Westferry Printworks Development

The hon. Member's claim that the timing of the Secretary of State’s decision to approve the Westferry scheme saved Mr Desmond £50 million is misleading, according to the inspector’s report which states that a viability assessment can be rerun if necessary and would likely reduce affordable housing.

The Secretary of State's decision timing was one day before a new community infrastructure levy came into effect, potentially saving Mr Desmond up to £50 million. The amount of affordable housing included in the scheme was also reduced from 35% to 21%, which saved Mr Desmond an additional £106 million according to Tower Hamlets Council.

Viability assessments are often used by developers to avoid affordable housing targets set by local councils. The Secretary of State's decision in this case supports developer interests over those of the community.

Tower Hamlets, represented by the hon. Member, has the highest child poverty rate and most overcrowding in the country. Denying this borough a total of £150 million is unjust. The Secretary of State should publish all documents for transparency.

The Secretary of State's decision to reduce affordable housing from 35% to 21%, allowing Mr Desmond significant tax savings, undermines trust in the planning system. The Government’s failure to deliver promised funding to councils exacerbates financial challenges.

The urgency of calling in the application was partly due to its determination period expiring, leaving it unaddressed for over a year under Labour Tower Hamlets Council.

If the Secretary of State is entirely innocent of allegations made, he should prove his innocence by providing transparency and publishing all relevant documents.

Defends the decision made by the Secretary of State, stating that it does not involve personal financial gain for the developer but rather ensures a fair distribution of affordable housing. He warns against accusations that could damage the reputation of the House.

Reiterates his call for transparency and publication of all documentation related to the decision, suggesting it is a straightforward way to clear up any concerns about ministerial conduct. He also highlights other instances where similar allegations arise regarding the Secretary of State's decisions.

Supports Reed’s call for transparency, characterising the situation as indicative of 'sleaze' reminiscent of past scandals that have led to government falls. She warns about the potential impact on public trust in current governance.

Defends the Secretary of State's actions by highlighting the role and expertise of officials involved in decision-making processes, suggesting that their meticulous guidance would have been followed during the timeframe discussed.

Continues to press for transparency regarding the Secretary of State's interactions with officials and other ministers before making decisions. He also questions the Prime Minister’s involvement and relationships with key figures in controversial projects, emphasising that honesty is crucial to maintain public trust.

Issues a warning about the careful handling of accusations made within the House regarding potential misconduct or impropriety by ministers.

Commits to releasing all relevant documents pertaining to the Westferry Printworks planning decision and outlines his rationale, stating that he has been transparent in making tough decisions for housing needs. He criticises opposition claims as inaccurate.

Questions why it took forced debate to prompt the Secretary of State to release documents, suggesting a lack of initiative towards transparency and openness earlier in the process.

Thanks the Secretary of State for committing to document publication but requests further documentation that includes all communications with the Cabinet Secretary following investigations into potential misconduct.

Asked if the Secretary of State viewed a promotional video at a Conservative party fundraiser and informed his officials about it.

Requested to ask questions multiple times but was not given an immediate opportunity to do so.

Pressed the Secretary of State on the decision's deflection onto Tower Hamlets Council and referenced a Conservative councillor's resignation over the matter, citing it as 'shocking.'

Accused the Secretary of State of attacking Tower Hamlets Council unjustly. She emphasised that the council was negotiating a better deal for residents, including more social housing.

Asked if documents involving No. 10 or conversations about the Secretary of State’s decision should also be published, considering the Prime Minister's previous involvement in a similar scheme for the same developer.

Asked Mr. Jenrick to give way and questioned the Secretary of State about whether he should live under different rules from local councillors regarding planning decision-making.

Risen but no speech content provided.

Asked Mr. Jenrick to give way and criticised the government for not intervening effectively in cases where developers avoid providing affordable housing.

Asked Mr. Jenrick to give way multiple times, likely questioning his decision-making process in planning matters.

Expressed frustration with the government's approach to housing development in regions outside of London, highlighting concerns about affordable housing and developer viability assessments.

Called for order and reminded a standing Member to sit down.

Asked the Secretary of State to give way, but was not allowed to speak.

Called for a high-profile investigation into allegations regarding Westferry development and accused the Government of attempting to dismiss these claims. He questioned the Secretary of State's involvement with a Tory donor linked to the development and highlighted potential conflicts of interest.

Defended the decision regarding Westferry by stating that funds would have been allocated towards affordable homes, not directly saved by the developer. He questioned the accuracy of Linden's claims.

Quoted Richard Desmond to support allegations that the Secretary of State had watched a promotional video for Westferry development, furthering the debate on conflict of interest.

Asked the Secretary of State whether he believed Mr Desmond did not know that he would be seated next to him at a dinner. He argued for transparency, calling on the Conservative party to publish all correspondence with Mr Desmond and his associates about booking a table at the dinner.

Agreed that it was strange that a Conservative party fundraiser was organised with the Secretary of State seated next to a donor. He argued for transparency, stating that any documents called for in today’s motion must be released without delay.

Asked whether sitting next to someone who had submitted a big planning application would set off red lights for councillors, suggesting it should have been avoided given the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial role.

Emphasised that transparency is crucial. Criticised the Government’s lack of action on this issue, suggesting it undermines public trust in the planning system and government integrity.

Defended the Secretary of State's actions, arguing that the decision was based on housing benefits and not on bias. He highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of the planning system.

Asked to give way but Howell declined.

Sought clarity on the Secretary of State's actions following his attendance at a dinner with Mr Desmond, questioning whether he informed officials about conversations and sought advice regarding potential bias.

Asked Clive Betts if during an interview, he had stated that there was no evidence of wrongdoing by the Secretary of State. He confirmed this position in line with his belief that the debate should be about facts.

Asked the Secretary of State whether an informed and fair-minded person might conclude that his dinner with Richard Desmond could lead to bias on his part, and suggested that he should have refrained from participating in the decision-making process.

Delivered a maiden speech honouring his mother for her dedication and hard work. He also paid tribute to local heroes during the coronavirus pandemic, mentioned housing and planning issues in his constituency, and expressed gratitude to constituents.

Congratulated Mark Eastwood on his maiden speech and then focused on the Westferry Printworks planning decision. He questioned the Secretary of State's impartiality, highlighted factual inconsistencies in the decision-making process, and expressed concerns about transparency and integrity in the Conservative party.

He supports his colleague's stance, questioning the governance of Tower Hamlets and suggesting that commissioners should be brought back if the borough is still unable to take proper decisions.

Clarke-Smith agrees with his colleague on the need for development but criticises Tower Hamlets' attitude towards developers. He praises the current government's housing record and highlights its transparency and openness in making decisions.

Jupp argues that this debate is a missed opportunity for Opposition to discuss policy rather than politics, criticising their approach as disconnected from the public's concerns. He emphasises the need for reform in the planning system and encourages discussion on tackling economic challenges.

Betts requested to speak but was not given way.

Begum emphasises the importance of accountability in planning decisions, transparency in communications concerning major developments such as Westferry Printworks, and highlights issues like building safety and affordable housing.

Asked to give way but was denied by Chris Clarkson.

Criticised the Secretary of State for refusing parliamentary scrutiny on planning regulations, questioning his integrity and transparency. She highlighted that his decision regarding Westferry Printworks broke local democratic processes by ignoring community opposition and depriving Tower Hamlets of needed social housing funding.

Supported Mary Foy's criticism, pointing out the Secretary of State's apparent violation of planning rules that stipulate privately-made representations should not be entertained unless other parties have been given a chance to comment.

Defended the Government’s record on housing and criticised Opposition Members for their lack of constructive contribution. She challenged Labour's credibility regarding affordable housing by referencing poor performance under previous Labour governments and current mayors.

I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State will release some of the papers related to the case, but in short, the rigmarole has become a farce. If, as the Secretary of State claims, he acted in good faith, we must get answers to the following questions. Did he, as Mr Desmond says, watch the promotional video at the Conservative fundraising dinner and then thank him? Did the Secretary of State inform his officials of that the next day? If so, what advice did they give him on receipt of that information? Those three questions lie at the heart of the rights and wrongs of the matter. They tease out whether, to use the Secretary of State’s words, the bias was apparent or real. In the Secretary of State’s introduction, he was silent, then ambiguous about whether he watched the video. I invite Mr Desmond’s team, who surrounded the Secretary of State that night at the Conservative party fundraising dinner, to corroborate what Mr Desmond has said. If the Government really want to put the case to rest, the public deserve answers to those questions.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury on an exceptionally good maiden speech. My reading of the application is that the council delayed time and again, increased community infrastructure levies and did not make a decision. Ultimately, decisions need to be taken. Although I acknowledge today’s debate, I would like to focus attention on what really matters for families around the country. In the light of covid-19, we need comprehensive and far-reaching changes to our planning laws. Radical planning reform needs to increase supply across our countries to support our working people. On general principles, the current system is broken. The principles enshrined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are no longer fit for purpose. Even recent changes to the national planning policy framework and neighbourhood development plans do not deliver the housing that this country needs. We need a much more liberal approach to development, and we need to get planning into the economic development arm of local authorities as soon as possible. On town centres, we need to drop the change of use rule that currently exists in high streets to free up potentially 3 million or 4 million properties that people could move into. As high streets change in the light of covid-19, we must change our policies too. High streets are social hubs. We need to prioritise converting shops into older people’s flats, helping with loneliness, access and more high street viability. The Government should allow private pension funds to invest in new build residential properties. In conclusion, it is my view that we need to facilitate smaller developments. We need to be much more supportive, and we need to invest in our high streets and ensure that we can change those properties to make those high streets more viable.

Like many who have spoken in the debate today, I arrived at this place as a councillor, having served for six years. I am glad we are having this debate, because the issue cuts to the heart of what is wrong with some aspects of our democracy and the way that some decisions are made. It is probably fair to say that very few of my constituents would have found out about the Westferry Printworks development if it had not been for the Secretary of State’s intervention in the planning process and the fact that it was then splashed all over the headlines. It is true that this is about a site in London, but it is also a familiar story to us all. It is a story about the power and influence of big property developers, the struggle to build affordable housing and address the housing crisis, and the needs of communities being ignored. Recent research conducted on behalf of the National Housing Federation has estimated that 3.6 million people are living in overcrowded housing, that 2.5 million people cannot afford their rent or mortgage. The Conservatives talk about the Labour party’s record, but we went on to fix poor-quality housing and there was a low level of homelessness under our government. We should be doing all we can to create better-quality, environmentally sustainable, affordable homes, given the dire situation.

It was a pleasure to hear the much anticipated maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury. He has made his mum proud, and I am sure he will make his constituents proud and serve them well in this place. A safe habitable home is not a want; it is a need—one of the most basic needs that we have as human beings—and all of us in public life have a duty to work towards the goal of making that a reality for everyone in the communities we live in. The sensationalist allegations that have been made over the last few weeks in order to deflect from a political failure of delivery at a local level serve no one well, least of all those who need housing. Those of us in public life also have a duty to uphold our code of conduct at all levels of government and to abide by the Nolan principles of public life, including integrity, honesty and openness. In releasing the correspondence later today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing has also displayed accountability, another of these fundamental principles. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was a local councillor in the thriving village of Cranleigh, and sat on the neighbourhood planning committee and the planning committee, where we heard applications large and small. Deciding the best way to use our space is an important role and one that impacts on everyone. Hand in hand with planning and building new homes, be they large or small developments, this needs careful and joined-up thinking as to how to mitigate impact, protect our environment and have the necessary infrastructure in place in utilities, schools, medical facilities, green spaces, allotments, green technology and so on.

We have very limited time in this debate. Mr Desmond’s autobiography is called “The Real Deal”, but he tried to get the real deal from the Secretary of State. The Conservative party fundraising team should try harder in future. Six years ago UKIP got £300,000 from Mr Desmond and Tony Blair managed to get £100,000 from him 20 years ago. That decision cost Tower Hamlets up to £50 million and saved the developer up to £106 million. This is a serious breach of standards; it should be investigated.

I congratulate Alex Sobel on bringing this up, but I challenge the Opposition's record on house building. Tower Hamlets Council refused to make a decision itself which is shameful given the lack of affordable housing in London and the country. The Conservative party and Government are overseeing the highest levels of house building in 30 years with a brownfield-first policy and training locals for skills needed.

Westferry has all the hallmarks of some cash-for-favours scandals. The Secretary of State overruled his advisers to reduce affordable housing requirements saving Mr Desmond £106 million. There were objections from local council and the development was approved just 24 hours before a new CIL came into force saving up to £50 million. This shows illegal bias for developers instead of communities.

It is not unusual for politicians in senior positions to overrule local authorities; Sadiq Khan did so repeatedly as Mayor of London. The role of Tower Hamlets Council is crucial here as it failed twice to discharge its legal duty and the affordable housing element could have been 35%. Richard Desmond’s donations are substantial but not uncommon, and decisions by Ministers against planning inspectors’ advice do happen; they can also be overturned in High Court.

The country is in a housing crisis with a shocking increase of over 250% in rough sleepers since 2010. The Secretary of State reduced the number of affordable units in the Westferry development from one in three to one in five, which saved developer Richard Desmond £40 million.

No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.

The Labour government between 1997 and 2010 failed to build enough homes, leading to the generation rent phenomenon. The Conservative-led Government since 2010 has delivered more than 465,000 affordable homes.

Since 2010, under Tory austerity, rough sleeping has increased dramatically. Fewer social homes were built last year than any time since the second world war. The Secretary of State admitted his decision on the Westferry development was unlawful and biased.

The debate is a smear campaign against the Secretary of State rather than discussing how to improve the planning system and ensure more affordable homes are built for those in need.

No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.

Hollinrake interjected a single word 'A levy.'

Amesbury continued his argument, stressing that the Secretary of State overruled the planning inspectorate and was taken to court by Tower Hamlets Council. He also pointed out a lack of targets for social housing set by the Government compared to what Labour achieved.

Pincher defended the actions of his Secretary of State, stating that all documents related to the decision at Westferry Printworks are now in the public domain for scrutiny. He emphasised that it is not uncommon for Ministers to disagree with a planning inspector’s recommendations.

Betts questioned whether there were any instances where a Secretary of State has made a planning decision and then ruled his own decision unlawful.

Defended the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government against accusations regarding meetings with Mr Desmond. Emphasised that 26 challenges to Ministers in the last three years resulted in 16 successful defences or withdrawals, while eight were conceded or lost, and two remain unresolved. Criticised the opposition's focus on scandals instead of addressing housing issues, accusing them of failing to build homes as promised.

The House was suspended for three minutes following Christopher Pincher's speech.