My Lords, as this is the first time that I have contributed to debates on the Infrastructure Bill as the Minister responsible for Part 3, I start by saying what a privilege it is to be working alongside my noble friends Lady Kramer and Lady Verma. I do not whether anyone else has noticed that on a Bill all about heavy stuff—whether roads, construction or energy—somebody clearly decided it was a job for the girls. I am glad to be part of that team. Like my noble friend Lady Kramer, I will be very happy to make myself available at all stages of the Bill if any noble Lord interested in Part 3 would like to have a meeting to discuss any issues. We have had a couple of briefings already, but I am very happy to do more of that type of thing if noble Lords would find it helpful.
Turning to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, I agree that we need more housing. That is a clear goal for this Government, and I know it is shared by all parties. I am pleased that this Government have made significant progress, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, acknowledged. Since April 2010, more than 445,000 homes have been built. Last year, the number of new homes being built was up 31% on the previous year and is the highest since the crash in 2007-08, but we need more and we are working to ensure that we continue to improve on that figure. Indeed, the measures in the Bill demonstrate the importance we attach to our efforts to increase the supply of housing.
However, we disagree in principle with the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord McKenzie, about who is best placed to make decisions on where new housing should be situated. There is a fundamental difference of opinion between us on that. This Government remain convinced that it is the responsibility of local councils to plan to meet housing need through their local plans. Forcing developments with more than 1,500 units through the nationally significant infrastructure regime would significantly reduce this responsibility and would be a move away from local decision-making, which we feel strongly about. It is worth making the point that we know from past experience that when Governments try to impose massive new developments on local areas, they tend not to happen.
Local plans should be at the heart of the planning process in an area and decisions whether to grant planning permission on major housing or mixed-use
developments, which this amendment also covers, should be taken in that context. I note that my noble friend Lord Tope said that ensuring that the right homes were situated in the right places was key. We think that is something that local authorities are best equipped to do. In May 2010, 17% of local authorities had adopted a local plan. However, as of this month, 56% of them have adopted local plans, and 79% have published them, so we have come an awfully long way in the four years since we came to power.
It is also worth pointing to the strong improvement in the planning permission regime. More than 178,000 residential planning permissions were granted in England on major sites in 2013-14. That was 23% higher than the year before and 50% higher than the year before that, so the planning process is speeding up and is leading to more sites being approved, which is clearly good news. In fact, compared with the year before the introduction of the national planning policy framework in 2012, there was a 21% increase in the number of homes being approved on all sites in 2013-14. Therefore, real progress is being made in new homes being approved through the regime that we have introduced.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, portrayed the timetable for progressing a business and commercial scheme under the nationally significant infrastructure scheme in a more simplistic way than is the case in practice. Indeed, I think that my noble friend Lord Jenkin acknowledged that. I should make it clear that the timetable is 28 days for a decision on whether a plan is nationally significant. Then there is the public consultation, which could be as extensive as taking up to a year. Then you have the application itself; and then, if that is accepted, the consideration process could take a year to reach a decision. So it could be longer than one year and perhaps anything up to two to three years in total, depending on the complexity of the scheme.
I would argue, therefore, that the nationally significant infrastructure regime is not the silver bullet that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others might want us to believe it is in terms of solving the housing crisis, because there is no guarantee that housing schemes will be approved should they go through that regime, and they will not necessarily get permission any faster, because there is normally at least 12 to 18 months of pre-application work, including the local consultation that I have just talked about, before a scheme can be submitted for examination. So using speed as an argument for adopting the nationally significant infrastructure regime is something that I would argue strongly against.
3.30 pm
Fundamentally, I would argue that the amendment is trying to fix the wrong problem. The Government are aware that there are a number of viable and shovel-ready sites where development is stalled, not because of difficulties in getting planning permission but because of difficulties in obtaining suitable finance. It is for this reason that the Government launched the large sites infrastructure programme, which has already supported 21 stalled major housing schemes through loans, capacity funding, brokerage with statutory consultees and planning support, and which should unlock a further 80,000 homes in the medium to long term.
I can give noble Lords a couple of examples. Cranbrook in Exeter is a new community for 6,000 homes, and the government local infrastructure fund loan of £20 million was used to fund infrastructure and school facilities to unlock phase 2. Phase 1 already has residents moved in and phase 2 is now under way, with the first residents due to move in by the end of next month. There is a large scheme in Sherford and another one in Kettering; even on the Manchester city fringe there is a major redevelopment of the Ancoats part of the site, with a government loan of £18 million to unlock 1,500 homes and work expected to start in September.
The fund that we have made available is having a significant impact. In the Autumn Statement last year, we were successful in securing another £1 billion of funding to continue this programme, and published a prospectus inviting bids from developers and local authorities in April. We will announce a shortlist of successful bids in the next few weeks.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin talked about local development corporations and made the point about who initiates these schemes. I do not want to get ahead of debates on later groups, because I think that we will probably get into that in more detail later on—if not today, certainly next week. I make the point to my noble friend that local authorities already have the powers that they need to initiate. I can talk more about that when we get to that specific group of amendments.
Finally, the noble Lord McKenzie, referred to comments made in the debates on the Growth and Infrastructure Bill by my noble friend and predecessor Lady Hanham. The Secretary of State retains the ability to call in projects for his own consideration, but he will generally consider doing so only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved; for example, when development may have a significant long-term impact on economic growth and meeting housing needs across a wide area. So that remains in place.
I hope that in my response I have been able to reinforce the Government’s absolute commitment and the priority that they attach to increasing the supply of housing. In this first debate on this part of the Bill, I hope that I have demonstrated how much effort at a high level is being applied in this area. No doubt we can talk about some of the specifics in later groups, but I believe that the fundamental difference is the Government’s strongly held view that decisions on housing should be for local authorities to make. While I support the principle of what the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lord Tope are trying to achieve, we feel that the measures we have in place are the right way forward. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.