing tenants are given a preserved right to buy. When Section 106 agreements are used to build new social homes in rural areas, there is often a planning obligation which means that they must remain for social let. In those cases, tenants with a preserved right to buy are unable to move into these properties.
The amendment fixes an unintended consequence and the tenants would then have the right to acquire, which does not apply in rural areas. Therefore, the problem would not happen and the tenants in those situations can seek to move to social housing in rural areas if they wish. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, can see that we are trying to be constructive and sort out a problem for everyone’s benefit.
Localism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 7 September 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Localism Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
730 c342-3 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 18:48:38 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_767025
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_767025
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_767025