10 months ago | 9 comments
Conservative MPs have slammed Labour for their “unrealistic housing targets of 1.5 million homes.”
Despite being a manifesto commitment to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, many industry experts say Labour’s target, while ambitious, is unachievable.
Elsewhere, during a debate in the House of Commons, Housing Secretary Angela Rayner hinted at extending the right to request a pet in leasehold properties.
During oral questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in Parliament, Conservative MPs criticised the government for falling short on housing targets.
Esther McVey, Conservative MP for Tatton, asked directly: “When the Minister has met major house builders, what have they told him about the chances of hitting the government’s target of building 1.5 million new houses in this Parliament?”
In response, Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook insisted: “Housebuilders have expressed their confidence and gratitude for reforms.”
Mr Pennycook pushed back against criticism and added: “We quite regularly hear from Conservative members that we are concreting over every inch of England, but at the same time that we cannot meet our targets. We will meet that target of 1.5 million homes.”
However, Shadow Housing Minister Paul Holmes fired back: “Lord knows who the Housing Minister is talking to, because time and again, developers have said that he cannot achieve his target of 1.5 million homes.
“As he knows, I have severe doubts about his ability to meet such unrealistic housing targets, and I suspect the Opposition will be proven right.”
Elsewhere during the debate, Labour MP Peter Swallow also asked Housing Secretary Angela Rayner whether changes over the right to request a pet in the private rented sector could be extended to leasehold properties.
He asked: “Through the government’s landmark Renters’ Rights Bill, we are doing much to address the inequities of the rental sector across the country for instance, we are extending the right to request a pet.
“Now the government are turning its attention to reforming leasehold. The Housing Secretary will know that many leaseholders are also blocked from having a pet by a clause in their head lease. What can we do to deal with that?”
Ms Rayner claimed the government will keep the position of leaseholders with pets under review.
She said: “I know that Mr Swallow has already spoken to the Minister for Housing and Planning about this issue, and that those discussions will continue.
“As we know, pets bring joy, happiness and comfort to their owners, while also supporting their mental and physical wellbeing. We have strengthened the rights of private tenants to keep pets in the Renters’ Rights Bill, and we will of course keep the position of leaseholders with pets under review.”
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
10 months ago | 9 comments
11 months ago | 4 comments
11 months ago | 2 comments
Sorry. You must be logged in to view this form.
Member Since June 2015 - Comments: 333
10:00 AM, 18th July 2025, About 9 months ago
Pets in leasehold properties would be horrific.
Many people choose leasehold properties because animals aren’t allowed. They may be allergic or simply not want to be surrounded with barking dogs. Why should the majority suffer because a few selfish individuals want to inflict a pet on their neighbours.
Member Since February 2018 - Comments: 627
5:13 PM, 18th July 2025, About 9 months ago
There are plenty of developments open to pets, speaking personally, they can be a pain in the posterior from both the perspective of a landlord and a resident of a block hitherto protected by the prohibitions in the lease. I think they have a problem there as to remove that prohibition would actually be a derogation of grant, leaseholders could be up in arms. Of course none of such conflicts would be necessary if government hadn’t broken the principal of no retrospective legislation, that bad habit, which dates back to at least Gordon Brown’s ‘Pension Simplification’, effectively renders all contracts worth no more than the paper they’re written on.