Select committee: Built Environment Committee

Conclusion 156

1st Report - Meeting housing demand Published 10 Jan 2022
Conclusion (the committee's words)
One proposed solution is to permit development on undeveloped land close to train stations which provide a service to a major employment centre within a reasonable time—45 minutes, for example. 238 The most powerful arguments for such a solution are that housing tends to be most unaffordable close to hubs of employment and that rail provides the fastest means of access to larger cities and, by a large margin, has the lowest carbon footprint of any mode of travel. Maximising the use of existing rail infrastructure provides a low-carbon option for urban expansion and providing new homes. It would reduce the tendency to long-distance commuting, which has been accentuated by the COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast to building new rail links, expanding the capacity of existing rail links is relatively cheap and can be done through complementary investment in stations or by upgrading signalling and increasing frequency and speed where necessary. This model could be extended to other railway stations, such as parkways.

From: Built Environment Committee, 1st Report - Meeting housing demand, 10 January 2022

Government response

The government responded to the whole report on 28 March 2022 (deadline 10 March 2022).

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The Government welcomes the Committee's report and says it is "taking action on a number of the issues identified", agreeing with some recommendations while disagreeing with others, including on home ownership schemes and the Apprenticeship Levy.

  • It "disagrees with the report's assessment that homeownership schemes do not provide good value for money", citing independent evaluations and its own evaluation of Help to Buy.
  • On older people's housing, it is launching a new taskforce "this year", chaired by the Minister for Housing, to look at better choice, quality and security of housing.
  • It does "not intend to set out a proportion" of Affordable Homes Programme funding for social housing, though "around half" of the affordable homes are to be for social and affordable rent.
  • On the Apprenticeship Levy it says it has "no plans to review" it. On planning fees it is "exploring options" to increase them, and on local plans it will make an announcement "in due course".

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error