Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 24th March 2025
(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:56 - The House divided: - Ayes: 330 / Noes: 74 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The reasoned amendment in the name of Gideon Amos has not been selected.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is time to get Britain building again. It is what working people expect of this Government and it is what we will deliver. Our Planning and Infrastructure Bill is critical to achieving economic growth, higher living standards and a more secure future for our country. This is our plan for change in action: action to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament and a fast track of 150 major infrastructure projects—more than were decided over the 14 years of the previous Government. The Bill is also key to making Britain a clean energy superpower, bringing down bills for working people and securing our energy supply in a more uncertain world.
Make no mistake: the Bill will transform the lives of working people and Britain’s prospects for years to come. It is hugely ambitious, and rightly so. Everywhere I go, I hear the same frustrations: “We just can’t build anything any more,” and, “We desperately need more homes and more development.” For too long, the answer has always been no, which has choked growth, leaving working people worse off and leaving Britain behind, with trains that do not work, roads that are clogged and not enough homes being built.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I gently say to the Secretary of State that none of my constituents is saying, “In Shropshire, we don’t need any more homes. We don’t want any more homes.” They just want to be consulted. They want the homes in the right place, at the right scale, with the right architecture and in the right numbers. They want their voices listened to through a local plan—not ignored, as the current Government are doing.
Angela Rayner
I gently say to the right hon. Member that it is this Government who have brought forward mandatory local plans, and it was his Government who did not. For too long we have left home ownership to collapse, with homelessness soaring and over 160,000 children in temporary accommodation. This is a country that simply is not working.
The time it takes to secure planning permission for major projects has almost doubled in the last decade, and it now takes more than four years. It is slower and more costly to build big infrastructure in England than in France and Italy. No new reservoir has been built for over 30 years. There are countless other examples, such as the critical new road improvement scheme for Norwich, which would create jobs and speed up journeys yet was held up for two years by unsuccessful legal challenges. We have the ridiculous situation where 139 desperately needed houses were delayed in Bingley because of a row over the speed of balls at the neighbouring cricket club.
The result of such delays has been fewer homes built, higher energy bills, and lower productivity and growth. For 14 years, the country has been crying out for a Government with the will to change that. Successive Tory Prime Ministers promised that change, but when the bold action was demanded they were too afraid to stand up to their Back Benchers.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State outline what powers in the Bill she will use to take on developers and make sure that they build based on the planning permissions they already have?
Angela Rayner
The hon. Member will know as a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that we have already made changes through the national planning policy framework, and we have our new homes accelerator programme, which is already providing thousands of homes. The Bill is about building on those powers to ensure that we get Britain building. It was his Government who did not build the houses and the infrastructure that we desperately need and who were too timid to face down the vested interests. This Labour Government are on the side of the builders, not the blockers, and we are saying, “No more.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There is nobody who does not welcome the 1.5 million houses target, and it is important that we see those homes. Part of infrastructure is electric vehicle charging systems. Many people I ask about electric cars say that they are not getting one because there are not enough charging points. Clause 43 indicates that there will be more EV charge points. Is that something the Secretary of State will share with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland? I also understand that some of the standard accessibility requirements do not meet the standards. Can she confirm that that will be changed?
Angela Rayner
The Bill will streamline the approval of street works needed for the installation of EV charge points, removing the need for licensing where works are able to be authorised by permits, because we recognise that people need that critical infrastructure as part of these reforms.
We have taken more action in eight months than the Opposition managed in 14 years of government. We have reversed the damaging changes made by the Tories to the national planning policy framework and have brought green belt into the 21st century. We have ended the de facto ban on new onshore wind, and we are supporting local authorities with an additional 300 planning officers. Just this month, we set out reforms to put growth at the heart of the statutory consultee system.
Many would have said, “Stop there and allow the reforms to bed in,” but Britain cannot afford to wait. We have been held back for too long by Governments without the will to drive change. This landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill goes even further and faster.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on championing the expansion of affordable and social housing in particular. I ask her to take account of another excluded group: Gypsies and Travellers. They have been systematically discriminated against by the Conservatives over 14 years. There is no assessment of needs or statutory duty to provide sites any longer, and they are not in the strategic planning provisions. Can we rectify that in the Bill so that we have a level playing field for everybody who is in need of housing?
Angela Rayner
We are working with local authorities, and the Bill includes provision for strategic authorities so that we can look at where we have sites and ensure that people are accommodated. It is for local authorities to be able to do that.
The Bill starts with a quicker and more certain system for big ticket infrastructure projects. It will slice through the bureaucracy and speed up transport projects. It will overhaul how Government decisions on major infrastructure projects can be challenged, so that meritless cases will have one, rather than three, attempts at a legal challenge, stopping cases from being dragged endlessly and needlessly through the courts.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Somewhere knocking around in the system is a Government press release that says that the National Grid Sea Link project is being obstructed by too many objections. The reason that it is being objected to is that the National Grid wants to build a 90-foot-high converter station the size of five football pitches on the Minster marshes in Kent. We must have the right to object to that kind of project.
Angela Rayner
I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that there is not a loss of the right to object. In fact, we are strengthening and clarifying those processes as part of the Bill. I will say it again: there will be a quicker and more certain system for big ticket infrastructure projects. The Bill will slice through bureaucracy and speed up transport projects. What it will not do is allow meritless cases to have three attempts at a legal challenge. It will stop cases from being dragged endlessly and needlessly through the courts. It will begin to strip away the unnecessary consultation requirements that do nothing to improve applications and do not meaningfully engage communities, but slow down the delivery of infrastructure that will benefit communities in the future. It will create greater flexibility so that projects can go through a more appropriate and faster planning route.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Secretary of State will understand that when a number of nationally strategic infrastructure projects are in one area, that has a huge impact. In my constituency we are looking at a strategic rail interchange, a major solar plant and the East West Rail project. Will she reassure my constituents that their voices will be heard under the Bill? Will she reassure us that when these issues go to the Planning Inspectorate and to the Secretary of State, the cumulative effect of national projects that are not present in local plans will be considered before decisions are taken?
Angela Rayner
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we will consult on the draft we have put forward. We want better and quality engagement as part of the Bill. Our changes will ensure that everyone works together early on, and that we have proportionate and faster decisions. We will make sure that the Government’s infrastructure policies are updated at least every five years, but the measures in the Bill are not the limit of our ambitions.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
The Secretary of State is outlining the process by which essential infrastructure needs to be built, but she will forgive me for coming back to Heathrow expansion. I would be extremely grateful if she could set out for us—perhaps not today, but later or in writing—the exact process for considering the expansion of Heathrow under the new legislation. In addition, could she explain why those who will be affected by compulsory purchase will now be removed as consultees at the pre-application stage?
Angela Rayner
I will not get into the details of any particular planning process, but I will say that the Bill is about better and quality engagement. Of course, statutory consultees will continue to be engaged, but what we do not want is major infrastructure projects continually being blocked for years and years. People have been speaking about some of these projects for decades, and we still do not have the connectivity that we desperately need.
We are open to strengthening the Bill, and we will give serious consideration to proposals that further our objectives. We will continue to engage with colleagues across the House, as well as with business and communities, on what might be done about existing requirements that are not working as they should. We are clear that where once the answer was always no, to get Britain building, to drive growth and to deliver opportunity, the answer must now be yes.
The Bill is also geared towards another crucial pledge: building the new homes that we need. We will boost house building in England by streamlining planning decisions.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the steps being taken to streamline the system and get more homes built. That, of course, includes social and affordable housing. Does the Secretary of State agree that that would go some way to helping the 160,000 children who are stuck in temporary accommodation?
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the debate back to why we are all here and why we are in this mess in the first place. Over Christmas, when we all got to see our family and friends, I was thinking about the 160,000 children in temporary accommodation. During the general election campaign, one thing I was clear on was that we have to move forward to build the homes that people desperately need—behind every single one of those statistics is a family or an opportunity that is not being realised—and one of this Government’s missions is to strengthen that.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
If the Government are going to build 1.5 million homes over the course of this Parliament, and we are nine months into the first year of this Parliament, by my calculation they should have built 225,000 by now. Will the Secretary of State confirm how many homes have been built?
Angela Rayner
The hon. Gentleman has just given us an example of the mess the previous Government left us in. House building was going backwards, and they were nowhere near the figures they promised. That is why, within the first few months of us getting into power, we changed the national planning policy framework. We have been consulting, we have been working with industry, we have had a new homes accelerator—thousands more have been put into the system—and £2 billion for the affordable homes programme has been announced today.
We will boost house building in England by streamlining planning decisions, introducing a national scheme of delegation that sets out which types of application should be determined by officers and which by planning committees. Local democratic oversight is crucial to ensuring good development, but the right decisions must be taken at the right level to get Britain building.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Deputy Prime Minister is giving an excellent speech about the importance of building homes. She mentioned the importance of getting young people out of temporary accommodation, which I wholly support. Does she agree that it is not just about temporary accommodation but about families who are suffering from overcrowding, families in unsuitable accommodation and families at risk of homelessness, with the anxiety that brings? My inbox is full of that from residents in Harlow.
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Not only have the Government inherited a really dire house building situation—we will turn the tide and build 1.5 million homes—but we have seen homelessness levels rise. The previous Government promised to end section 21 no-fault evictions but did not; we are going to do it. We will also bring in Awaab’s law, which will protect people in the rented sector. There is so much wrong with our housing system. The Government are starting to turn the tide on that. This Bill is one crucial step in the overall picture of what we are doing to improve circumstances for people, whether they want to buy a home, whether they are in a home or whether they are in privately rented accommodation.
I turn back to the planning committees. We will bring in new controls over the size of planning committees, increasing the pace and quality of decision making while maintaining robust debate. We are introducing mandatory training for planning committee members to improve their expertise while allowing councils to set their own planning fees to cover their costs, with a promise that that money will be reinvested in the system to help speed it up.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
I welcome much of what the Bill will do. It will speeding up the planning system, which as a chartered surveyor who has practised in planning is I know desperately needed if we are to get more houses built. However, the one area of the Bill that I have concerns about is what she has just come on to. If local people feel completely overridden by their planning system, they will feel very hard done by. If we are to override local people, we might just as well have a nationally directed planning system rather than a local planning system. Will she think carefully about that balance?
Angela Rayner
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this area, and he is absolutely right to say that there has to be a balance; that is why the Bill sets out that controversial schemes will still go to full planning committees. I am sure he would recognise that there are other areas where local planners could do some of that work. If we set out the rules clearly, we can make the process better, so that where there is more need for that engagement—with the mandatory training for those on planning committees—we will get a better result. I hope the hon. Member will continue to engage with us in that vein.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the £2 billion in extra money for social homes being announced today and the 150 new nationally significant infrastructure projects for which the Bill will pave the way. We are the party of the builders, not the blockers, so more importantly we need more builders. That is why the £600 million announced for a new army of 60,000 more brickies, electricians and engineers is very welcome. Can I suggest that Rochdale’s Hopwood Hall college, which has a brilliant record in training construction workers, is included in this project?
Angela Rayner
As my hon. Friend says, 10 colleges of excellence were announced as part of the £600 million funding and 60,000 new apprenticeships. By giving our young people opportunities, this is part of making work pay. It will be fantastic, and I hope my hon. Friend will be engaged in that process. My colleagues in Government will have heard what he said. As a fellow Greater Manchester MP, I feel that Greater Manchester definitely should be part of that process.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
To pick up on the tone of the comments made about blockers, I knock on many doors in my constituency and find the narrative about nimbys blocking housing and people not wanting homes built in their constituency to be untrue. People recognise the need for additional homes for themselves, their children and the growing population, but what they worry about is infrastructure. This Bill does not include mandatory infrastructure targets, and that is why residents are so sceptical. Given their inability to get GP appointments at the moment, with additional homes and additional demand they will struggle even more. How can we reassure them that those needs will be met in the future?
Angela Rayner
Let me be clear: I do not call people of this country the blockers. I do not see that when I am out and about; I never saw it during the general election campaign. People want this development. The hon. Member makes an important point about infrastructure; people often say that the infrastructure is not there. This Bill streamlines infrastructure. I think it goes some way towards doing the work. It is not everything; we have to do a lot of other things, like we have done with section 106, for example. Under the previous Government, we often did not get the benefit of that, because people wriggled out of their obligations. I appreciate the tone of the hon. Member’s remarks. This Government are going to make sure that we build the houses that people want, where they want them, with consultation and with the critical infrastructure that they need.
At the same time, we will unlock land for housing and infrastructure by reforming the compulsory purchase process, ensuring that important projects that deliver public benefits—such as many more social and affordable homes—are given the green light, and that compensation paid to landowners is not excessive.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I warmly welcome the changes to hope value in order to build more affordable homes, but will the Secretary of State clarify whether that will also apply to wider projects for community benefit such as playing fields? Udney Park in Teddington in my constituency has lain derelict for over a decade as successive owners have wanted to develop it but cannot do so. There is a huge demand for community playing fields and the community wants to be able to access that land. Will she assure me that the hope value changes will apply much more broadly than just to affordable housing?
Angela Rayner
I hope that the hon. Member continues to engage, because we want to make sure that we can go as wide as we possibly can so that we get the land that is needed and we can build the houses that we desperately need. We are also doing work within the devolution Bill, which will be coming forward, around compulsory purchase on other assets of public value that are not for building on. That touches on the point that the hon. Member has raised.
We are also strengthening development corporations to make it easier to deliver the housing projects we need. Those corporations delivered previous generations of new towns. This Labour Government are building on our post-war legacy by giving them enhanced powers to help deliver our next generation of new towns. These will be communities built with local people in mind, with the affordable housing, GP surgeries, schools and public transport that working people expect and need.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister and I have a mutual passion: she too is a great fan of His Majesty’s work on the built environment and ensuring the high quality of design. One concern that a lot of people have is seeing the quality of design eroded, so that we see the same design in Kent as we do in Staffordshire. Would she look at what could be done to enhance design codes, because it feels like they have been eroded not enhanced?
Angela Rayner
The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of our time sparring at the Dispatch Box, but I am glad that I am on the Government side now. [Interruption.] I beg to differ.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about design, and we are covering that in our new towns. He is right that His Majesty is also passionate about this; I think everybody is to be honest—nobody wants to live in an ugly home. Design is important, and it is different in different places: Yorkshire is different from Manchester, which is different from Devon. Ensuring that design is part of the process is crucial, but it must not prevent us from going forward. That is why we have clarified some of the issues around “beautiful” in the NPPF that were holding things up. I want to reassure Members across the House that we expect safe homes, beautiful homes and homes fit for the future in terms of renewables and energy efficiency.
To meet our net zero ambitions and drive growth, the Bill will speed up approvals for clean energy projects. Some projects currently face waits of over 10 years—another legacy of Tory failure. With a first ready, first connected system replacing the flawed first come, first served approach, and with £200 billion of investment unlocking growth through “Clean Power by 2030”, our reforms will protect households from the rollercoaster of foreign fossil fuel markets and usher in a new era of energy independence, in which despots like Putin can no longer have their boot on the nation’s throat.
Britain’s electricity grid needs a 21st century overhaul to connect the right power in the right places, which is why our plans for vital energy projects needed for clean power, including wind and solar projects, will be prioritised for grid connections, with those living within 500 metres of new pylons getting up to £250 a year off their electricity bills. We recognise the service of these communities in hosting the infrastructure that will lower everyone’s energy bills.
Bradley Thomas
The Deputy Prime Minister makes an important point about the access to energy that all our communities require. Particularly prominent in all our minds, at a time when we recognise that food security is national security, is the displacement of high-quality agricultural land and, in effect, energy becoming a new cash crop. Will she assure the House that we are not at risk of falling into that trap and that we will not displace high-quality agricultural land for energy?
Angela Rayner
I can assure the hon. Member—I gave him two chances; I must like him—that we will protect high-quality agricultural land. Farmers have used land in various ways throughout the decades and generations, and we will protect our high-quality agricultural land.
Finally, I want to turn to the measures in the Bill on development and nature recovery. We have some incredibly important habits and species in this country, and the Government could not have been clearer in our manifesto that we are committed to improving outcomes for nature.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a fantastic speech and a great piece of legislation that will turbocharge our plans to restore nature at scale and build the homes that we need. Will she say a little more about how the Bill could help us to restore our precious chalk streams, such as the River Pang in my constituency?
Angela Rayner
The Bill is about how we can do nature recovery and protect nature. We think that it is a win-win. Under the previous Government, all sorts of problems held us up, and we tried to work with the then Government but they would not work with us. That is why they are now on the Opposition Benches and we are on the Government Benches, building.
I am sure that all Members across the House share the goal of improving outcomes for nature, but I am also confident that no one here thinks that the system is working well. Any set of rules that results in a £100 million bat tunnel is an outrage. I know that Opposition Members agree, but they were determined to take a clumsy approach to fixing nutrient neutrality that risked ripping up environmental protections and would not have worked.
Thanks to a collaborative effort with organisations across the development and environmental sectors, our Bill sets out a better way. That is a win-win for development and for nature. The Bill establishes a nature restoration fund that will allow developers to make a simple payment to discharge their environmental obligations, and to crack on with the building of the homes and infrastructure projects that we desperately need. Natural England will use that money to take the action needed not just to avoid further decline in our natural world, but to bring about improvement.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is reassuring to hear that the right hon. Lady is so passionate about restoring nature. How, then, can she explain the fact that planning permission, which the local council had refused, has been granted for a battery energy storage system on the green belt in Walsall?
Angela Rayner
I will not comment on individual projects, but we have been clear about nature recovery and protecting our natural spaces, as set out in the Bill. That is how we will put talk of newts and nutrient neutrality behind us and get Britain building, while stopping the pointless pitting of nature against development.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The problems caused by the previous Government’s failure to tackle nutrient neutrality mean that north Cumbria faces significant house building issues. I strongly welcome the Bill’s provisions on the nature restoration fund. Will the Department work with the local authority to develop mitigation schemes that will get house building going in north Cumbria in the interim?
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that long-standing issue. The Government are already engaging with the local authority in her area. She is absolutely right: for too long the previous Government were not listening. In the other place, and when I was in opposition, we tried to work with them on these issues and they refused.
The Bill is our reform to mark a new era for Britain. We are turning the page on the years of defeatism and decline in which this country of extraordinary talent and capability was held back by a system that was hobbled at every turn. With these landmark reforms, we are not just putting more money into the pockets of working people and strengthening communities; we are taking a major step forward to secure our country’s future for the long term. We are getting Britain building again, getting growth going and paving the way for national renewal. This is real delivery and real change to transform the lives of millions of people for years to come. I commend the Bill to the House.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I am pleased to lead the response on behalf of the Opposition, and I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes more than 30 years of business experience and interest in the property sector.
We support some of the principles, aims and ambitions of the Bill, some of which build on the work we undertook while we were in office—a time that included a record period for house building in this country. We will also highlight our concerns in a number of areas, including whether the Bill goes far enough to achieve its goals; the removal of a councillor’s ability to vote on individual applications; and the potentially toxic mix of disproportionately large increases to housing targets in rural areas, the grey belt “Trojan horse”, including the removal of any protection for villages, the move to strategic plans and of course the ambition to build 1.5 million homes. The Secretary of State is apparently keen on spotting elephants, but she seems to have missed a huge one, in that that target of 1.5 million homes is completely undeliverable.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
In chapter 2, proposed new clause 12H(3) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 mentions the draft spatial development strategy and brings in a raft of changes, including consultation with representative bodies on
“different racial, ethnic or national groups”
but also “different religious groups”. Is there a danger that we are pitting communities one against another? There is a legislative reason to do that, and I wanted to intervene to ask the Secretary of State about it, but can my hon. Friend, with his expertise, shine some light on why we are enshrining that provision into legislation?
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is right to spot that requirement, and we will certainly be considering that when we table amendments to the Bill. We believe it is completely inappropriate that certain groups should get preference over other groups in consultations that might occur during the planning process.
The ambition to build 1.5 million homes is all well and good, but the Government have not yet set out exactly how they will do that. There are many questions about its deliverability, certainly in the context of the February S&P Global UK construction purchasing managers’ index, which described one of the biggest monthly falls in house building and construction on record. Indeed, the joint report from Savills, the Home Builders Federation and the National Housing Federation said that the Secretary of State would fall short of her target by 500,000 homes. The Government have not yet set out how many social or affordable homes they will deliver, or what measures they will put in place to help first-time buyers on to the housing ladder, particularly when they have scrapped Help to Buy and the stamp duty discounts, which helped 1 million young people to buy their first home.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that housing targets mean little if the Government do not get a grip on immigration, which is causing massive demand for housing?
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. The increase in this country’s population is part of the reason why we have a rising need for housing, as well as for temporary accommodation. That all impacts on the system.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The hon. Member talked about missed targets, and about affordability. In 2010, the first of 16 housing Ministers under the previous Conservative Government boldly claimed, as did many of his successors, that the Government would improve affordability of housing overall. While they were in power, affordability, as measured by the ratio between median house prices and wages, reduced from 6.85 to 7.7. Can he explain that failure to the House?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman fails to acknowledge that there were quite a few different housing Ministers during Labour’s previous tenure as well, but he makes an interesting and important point that I am happy to answer. Of course we want to build more houses to tackle affordability problems. I say that in relation to social housing, because during those 14 years, as well as delivering 2.5 million new homes, we delivered 750,000 affordable homes.
Luke Murphy
The point I was making was about outcomes. The previous Government committed to improving affordability and abjectly failed to do so. Can the hon. Member explain why?
Kevin Hollinrake
As I said, there is no question but that there are underlying problems in the marketplace. We delivered 1 million homes, which was our target, in the last Parliament, but of course we agree that supply and demand is part of the equation. It is not the only part, so we support the ambition to deliver more homes. We had a similar commitment in our manifesto, and there is a context for that within the overall framework for a higher target.
The Government must reflect on the fact that although the construction sector is an important part of the economy, it represents only around 6% of GDP. Growth in the other 94% has been killed stone dead by the twin human wrecking balls who are the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister. Having inherited the fastest growing economy in the G7, the Chancellor proceeded to trash talk the economy recklessly for six months, before hitting it with £70 billion per annum of tax and borrowing. If that was not bad enough, the Deputy Prime Minister introduced the Employment Rights Bill—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Wonderful. All Labour Members’ union supporters will applaud them for it. It will kill tens if not thousands of businesses, and potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout our country.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
We have already heard comments from Conservative Members about cases where planning permission has been granted, but nothing has been built. Almost every developer I have spoken to during this Parliament has said that that has one cause. It took so long to get planning permission—the Bill is designed to fix that—and while developers sought it, Liz Truss crashed the economy. Consequently, we had an inflation crisis and costs skyrocketed. Before the hon. Gentleman comments on our economic record, will he apologise for his?
Kevin Hollinrake
That is absolute nonsense.
Talking of confidence, according to a monthly survey by the Institute of Directors, business confidence in this country has collapsed since Labour took over. A high of plus 5 in July last year has collapsed to a covid-level low of minus 65. The Deputy Prime Minister’s Government inflicted that on this country.
There is a complete absence of business experience in the Cabinet. Having killed economic growth in most of the productive economy, the Government now resemble a clueless gambler at the end of a disastrous night in the casino—they are staking everything on a last-gasp gamble on the property market.
From 2013 to 2023, we saw the highest sustained level of new home formations in the past 50 years, surpassing even the levels in the 1970s. Since 2010, we have delivered 2.5 million new homes and 750,000 affordable homes.
Sir Gavin Williamson
Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in stamp duty that has been imposed on people creates a real challenge when it comes to encouraging more people to buy homes? If the Deputy Prime Minister could encourage the Chancellor to reconsider that, so that it is not so expensive to buy a new home, that would be an important reform.
Kevin Hollinrake
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. What have the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor got against first-time buyers? We helped 1 million first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder through Help to Buy and discounts on stamp duty. The Government scrapped both those schemes.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Will the hon. Member reflect on the fact that although Help to Buy helped some people to purchase a new home, many others were priced out because of inflationary pressures and the exorbitant bonuses that were paid to the huge house building companies, which benefited the most from the scheme?
Kevin Hollinrake
I do not disagree that there were some flaws in the scheme. Nevertheless, around 340,000 people made it on to the housing ladder through that process. They include people in my constituency and probably people in the hon. Member’s constituency.
We recognise the need to go further. That is why we commissioned work by Charles Banner KC on speeding up the planning and delivery of national infrastructure projects, and Nick Winser’s review on accelerating energy infrastructure. We are grateful to them for their work. When we compare their recommendations and others with the Bill, we believe that the Bill’s benefits have been significantly oversold. For example, on the infrastructure consenting process, measures to reduce decision times are welcome, but consideration should be given to removing specific critical projects, such as airports, reservoirs, nuclear power stations and national transport schemes from the judicial review process altogether. The nature restoration levy and environmental delivery plans to be delivered by Natural England could be welcome if they allow developers successfully to discharge the requirements of the habitats regulations, but there are key questions. What incentives are there for Natural England to set levies that are proportionate to the impact on the environment? Will they just become another tax and another deterrent to building?
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
The work done by the Conservative party on the NPPF was welcome, particularly in respect of its views on incorporating nature into the structure of the build, but it was unsuccessful. The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister talk about a win-win for nature, so can he give the House an assurance that the Conservatives will back the implementation of measures such as swift bricks? Swifts are cavity-nesting birds that have no other place in this country and are declining at a great rate. Will he back the incorporation of those as a mandatory requirement in new builds?
Kevin Hollinrake
I can guarantee that we will support measures that we think will be successful. The hon. Gentleman brings up some of the work we tried to do in the previous Parliament, some of which was successful. Other things were unsuccessful, including our solution on nutrient neutrality, which was blocked by his party by about 100 votes in the House of Lords. The impact of that particular measure is considered negligible. We want to ensure that where any levies are put in place by Natural England, if the impacts are considered negligible, they are also negligible for developers.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree that more could be done to protect irreplaceable chalk stream habitats, particularly in the south of England? Does he also agree that one thing we could do is designate those chalk stream habitats to be irreplaceable and ensure that the Government specify clearly what permissions might be available there?
Kevin Hollinrake
We could talk with the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) about making such amendments to the legislation as it passes through Committee.
I have other questions. Is Natural England sufficiently resourced to carry out its work? How long will it be before these plans are in place? Have the Government taken into account the inevitable delays due to judicial reviews of the environmental delivery plans? Is it not the case that the habitats regulations remain in place beneath this new system, so if a development does not show the overall improvement test for each identified environmental feature, as referenced in clause 55, the system will not apply and the developer will still need to build those bat tunnels and fish discos? Indeed, Sam Richards of Britain Remade states that it might set the bar even higher by requiring a net gain for that species. If an EDP covers one element of environmental impact but not others, the developer might have to pay into the levy and build the bat tunnel.
Have the Government also considered changes to section 20 of the Environment Act 2021, which this legislation is subject to? I am interested to hear the Minister’s reflections. Overall, we believe that it will take at least two to three years from Royal Assent for these EDPs to have meaningful effect. I am very happy to seek assurances from the Minister if that is not the case.
There are also understandable concerns about whether the route chosen will even deliver on its objective to protect the environment. The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management has stated that the Government’s approach means that our natural capital assets will be destroyed immediately, and it could take decades for any improvement.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, nature can be effectively compensated for only in certain circumstances, but landscape can never be replaced: once it is gone, it is gone. Does he think there should be scope in this Bill to recognise the special status of protected landscapes—what are now called national landscapes or national parks—to ensure that development in those areas is appropriate and does not permanently damage our precious landscape for future generations?
Kevin Hollinrake
My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. Constituencies such as his and mine that include those protected landscapes do not seem to have that considered or catered for in the housing targets, particularly the new ones that we have before us. Again, I am very keen to discuss with the Minister how we might address that.
On planning, we are very concerned about the national scheme of delegation, which will remove councillors’ right to vote on individual planning applications. If the Secretary of State does not believe that that is the case, I suggest that she reads clause 46 of her own legislation. This is particularly extraordinary considering that when Labour was in opposition, the former shadow Housing Minister said in a debate in this House on 21 June 2021 that the previous Government should
“protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 620.]
Clearly, the current Housing Minister is not doing that— he is doing the exact opposite through these rules—and he should be clear with the public about that, because sooner or later, that fact will hit home.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
indicated dissent.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am very happy to have a debate with the Housing Minister—he is welcome to intervene on me. I suggest that he reads clause 46 as well. Of course, it is also a fact that 14 Cabinet Ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary, all campaigned to block housing developments in their own constituencies. What hypocrisy!
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I have often found that the right of a councillor to insist that a matter goes to the planning committee, rather than be determined by officers, actually leads to the application going through where pettifogging officers would have refused it.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is right to say that the vast majority of applications are consented to by planning committees. Removing councillors’ right to vote on them is absolutely the wrong thing to do, and Labour must be honest with the public that that is exactly what is happening.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
That raises a broader point. At the moment, councils in parts of the country such as my constituency are being abolished by this Government, so there will be no democratic accountability down the line, and there will be no democratic accountability at council level through planning committees, either. They are removing layer after layer of protection for local communities such as mine, with huge amounts of green-belt land suddenly redesignated as grey-belt land, despite recently being high-grade agricultural land. Can my hon. Friend understand the concerns in communities such as mine about what these proposals are doing? They want to see more housing, but not at the expense of London seeing a housing target—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. That was a very long intervention.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am concerned about the points that my right hon. Friend has raised. The Government talk about abolishing a layer of government, but they are actually introducing a new layer of government: the strategic authorities, which will have the ability to push housing from urban areas into rural areas such as my right hon. Friend’s and those represented by other Members in this House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kevin Hollinrake
I will give way a final time, and then I will make some progress, if I can.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
On the environment, national parks are rightly protected, so when the Government impose housing targets on east Hampshire, all of that housing will have to go in the bits that are not part of the South Downs national park, increasing the housing pressures on what is essentially green-belt land but is not in the park. Would it not be better for this to be taken in its totality, and for the national park to be excluded from the figures?
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree that, in order to be fair to areas that include protected landscapes and national parks, that should be a consideration.
The removal of powers from councillors will only become apparent to many residents when they see a green notice on a nearby telegraph pole and contact their local councillor to express their concern, only to be told, “I’m sorry, but I no longer have the power to ask for the application to be considered and voted on by the planning committee.” The Local Government Association itself strongly opposes these changes, saying that
“The democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system, and this should not be diminished.”
We also have concerns that the imposition of strategic planning will be used as a vehicle to force rural authorities to absorb urban housing need. This is of particular concern in many rural areas, given the disproportionately high increases in targets for rural locations. The Secretary of State has increased the national target for house building by 50%, so the average rural resident might expect that their local housing target has increased by a similar amount, but that is not the case. According to the House of Commons Library, the targets for major urban conurbations are up by 17% on average, while the targets in mainly rural areas have increased by 115%. For example, London’s target is down by 12%, Newcastle’s is down by 15%, Birmingham’s is down by 38% and Coventry’s is down by 55%, while Wyre Forest and New Forest’s targets are up by 100% and Westmorland’s is up by almost 500%.
Dr Luke Evans
Leicestershire is a prime example of where these things are happening. The target for Leicester city—where the infrastructure and plenty of brownfield sites are—is reducing by 31%, yet places such as Hinckley and Bosworth and North West Leicestershire are going up by 59% and 75% respectively. That sticks in the throats of people who want to see houses, when such areas are suffering. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is simply not right?
Kevin Hollinrake
It is totally unfair. In my view, it is cynical gerrymandering.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
On the exact same point, in Walsall our housing target is going up by a staggering 27%, while Birmingham is going down. With all the trash in Birmingham—thanks to the Labour council—perhaps people do not want to live there, but does my hon. Friend accept that it is not just the rural communities that have been affected, but those that are peripheral to the cities?
Kevin Hollinrake
My right hon. Friend is right to express her concerns. What everyone wants to see is fairness. We would expect everybody to carry a fair share of the extra housing, but that is not what is happening. [Interruption.] Labour Members should go and have a word with the House of Commons Library if they do not agree. They can check the numbers out.
The fact that housing delivery provided by new towns will not contribute to the targets will shock many councillors and local residents alike. Neighbourhood plans do not have to be consistent with the NPPF; they merely have to “have regard to” it. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm whether that will be changed? There is nothing in Labour’s plans about adequately resourcing or having process reforms of the Planning Inspectorate, which is clearly a key part of the system. Why has she scrapped all the work we did on design codes to move away from identikit housing towards building more beautifully?
We welcome the greater emphasis on local plans, but we would like to see more ambitious requirements for sites to be made available for small builders and for self-build. Currently, it is a 10% requirement on local authorities, but we would like to see a 20% allocation, as requested by the Federation of Master Builders. We would also like to see Homes England’s remit extended to include micro-builders.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
Does the shadow Minister recognise that, under the previous Government, communities were hindered in being able to shape proposed development by only a third of local authorities having up-to-date local plans?
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree with that, and I made the same point from the Back Benches on many occasions, including about Labour-run York, which has just put a local plan in place for the first time since 1956.
There are understandable concerns that compulsory purchase orders are an extension of the Government’s attacks on farmers. Tim Bonner of the Countryside Alliance said that
“giving councils more power to reduce the value of land is a step too far, especially in the context of…the inheritance tax fiasco.”
The Deputy Prime Minister and her colleagues should heed the words of National Farmers Union vice-president Rachel Hallos, who said:
“This Bill comes at a time when the UK farming industry is under immense financial pressure due to the loss of direct payments, extreme weather and the impacts of the family farm tax. So, farmers and landowners must be fully consulted every step of the way.”
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm whether that will be the case?
The grey belt, which was sold to the public as a few abandoned garage forecourts, has now been exposed as the Trojan horse we predicted it would be. Although not directly part of this Bill, it clearly interacts directly with it. It has been described as a death knell for the green belt due to the removal of parts of the definitions and protections of villages. Villages can now merge together or into nearby towns.
To conclude, we will not oppose the passage of the Bill this evening, but we will seek to amend it in ways that do not undermine the ambition to accelerate the delivery of new homes while ensuring that there are checks and balances that protect communities, rural areas, farmers and the environment and that deliver well-designed, affordable homes for everyone, not least those on lower incomes and first-time buyers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. About 60 Members are seeking to get in, so after the Front-Bench speeches have been completed there will be a five-minute time limit.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Secretary of State.
As we heard from the Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister, this is rightly an ambitious Bill, with 97 clauses and six schedules. I will focus on part 2, which deals with planning decisions, because it is important for our constituents and because in the past I undertook planning cases for the Treasury Solicitor’s Department, when our client, the Planning Inspectorate, was affectionately known as PINS—just the pins; no needles.
Careful thought needs to be given to the transparency of decisions. The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned consultation. Some local authorities count abstentions as a vote in favour while others do not, so will she consider introducing a standard process throughout the country? I hope that all decisions will be based on judicial review principles, whether they are made by a committee or by individual officers.
Clause 45 concerns training for local planning authorities. I know that there are committee members who, even after being given some training, would not know a material consideration if it hit them in the face. Given that some of the decisions may be controversial, our constituents need to be reassured that they can have confidence that the system is rules-based and features procedural fairness, adequacy of reasoning and no actual or apparent bias. Decisions must meet this test: would a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, conclude that there was a real possibility that the decision maker had taken into account relevant considerations, and had not taken into account irrelevant considerations?
Let me set out five important issues that apply to either a committee or a planning officer. First, if the decision is delegated to a planning officer, the officer should have undertaken a site visit and it should be recorded. Secondly, all votes in the committee should be recorded, which is not the case now. When we ask our constituents, “How did your councillor vote?”, they are often unable to say. Thirdly, fees are ringfenced under clause 44, but documents should be available to members of the public. At present, people cannot see them all unless they are online; I had to look in three different places to find a highways report. There should still be a physical file that the public can consult. Fourthly, I hope that Ministers will consider term limits for the chair of planning.
Finally, there is the issue of transparency, which is one of the most important elements. There should be a proper procedure so that everyone, throughout the country, follows the same procedure and it is adhered to. I remember that just before the new NPPF, there was a decision involving a takeaway. The public health representatives said that there were no comments and the highways authority representatives said that there would be no impact and then changed their minds after speaking to the applicant. It is important for decisions to be transparent.
I welcome the strategic look at sites. Certain areas, such as mayoral districts with combined authorities, may be more convenient than others.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a very thorough speech, and has raised some interesting points about the nature of the system and how to speed up decision-making. She has just mentioned sites. Does she agree that it is important for us to free up brownfield sites in towns and cities? There is a great deal of brownfield land in my area, and there have sometimes been lengthy delays in building it out. That has a real-life impact on young people who are trying to find a house of their own. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government are right to tackle this serious problem?
Valerie Vaz
I absolutely agree; it is always “brownfield first”. I am about to say something about the green belt, but first I should make the important point that local people should not be shut out of any statutory consultation. They, and other statutory consultees, must be included in the process.
Green belt should be protected, although in some cases infill on the edges of villages and other areas is acceptable. However, I must add that Walsall does not want to be joined up to Birmingham.
Wendy Morton
There are many things that the right hon. Lady and I may disagree on but, when it comes to not wanting the Walsall borough joined up to Greater Birmingham, I think we both agree.
Valerie Vaz
I also want to raise the issue of buy to let. I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will speak to her colleagues in the Treasury about the fact that buy-to-let companies have become the largest single type of business in the UK. There are more companies set up to hold properties registered with Companies House than any other kind. Homes are for people to live in.
I ask those on the Front Bench to remember Walter Segal and Moran Scott, and the Segal method house that people built for themselves in the 1970s with the Lewisham Self Build Housing Association. They were pop-up timber houses. Pockets of land were found and people were empowered.
I know you are looking at me, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will conclude. The planning system should not exclude the voices of our constituents, who will have to live with the consequences of any development. Development should be for the common good and for future generations, taking into account the climate crisis. I know that the ministerial team are up to the task.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The ability to have a home of their own has crept out of reach of a whole generation, while for others, decent emergency accommodation cannot be found; in the last five years, temporary accommodation was named as a contributing factor in the deaths of 58 children under one year old—babies. We urgently need to provide more homes that are genuinely affordable to local people.
That is why the Lib Dem council in Somerset is building hundreds of new council houses in parts of the county for the first time in a generation: 220 new council houses in north Taunton, in my constituency, and 100 additional council houses elsewhere, including zero-carbon council houses. Lib Dem councils in Kingston, Eastleigh, York, Portsmouth, Vale of White Horse, Westmorland and Furness, and Oadby and Wigston are building thousands more new homes.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
As a fellow Somerset MP, my hon. Friend will be aware that Somerset has had 18,000 homes stuck in a planning moratorium for nearly five years. While some of those have been unlocked, many are still in limbo. The Bill is meant to fix that impasse, but does he share my concern that the measures in the Bill may actually fail to unlock that housing, unless Natural England is given the resources it needs to monitor and enforce the nature restoration fund?
Gideon Amos
My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right, and that is why the Liberal Democrats were the only party to put in our manifesto the funds needed for Natural England and the Environment Agency to address the challenges she rightly sets out.
Lib Dem councils are also granting planning permissions, thousands of them—in my county of Somerset alone, 13,000 homes have permission but remain unbuilt.
Luke Murphy
What impact does the hon. Gentleman think the 68% cut to the affordable housing budget under the coalition Government had on the delivery of affordable housing?
Gideon Amos
There was a significant increase in empty homes being brought back into use under the coalition policies promoted by the Liberal Democrat Ministers. If we look at the figures for the cuts the Government made between 2010 and 2024, we see that those cuts were far deeper after 2015, according to all Departments—the record will bear that out.
Luke Murphy
There was not a greater cut in the affordable homes budget at any point between 2010 and 2024; the largest cut—nearly 70%—was under the coalition Government.
Gideon Amos
I was referring to the departmental cuts. If we look at all Departments across Government, including Housing, Health and Education, the cuts were far deeper after 2015.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I hesitate to try to help the hon. Gentleman with his answer, but might it be that the coalition Government were having difficulty building affordable houses in that period because the former Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury had said there was no money left?
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman is right to remind us of the letter left by the outgoing Labour Government for the incoming coalition.
We do need to tackle blockages in the system, and if those 13,000 homes in Somerset that have permission and are not being built were being built, we would already have eliminated the 10,000-plus housing waiting list in the county.
Luke Taylor
My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. He is talking about planning permission being granted, but the homes not being built. In Sutton in 2023, I was a member of the planning committee that gave permission for the Victoria House site, which has lain dormant ever since. Permission was given for 74 homes, but they are not being built. It is a frustration for me every time I cycle past to see that potential not being realised. Does he agree that giving councils the power to take over sites that have permission but are not being built would be a really important part of delivering the homes that we need?
Gideon Amos
It is almost as though my hon. Friend had read a further section of my speech. That is exactly what we need to do in this country to unlock some of those sites.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Gideon Amos
We shall put that to the test later.
We welcome the provisions that allow compulsory acquisition—where there is a compelling case in the public interest, such as to build social housing—to go ahead on the basis of existing use value, not what the owner hopes will be the value in the future, to the detriment of the public purse. That could make a big difference. It would allow councils to assemble land more affordably, and to deliver more social homes. However, councils need to be resourced to carry out such projects. To that end, I am delighted that the proposal to abolish the cap on planning application fees that my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) brought forward in her Bill in 2023 is included in this Bill.
Chris Curtis
Would the hon. Member like to take this moment to congratulate the absolute heroes in his party who forced it to change its policy at conference last year in favour of building homes? Many of those who sit on the Benches alongside him were calling out the members of his party for trying to get it to do so, one of whom, a former leader, called them Thatcherite. Does he agree with me that building new homes is not Thatcherite, but is the pro-development future that this country needs and that this Chamber should be supporting?
Gideon Amos
If the hon. Gentleman is so interested in our debates, he should please come and join our next party conference. We would be delighted to debate whether our targets should be 150,000 social rent homes per year or 300,000 general needs homes per year. Of course, we need both, and that was the conclusion of our very thoughtful and timely conference debate.
I congratulate the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Secretary of State—the Deputy Prime Minister—on lifting that cap, on bringing strategic planning into the Bill and on the changes to national policy statements. I also congratulate them on the new nature restoration fund, where it provides support in relation to issues such as nutrient neutrality. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), that is holding back thousands of homes in Somerset, and we welcome the change.
Friends of the Earth has welcomed the nature restoration fund, but points out that it is very unclear how the nature restoration levy will work alongside other regimes. In that respect and many others, the Bill is short on the key principles. It is big on powers for the Secretary of State, but short on how those powers will be exercised. The Bill does not just lack details; it lacks some really big and important principles, including how that will work with other regimes. The funding of the nature restoration levy needs to be up front, so that nature restoration work begins straightaway.
We ask the Minister and the Government to enshrine in the Bill the principle that, on each site, development should first no do harm. That principle needs to be guaranteed its place at the top of the hierarchy of mitigation when it comes to protecting our environment.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
On the point about not doing any harm to nature, would the hon. Member’s party support the water companies becoming statutory consultees so that we can ensure that, with any new housing, not a litre of extra sewage goes into our rivers?
Gideon Amos
We would support that, as we did in a Westminster Hall debate very recently. We should be hearing such voices in the planning system, not shutting them out of the planning system.
On energy infrastructure, we welcome support for battery storage and improving access to the grid. Transmission connections are a huge source of delay—one of the biggest bottlenecks for renewable energy. But if we are to unblock that infrastructure, we need to go much further. All large-scale infrastructure projects, not just electricity transmission, should give people direct community benefit. Whether wind farm, solar farm, battery array or gas-fired power station, those living nearby should benefit through local investment or lower bills.
We also support the ambition to streamline planning for major projects, with exceptions on taking category 3 people out of compulsory purchase consultations. Let us note again who the real blockers were on these really big projects. They were not the people. It was nothing to do with local communities or the planning profession—I declare an interest as a member of the planning profession—and it was not councils. It was Ministers who left decisions lying on their desks, wrecking the timescales scrupulously followed by other parties in the process, so let us not blame people for politicians’ failures.
There are things to welcome in the Bill, but it hits the wrong target in many important areas, and this is where I must raise some more serious concerns. The detail provided in the changes to national infrastructure projects is good, but it is in real contrast to other areas of the Bill. There are many Henry VIII clauses that give sweeping powers to the Secretary of State and a democratic deficit is becoming a serious concern. For all that we welcome the aim to deliver homes, the Bill takes aim at communities, when we should be encouraging and empowering them to deliver and create the homes and places we want to see. I say again that racking up permissions—we already have a staggering 1.5 million homes without permission—will not ensure a single one gets built. We need to tackle the failure to build out of permissions granted by taking back the land or further limiting the lifetime of permissions. “Use it or lose it” needs to be the message.
Unless we deal with the supply chain issues and the lack of skills, we will have even more blockers on development.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
How does the hon. Gentleman square his support for getting more homes built and helping children who are living in temporary accommodation with his opposition to 250 new homes in his constituency, which he announced online just this month?
Gideon Amos
I am absolutely delighted to be supporting thousands of new homes across my constituency. The population of my constituency has gone up almost 10% over the past 10 years and I have supported thousands of those new homes, as have my Liberal Democrat colleagues on the planning committee who voted through all those permissions. If occasionally a smaller development in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is not right, I would expect him to oppose it, just as I would in my constituency. I believe Members across the House have done so.
By giving more powers to communities, a community-led approach could actually increase supply. It is time, for example, to give councils the power to end Right to Buy in their areas. They cannot fill the bath, in terms of providing council houses and social homes, if the plug is taken out and they are forced to sell them off as they have done over the preceding decades. Through proper planning, we also want communities in control of how many holiday lets are allowed in their area, so that homes are not swallowed up that could otherwise increase the supply of affordable housing. That is not in the Bill and should be.
Mandating renewable energy such as solar panels on roofs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) articulately argued for, would put people and local communities in control of the bills coming from their pockets.
Growing our economy, sustaining nature and building new homes are not mutually exclusive. They can work together. There are so many examples of how they can work together. For example, decent gardens have more biodiversity than many rural areas. Community-led decisions very often bring the best results, with residents’ infrastructure needs addressed and development shaped around green spaces and sustainability. To unblock homes, the Government need to do two key things instead of taking aim at ordinary people: first, unlock the infrastructure we need, including GPs, transport, green spaces, green infrastructure and water connections; and, secondly, fund the social homes that have been so sorely lacking. Since social housing disappeared as a meaningful proportion of housing supply and social housing targets fell away, this country has never been able to keep pace with demand. Our target is 150,000 per year. I hope the Government will provide a target of their own for social homes; so far, nothing has been said on that either. Invest in those two things, as history has taught us, and the number of homes we could provide would be almost unlimited.
Meanwhile, in communities like my own—where the 2,000-home Orchard Grove development in the west of Taunton, which I support, is taking shape—the reality is that while many people want to see new GP surgeries, developments are held back by the fact that we often cannot get GPs to staff the surgeries where they are being built.
We want to see a Bill about communities leading in planning and development. Instead, the Bill is part of a growing trend that is taking powers away from local communities. It takes a big step in that direction by allowing the Secretary of State to override planning committees and enabling national schemes of delegation that allow Whitehall to dictate who makes decisions on a local council—another Henry VIII clause, giving Whitehall unlimited power to rewrite the standing orders and constitutions of councils up and down the country. That cannot possibly sit right with anybody who values our proud tradition of local government that is independent of central Government. Consultation is sidelined elsewhere, too. Sport England will no longer have a voice to protect playing fields, and people subject to compulsory purchase orders will no longer have the voice they had before.
If the Government believe that local is the problem and that planning committees are the blocker, let us take a quick look at the actual figures. Councils approve more than 85% of planning applications, with some studies putting that figure even higher—closer to 90%. Councillors of all parties are not blocking development; they are enabling 90% of permissions to go through.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the emphasis in the Bill on removing the powers of planning committees will, by default, lead the public to believe that planning committees throughout the years have actually been the problem? In reality, many planning committees have done their mandatory training and made the right decisions, and those decisions have been upheld by the Planning Inspectorate time and again. It should be put on the record for the public that planning committees, as a whole, are not the problem. There is a huge range of issues that we might need to deal with, but that is not one.
Gideon Amos
I come back to what the LGA said: the role councillors play in the planning system is the backbone of that system. That is the way it should remain. Taking decisions out of councillors’ hands is taking decisions out of the hands of local people.
Developing and shaping towns or neighbourhoods without the input of the councillors who have that level of trust and local knowledge will make those neighbourhoods and developments poorer and even more likely to fail. Frankly, removing people and their councillors from the system does not mean faster planning, but less democratic planning. It will mean that people are shut out and make them lose faith in the system even more; it will mean more legal challenges and more people who feel shut out from the system. The Bill risks making development not only slower, but worse.
There is, of course, another way. Instead of a Bill that shuts people out and shuts them up, silencing voices and failing people on the basic services and infrastructure their communities need, we should look to the great community-led developments of the past, and more recently, from Letchworth and Welwyn Garden Cities and Hampstead Garden Suburb, to local authority-led new towns such as Milton Keynes, right up to the award-winning schemes often built in partnership with the public and private sector up and down the country right now—developments where nature, people and the economy grow together, not in opposition to each other, as we see in the best places that we all know and enjoy visiting.
If we build with the economy and with those who want growth, and for nature by developing with nature and for people by developing with people, we will build the homes, jobs and services that our communities want to see, that our country deserves and that our environment and our planet so desperately need.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The origin of Britain’s planning system is as deeply rooted in the legacy of the post-war Labour Government as that of the national health service and the welfare state. Like those great Labour institutions, it has faced relentless underfunding, attacks and dismantling from the Conservatives, who prioritise the rights of wealthy landowners over the entitlement of working people to affordable housing and quality infrastructure.
I commend the Government for bringing forward a Bill that offers the opportunity to at last get to grips with the appalling mess made of the planning system by the parties opposite; after all, it was they who allowed more than 14,000 hectares of our best farmland to be lost to development since 2010. The reality is that while we now have substantially more homes per capita than 50 years ago—a surplus that has grown rapidly in recent years—house prices in the UK have risen by 3,878% since 1971. Whatever may be said by their lobbyists, the housing crisis is not a straightforward issue of supply, and it will not be solved by simply putting more powers in the hands of profiteering developers. Waiting for a market solution to this societal emergency would be an exercise in utterly extravagant futility.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
For the past 30 years, successive Governments have attempted to deliver affordable housing through the private sector, and they have failed. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for a publicly funded council house building programme?
Chris Hinchliff
I completely agree.
The Government need to deliver a coherent vision for development in this country that matches the clarity and boldness of Labour’s 1947 vision, putting democratic control and social justice back at the heart of the planning system.
First, we must contend with the fact that more than 1.2 million homes that were granted planning permission since 2015 have not been built. Rather than waiting for developers to drip feed land into the system at their convenience, keeping prices high and profits maximised, we must introduce firm financial penalties for land banking to spur on construction and dampen price inflation.
Secondly, in towns like Buntingford and Royston, although thousands of houses have been built in recent years, local people remain stuck on sky-high waiting lists, with enormous knock-on costs for those families and our wider communities. We must therefore address not just the aggregate quantity of building but the types of homes we are providing with a new era of council housing, especially in our small towns and villages.
The housing crisis is also about the concentration of land ownership in the hands of the super-rich. Half of England is owned by less than 1% of its population. Between 1995 and 2022, land values rose by more than 600% to £7.2 trillion, now representing more than 60% of the UK’s total net worth. I welcome the Bill’s expansion of powers for local authorities to prevent developers cashing in on inflated land prices at the cost of the taxpayer. We must maximise the public capture of land value uplifts to provide the necessary funding for genuinely affordable homes that are linked to local incomes and based in well-designed communities that benefit from easy access to all the facilities we need in our daily lives.
Simultaneously, the Government must also grasp this opportunity to reshape how councils develop local plans. Empowered councils with well-resourced planning departments should be able to take an active role to assess the needs of local families, identify appropriate sites and proactively use compulsory purchase orders for genuinely strategic land assembly to meet the needs of their communities.
Finally, given the collapse of nature in our country, we must use this legislation to recognise the very real environmental limits on growth. It is high time our planning system ensured that a presumption in favour of sustainable development ceases to act as a presumption in favour of any development whatsoever.
I look forward to working with Ministers to advance this legislation and secure the strongest possible Bill, which restores our role as custodians of the countryside, compels the private sector to deliver and places the power to meet our housing and infrastructure needs firmly back in democratic hands.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
South Leicestershire is a mid-sized constituency measuring 15 miles by 10 miles, and it already has some of the largest-scale developments in any part of our country. We have the second of the new Titan prisons, which was recently completed; one of the largest holes in the UK at Croft quarry; Bruntingthorpe aerodrome, which currently houses one of the largest UK car auction sites, with 25,000 cars coming in and out at any point; the 4,000-home development at New Lubbesthorpe; and the prospect of a new garden village at Whetstone Pastures. We are surrounded by logistics parks; in fact, we are home to one of Europe’s largest logistics parks—currently doubling in size—Magna Park. At what point can we say that we are doing a reasonable fair share for our county, region and country?
There are no nimbys in South Leicestershire; we generally support appropriate development. I generally support the objectives in the Bill, but there are one or two areas I would like to raise, one being the highly controversial proposed development known as Lutterworth East. I know that the Secretary of State and her team cannot refer to specific cases and that this matter is currently the subject of a call-in, but she and her team rightly say that new housing developments, particularly large ones, must have appropriate numbers of social housing and affordable housing.
The local plan approved by Harborough district council and the Planning Inspectorate made clear that 40% of the homes in large-scale housing developments in my constituency must be affordable. In addition, the Lutterworth East proposal promised the people of Lutterworth that there would be no expansion of strategic warehousing as part of Lutterworth East on the basis that Magna Park—one of Europe’s largest logistics parks—is currently doubling in size.
The problem that we have is not nimbys or a lack of building. It is that the local plan for South Leicestershire and Harborough is being completely ignored by developers. In this case, the oddity is that the developer is Leicestershire county council. Only last December it disgracefully applied to substantially vary the planning permission it was given in 2020 for Lutterworth East. It was granted a reduction from 40% affordable housing in Lutterworth East to 10%. That cannot be in line with the comments the new Government have stated many times about the need for social housing and affordable housing. It flies in the face of everything that the Secretary of State and her team are saying, including what has been said today at the Dispatch Box.
I do not expect a response from the Secretary of State today, but I put on record my request that, if she is serious about wanting more affordable housing in large-scale housing projects, the call-in should be granted. If the call-in is granted, Lutterworth East will be restored to an appropriate housing development of just under 3,000 homes, of which 40% will be affordable. If the Secretary of State does not agree with the call-in, I am afraid she cannot stand at that Dispatch Box and claim that the new Government want to see higher levels of affordable housing, because what the developer is doing in this case is saying no to affordable housing.
I conclude by stating my general support for the Secretary of State and her team’s objective of more homes. South Leicestershire is doing its part, but I put on record again that if she is serious about the numbers of social housing and affordable homes that need to be built, that call-in must be granted.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill. When I studied for my planning diploma, I learned that since the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, the power of national strategic policy versus the challenge of local politics in planning approvals has waxed and waned. It felt under the previous Government as though national powers over significant development decisions almost disappeared, and MPs of the Government party effectively pressured the then Secretary of State to refuse much-needed infrastructure developments that included new housing developments, prisons and more. There has to be a balance. The national Government have to be able to deliver on their national strategies. This is what the Bill does.
I particularly welcome specific parts of the Bill. It fosters more certainty for critical national infrastructure such as electricity—that is so important, as we heard earlier in the Heathrow statement—clean energy, roads, public transport, water and sewerage. I welcome the certainty of decision making for planning applications, more effective land assembly through improving the compulsory purchase orders process and bringing back development corporations, and the return of effective spatial development strategies. The Bill will enable the Government to reform the planning system to deliver on growth, new housing, cutting carbon emissions and climate change resilience—all of which the UK badly needs.
As an MP in London where buying a home or even renting is out of reach to most young people, I welcome the Government’s focus on delivering the 1.5 million new homes that are needed. The Bill and the excellent national planning policy framework enable new housing developments to no longer be designed with entrenched car dependence. The Bill is an excellent opportunity to ensure that new housing and other developments can be concentrated in locations with good public transport, so that schools, shops, health centres, parks and open spaces are easily reachable without the need to drive. This ensures access for all, not only those who have a car. It ensures access to jobs, education, training and shops—all essential building blocks for growth across the country.
Munira Wilson
My constituency neighbour is making a strong speech. I agree with her about building homes in areas that are accessible by public transport. Does she agree that the Government should be encouraged to ensure that where the public sector is selling off land and buildings—disused police stations, fire stations or other public sector buildings—it should be allowed to sell below market value, and should be encouraged to do so to enable more affordable housing and social housing in constituencies like mine and hers, where there just is not the land to build on?
Ruth Cadbury
My constituency neighbour makes a good point, but she must remember that due to 15 years of austerity, many of those sales were the only way that public sector institutions could deliver the new services that were so badly needed.
The Mayor of London and councils such as Hounslow are working with the Labour Government on several key transport links, including the west London orbital, which will unlock thousands of new homes. However, the Bill alone will not unlock the housing and infrastructure projects that the country so urgently needs, so I ask the Secretary of State—or the Minister for Housing and Planning, who is still present—to address the other causes of delay and uncertainty that we are seeing in the system. The community infrastructure levy and section 106 agreements on, say, new bus routes, must be adequate, timely and sustainable, so that people are not moving into estates to then become dependent on having a car. Providing two buses a day for a couple of years, some time after tens or even hundreds of homes have been occupied, is not building in sustainable transport.
My second point is about new joint public-private developments. The hybrid Bill process, as was used for High Speed 2, took years and still did not deliver detailed plans for the routes. It then got mired in lengthy legal processes over the details. The chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission told our Transport Committee how France and Spain delivered new high-speed rail in a fraction of the time, without it being mired in public opposition and legal challenges. It has taken far too long to deliver even half of the original HS2 project. I therefore hope that the Government will come up with a more streamlined process for such major national projects.
Thirdly, I hope that the Secretary of State will work with the Chancellor on different public-private funding mechanisms that other equivalent economies have long used to develop transport infrastructure, social and affordable housing and other public services, so that they are no longer held back due to historic Treasury orthodoxies on capital expenditure.
Fourthly, the Housing Minister will be aware of the additional delays faced by developers of tall blocks of flats. They have planning permission but are being delayed in gateways 2 and 3 of the Building Safety Act 2022. The legislation itself may not be the problem, but the building safety regulator processes certainly are. A development of more than 400 homes in my constituency has been stuck for over a year, with no certainty about if and when they will go ahead. Obviously, my last three points are not within the scope of the Bill, but they are relevant to the aspirations of this Labour Government to get Britain building, which the Bill will deliver.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
There is no doubt that we need new homes, but it is abundantly clear from my casework and from doorstep conversations in North East Hampshire—and I am sure in many other places—that the effects of a warming planet and many years of neglected infrastructure are wreaking havoc on our communities. In order to stop the damage, we must look after nature as we build, and ensure a well-thought-out approach to our public services, to integrate new homes and their local environments effectively.
It is frustrating to say the least to see Labour removing the space for local decision making and consent. Local people know their area. In North East Hampshire, chalk streams are close to our hearts but far too close to our sewage outlets. There are only around 200 chalk streams left in the world, and two of them are in my constituency. These remarkable, irreplaceable habitats are home to iconic species including otter, kingfisher and salmon. Despite that, they have not been protected—last year alone, chalk streams endured 14,000 hours of sewage discharges. Chalk streams are under threat not just from sewage but from irresponsible developments that promise protection and abandon those promises after planning permission is granted.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I strongly support what the hon. Lady is saying, and any specific protection for chalk streams. Does she feel that the Bill goes far enough on that, or is specific legislation needed to preserve these beautiful, almost unique things that we have in this country?
Alex Brewer
The right hon. Member has anticipated my next point. To ensure that development is approached effectively and sustainably, there must be legislation to protect chalk streams. The Government should use the Bill to expand the list of irreplaceable habitats that are severely threatened and include chalk streams in it. Mitigation schemes will not help these unique habitats. They need protection. Unbelievably, this is the second Bill in six months that the Government could have used to protect our precious chalk streams, as the Water (Special Measures) Bill also failed to mention them specifically.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Like my hon. Friend, I have two chalk streams in my constituency. Does she agree that making water companies statutory consultees in any future developments will ensure provision of the infrastructure that is required, so that no more pollution goes into our chalk streams?
Alex Brewer
I completely agree. The Government should be more ambitious in the Bill to ensure that building regulations mandate nature-friendly developments to provide sustainable and healthy housing.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I agree that Britain is among the most nature-depleted countries in all of Europe. Does the hon. Member agree with Greenpeace, the Green Alliance and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds that if development is done hand in hand with nature, both can thrive, and that the Bill achieves that?
Alex Brewer
I agree that nature and building should go hand in hand, and I hope that the Bill will start to achieve that. Good green and sustainable design works for everyone concerned. Sufficient insulation in homes prevents heat loss and reduces bills and carbon emissions. Solar energy production and proper flood protections are other obvious examples where investment up front pays dividends down the line. A great example in North East Hampshire is Hart district council offices. Since the installation of solar panels on the roof, a phenomenal 57,000 kWh of electricity has been generated each year. Imagine if we put solar panels on every new house that was built.
Major issues such as flooding and drainage plague many areas up and down the country. In my constituency, Hartley Wintney high street, Hook and the surrounding areas are frequently flooded because of blocked drains, as surface water cannot drain away effectively after heavy rainfall. Hartley Wintney fire station even had to raise all its electrical sockets higher up the wall because the flooding has been so frequent. Our local businesses are struggling to get sufficient insurance. The Bill should include a binding commitment to the land use framework, which would help to determine where more permanent land use change can occur, to find the optimum balance between food production and ecosystem services such as flood risk management, climate mitigation and biodiversity.
I come again to the question of new houses. We need them and we need them fast, but this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ensure that our new homes are properly fit for the future. They must be built in the right place, with the right infrastructure and with proper consideration for our food security, biodiversity and carbon footprint. Communities do not mind new homes, but people also want GP appointments, NHS dentists, rural bus services and to be able to drive down roads with no potholes. There is an opportunity to be ambitious here, and it is being missed. I urge the Government to be bolder and to strive for planning that is as committed to the environment, to integrated infrastructure and to our local communities as it is to housing.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
I thank the people across Government and from the Department who have worked so hard to pull this Bill together quite quickly. I also thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for the first shout out to Milton Keynes in the debate. Hon. Members may be about to hear many more.
In politics we all like to talk about our own stories and how they have impacted us. I have sat on these Benches and heard the Education Secretary talk about how her education has helped her in life, and the Health Secretary talk about how his interactions with the NHS during his cancer diagnosis drive him to fix our health service. What is important to my life—I believe this is true of most young people’s lives—is having a decent home surrounded by a decent community.
Milton Keynes, my home town, was founded the last time an Act of Parliament was passed to make this country build 300,000 homes a year. Its pioneers pushed hard to get the place built, which meant that my parents were able to bring up my brother and me in a spacious home with our own back garden, giving us the security and stability needed for the best start in life. It meant that I could play safely in green spaces, I had access to excellent local amenities and my family could live affordably with a good quality of life. That is the kind of opportunity that every child in Britain deserves, so it is great to see legislation that will finally begin to remove the barriers to building the new homes that this country so desperately needs.
With the changes to development corporations and CPOs, we may also see the new towns that this country so desperately needs. The proposals for planning committees will play a key role in ensuring that much-needed developments do not get stuck in unnecessary bureaucracy and political gridlock.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that local people will still have a role in developing local plans and in many of the more complicated planning applications? Some of what we have heard today around local input has been scaremongering.
Chris Curtis
That is true. Certainty is incredibly important to enable the housing sector to invest in the skills, development and modern methods of construction that will enable us to alleviate the country’s housing crisis.
Beyond housing, we must recognise that our failure to build vital infrastructure in Britain is leaving our country vulnerable. Our energy security—the foundation of our national security—depends on having infrastructure to support a modern, productive economy. We have failed to build the transport links that are needed to get goods and people moving efficiently. We have failed to build the energy infrastructure that is needed to reduce our dependence on volatile foreign oil and gas, and we have not built a single reservoir in decades, meaning that we lack the water security that is required in the face of climate change.
Paul Holmes
Labour Members keep using the suggestion that reservoirs have not been built in recent times as an example of why the Government are proceeding with the Bill. However, under current guidelines and legislation, a reservoir is being built down the road in my constituency, so it is not a great example to use, is it?
Chris Curtis
I note the length of time that that reservoir has taken to be built. It would be nice if someone on the Conservative Benches started by acknowledging their Government’s lack of ability to build the infrastructure that this country so desperately needed for decades. The barriers that they constantly put in the way of building it are one reason why we are in this situation.
Our national security is only ever as strong as our economic security. Sure, we should be investing in defence, but we can do so only if we have a strong economy. One of the biggest reasons why we have not had a growing economy or economic security is because it has become too difficult to build in Britain. I am proud to support a Bill that will get Britain building again.
I will talk briefly about the nature restoration fund, which in principle is a policy masterstroke. What is most shameful about our current nature legislation set-up, including the habitats regulations, is not just that it stops us from building the homes and infrastructure that our country needs and that it damages our economy in the meantime, but that it does not even work on its own terms. As was mentioned earlier, Britain is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world; I am told that it is second only to Singapore. Why is that? Because the money that we force builders to pay for nature projects is not being spent in the most efficient way.
Take for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson) pointed out, the infamous bat tunnel, which cost us more than £120 million to protect a tiny proportion of bats, all while critical infrastructure projects were delayed or cancelled. Imagine what we could have done for nature not just with that money, but with the extra money that would have been provided to our economy by not stalling that project for so long. Although the nature restoration fund is a welcome step forward, we must ensure that it works. It is heavily reliant on Natural England bringing forward workable delivery plans in a timely fashion.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that open green spaces are not always the most biodiverse, and that we need a more joined-up approach to providing investment in those spaces?
Chris Curtis
I agree, and I hope that the nature restoration fund can be an opportunity to make those spaces more biodiverse. I am trying to support a wetlands art project in my constituency that would use such money to improve biodiversity. I hope that all the organisations that, like me, care about nature recovery will do the right thing and support these changes—they will be the best thing for nature in decades—rather than trying to defend an indefensible status quo.
Finally, as somebody who owes much of my fantastic upbringing to a development corporation, I turn to the crucial issue of how we will fund development corporations when we start building the new towns. Although the changes introduced by the Bill are promising, at some point we will need to think about that financing. For every pound that was invested in Milton Keynes, many more were given back to the Treasury—somebody said the ratio was 14:1, but I have not found a source for that. Currently, any debt issues by development corporations to private capital must be added to the Government’s balance sheet. However, a simple change to Treasury accounting, to count those corporations in the same way as the banks that fell into public ownership after the financial crash, could unlock huge sums of international private capital to fund these vital homes and projects. That approach is consistent with those taken by many European counterparts, and we should actively explore it as a priority.
I will support the Bill today, but I urge Ministers to be honest that this is not a moment for self-congratulation. We need to continue to go further and faster to build the homes and the infrastructure that this country so desperately needs.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
To pick up the comments made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) on reservoirs, I also have a reservoir proposed for my constituency. I noted that the Secretary of State refused to be drawn on specific schemes, including when challenged by her own Front Bench. Perhaps the Minister can tell us in winding up how much more quickly a typical reservoir will be constructed as a result of this Bill and what the percentage of savings will be from that. That sort of detail is currently lacking from claims such as those made by the hon. Member. [Interruption.] I note the Minister’s wry smile.
Let me start by picking up what the Government said last week and what they are saying this week. Last week, they said that they were scrapping a big quango, NHS England, because they wanted to ensure more democratic oversight, yet this week they are giving huge new powers to another quango, Natural England, so that they can seize land at below market value with little democratic oversight. Indeed, the hon. Member just mentioned the bat tunnel. It is a strange paradox to criticise that while supporting giving Natural England more powers to make similar decisions.
There is not just a lack of consistency, but a lack of co-ordination across Government. The Government are currently consulting on the land use framework—the consultation is open and does not close until 25 April—but Ministers seem to be ignoring that. The Secretary of State talked in her opening remarks about the Bill unlocking land for nature and energy schemes, so we have one part of the Government consulting on the land use strategy while another part is legislating to seize land that is in the scope of that ongoing consultation to use for its schemes. It would be helpful if the Minister told us why he is ignoring the consultation that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is conducting. Perhaps we will just have a slew of Government amendments.
If the new powers for Natural England are indeed necessary, that suggests that a significant amount of land will be taken for nature restoration schemes. We know from the land use strategy that about 12,000 farms will be lost over a generation. Either the power is needed—in that case, what is the impact of clause 72 on farmland and farm security?—or not much land will be taken as a result, in which case why do we need this power now?
In the shadow Secretary of State’s opening remarks, he pointed to the number of Cabinet Ministers who have objected to development schemes in their own constituencies. That is a challenge that we all face, as Members of Parliament, when constituents raise concerns. Certainly, my experience of dealing with Natural England —not least as Secretary of State for DEFRA—was that once things were in primary legislation, it would often take a gold-plated interpretation. It may just be that Ministers are being bold, but it would be helpful to understand why they think that granting further powers to seize land will not weaken democratic control. When the Secretary of State was challenged on that, she said that the democratic controls were being maintained but streamlined. I do not think that is how Natural England will interpret it.
Let me give the House a practical example. In the David Fursdon review of Dartmoor, there was conflict in interpretation regarding sites of special scientific interest between Natural England and farmers who had farmed the common for many years. There was huge tension, which David Fursdon skilfully managed to resolve, but that will not happen if the powers in the Bill are enacted.
Finally, there is a paradox. The people we need on side to support nature restoration are the farmers, who are the ones who care most about nature. The Bill is a missed opportunity on things like incinerators, as it will make it easier to get planning permission to burn plastic, which is damaging for the environment and damaging for nature. And yet the farmers, who are the people we need on side, will have their land confiscated by an undemocratic quango that is being given more control, and there is nothing in the Bill to address that. Given the shortage of time, it would be helpful if, in closing, the Minister could clarify some of those points.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
I declare an interest as the vice-president of the Local Government Association. I support the Bill because we must do everything we can to deliver the building of more housing in this country. As the Member for Barking, I see and hear at first hand the impact of the housing crisis. Every week, I meet constituents who share their personal and desperate housing stories. To fix the housing crisis, we require political will alongside national initiatives and investment from the Government, but we must also change the policy foundations, because the national planning system is not fit for purpose.
As a former London council leader who delivered a local plan that designated land for 30,000 new homes, I know only too well that the existing planning frameworks frustrate house building and that the voices of those opposing new homes—often individuals who already own their own home—are prioritised. The truth is that our planning system relies too much on the political bravery of local councillors. Local plans for new homes are stopped by a vocal minority in too many cases. This creates a national patchwork of house building, and the planning systems are used to slow down decision making in the hope that the applicant will eventually just give up.
I welcome the fact that, through the Bill, the Government will create a national scheme of delegation. This will allow planning professionals to work more effectively, ensuring consistency across the country. Allowing planning authorities the flexibility to set their own fees and recover costs is an important step, but given that there is a £360 million deficit nationally, will the Minister reassure us all that the councils will be held responsible for ringfencing that income in their planning departments so that local authorities can improve their performance?
Transport and infrastructure form a crucial component in unlocking the potential for house building, because both private and public sector developments need clear business cases to build. Strong business cases rely on land value, which is boosted by infrastructure, including but not exclusively transport connectivity. The measures in the Bill to streamline the process for agreeing nationally important infrastructure are therefore welcome, but I would like the Government to consider whether the Bill goes far enough.
The HS2 bat tunnels are frequently mentioned in this Chamber, but there are other examples, including the Lower Thames crossing, which has been delayed for over three decades. It has become the UK’s biggest ever planning application, with over 2,000 pages and costing £800 million in planning costs. Taking applications through the national significant infrastructure projects process—a mouthful to say—is too costly and takes far too long. A large part of the problem are the statutory pre-application consultation requirements. This means that all the parties involved operate in a hyper-risk-averse manner, focusing on endless negotiations. That serves the taxpayer and our communities in no way, so I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to look again specifically at reforming the pre-application process to reduce delays and get essential infrastructure consented faster.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady rightly talks about ambition and ensuring that we get planning applications delivered quickly. Does she think that the 56% reduction and the 1,694 fewer homes that her local Labour council will have to deliver will speed up the length of time it will take for them to get through?
Nesil Caliskan
The hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to highlight the fact that my local authority has been building homes far faster than most local authorities across the country. The general slowing in the delivery of housing over the past two years is absolutely to do with the fact that the previous Government crashed the economy and that interest rates and inflation went through the roof. I have yet to come across a developer or local authority that does not say that all its pipeline was impacted by the economic crisis.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is correct to say that there were some issues with housing supply during the last economic crisis, but the numbers that I am asking her about relate to her Government’s proposals under the new scheme. Will she tell her constituents or her Labour councillors—who she does not think should make planning decisions locally—whether she supports the 1,694 fewer houses that her Government are requiring her council to deliver?
Nesil Caliskan
My local authority has committed to building homes and it has a good record. One barrier to being able to deliver homes at speed is the fact that we see infrastructure delayed year after year. With the Bill’s proposals to allow CPOs and land assemblies to happen far quicker, we will see homes built at pace in a way that we have not seen in a generation in this country.
I take this opportunity to thank the Ministers and their teams for their work. The Bill provides a generational opportunity for us to get house building back on track in this country. It is a welcome shake-up to the planning system. It will help to deliver the homes and infrastructure that are so desperately needed in this country. It is the first step of many that will allow us to tackle the housing crisis that my constituents in Barking and Dagenham are so badly impacted by every single day.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) in what is a critical and important debate that will affect my constituency in Mid Buckinghamshire very deeply. Back Benchers on both sides of the House have made some sensible suggestions in this debate. I particularly support the points made on the protection of chalk streams, which is important to my constituency as well. But I have deep concerns about the tone of the Bill and some of the rhetoric underneath its defence. I would categorise it as a Bill that does things to communities, particularly rural communities, as opposed to with them.
The Minister can probably predict some of the things I am about to say, as we sat on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee in the last Parliament together over very many weeks and with many, many housing Ministers over that period. I will not apologise, however, for representing my constituents who, time after time, are fed up to the back teeth of losing our rural identity and our rural character due to the constant flow of housing and infrastructure projects that devastate our countryside and the rural identity of Buckinghamshire.
Greg Smith
Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I just want to say that we in Buckinghamshire feel that we have probably already done our bit with a new town, as it is now a 250,000-population city called Milton Keynes. With that, I will give way to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis).
Chris Curtis
I recently visited my 93-year-old grandmother, who was a constituent living in rural Buckinghamshire back in the 1960s. At that time, she expressed many of the concerns that he has just expressed about a city being built around her rural community, but if you ask her now, she will tell you about the fantastic opportunities that Milton Keynes gave to her children and grandchildren, to the point where one of them is now sitting on these Benches able to make speeches and interventions. Sometimes we need to have change and development, and sometimes we need to support it.
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Milton Keynes is very close to me. I visit Milton Keynes all the time. I have many friends in Milton Keynes. It is a great city. However, a line in the sand has to be drawn as to the amount of our countryside, our farmland and our food-producing land that we allow to be lost to development of whatever kind.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), in his speech earlier, reeled off a list of things that were already happening in his constituency, where they are already playing their part. In my own constituency, while we have had concerns about a lot of it, there has been an enormous list of things. The amount of house building in Buckinghamshire has been extraordinary. The village of Haddenham is unrecognisable from what it was because of the sheer volume of new house building that has gone on there. There are also incinerators, and we are about to get a new prison. Despite our objections, HS2 has ravaged the middle of the constituency. It is not as though Buckinghamshire has not done anything.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have given way to infrastructure, including HS2, motorways and data centres across the entire green belt with very little community consent, and now, with this new Bill, all community consent seems to be going out the window. How can we protect the vital green space in my constituency, which provides the lungs of London and which will be destroyed because everyone will want a piece of the small bits of green belt we still have left?
Greg Smith
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The point she makes is absolutely right and it applies equally to my constituency as to hers. In my constituency, the backbone of our economy is agriculture and food production. The Labour party used to say in its manifesto that
“food security is national security”
yet this Bill seeks to build all over the very land that our farmers in Buckinghamshire and across the country use to produce the very food that gives us national security.
I want to focus on the infrastructure implications from the energy sector. I entirely approve of transitioning to cleaner forms of energy production, but it is a point I have made in this House time and again, and I will never get bored of saying it, that it takes 2,000 acres of ground-mounted solar panels to produce enough electricity for 50,000 homes on current usage. That is before everyone has two Teslas—which is perhaps not the brand that people would choose now—on the drive. However, a small modular reactor needs just two football pitches to deliver enough electricity on current usage for 1 million homes. Why on earth in this country are we messing around with solar, destroying thousands of acres of food-producing land, when other clean technologies are out there that can clean up our energy and electricity production in a way that is kinder and gentler on our national fabric and rural communities?
When I hear the Secretary of State talk about, as she did in her opening address, protecting high-grade agricultural land, I take that with a large pinch of salt. That is because, in my constituency in Buckinghamshire, we have caught those paid exorbitant amounts of money to come and grade the land prior to a planning application deliberately testing the land in the headland of the field—the bit not used to grow crops or grass or to graze animals. Of course, they will always get a lower land grade by testing the headland. If the Government are serious about wanting to protect high-grade agricultural land, I would urge the Minister to look at measures he could take to ensure that the fertile part of the field is tested, not the headland.
Matthew Pennycook
Does the hon. Member accept that we have to keep the matter in perspective? Even under the most ambitious scenarios, solar farms would occupy less than 1% of the UK’s agricultural land. That is why the National Farmers Union president Tom Bradshaw stated in relation to the impact of solar projects on food security that it is important not to be “sensationalist”.
Greg Smith
The point the Minister makes is one that certainly in Buckinghamshire I would challenge. I do not think any Labour Members were there, but there was a good cross-party meeting a couple of weeks ago on the scale of solar projects coming into this country. That disproportionately affects rural communities, and this Bill seems to take against them in favour of the UK’s towns and cities.
On top of the stats I gave earlier on the efficiency of solar, we have had scientists—not just campaigners—come here to give clear evidence that, of all the countries in the world, only one is less suitable for solar than ours, and that is Iceland. The Government are not even making the case for a technology that is particularly suited to the United Kingdom, yet the Bill would just make it easier, and those who object to or challenge it on any level will just to have to go away, suck it up and take those projects in their backyard.
This Bill takes away local control, and for me, local control will always be the most important part of the planning process. Unlike those doing the desktop exercise from afar, the community know the fields that flood every single year, know the local factors that would impact a planning application, understand the local roads that would have to take the construction traffic and that get churned up every time a development comes along, and know how unsuitable they are. Local control is critical, and I urge the Minister, even at this late hour, to go back and think about whether what he wants to do is simply ride roughshod over local opinion.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Despite the many fine contributions made by Members so far and no doubt many yet to come, planning is quite a dreary subject for many. Indeed, I heard some senior Members of this House privately describe it as such. I can well remember as a young Labour member sitting through constituency party meetings wondering why we were talking about planning for such a long time. Surely, I thought, we should want to focus on education, health and inequality. I am afraid that it took me a long time to realise—until I was one of those dreary people sitting at meetings saying these things—that planning is central not only to each of those issues, but to just about every aspect of Government policy and, indeed, to our daily lives.
Unfortunately, far too often the system and those we task with running it come under attack, including by those who should know better. Planning is attacked for delays, excessive red tape and perceptions of nimbyism. For every 10 planning applications submitted, nine are approved. That is hardly the sign of a system opposed to development. Where the system struggles is with capacity. The time it takes for a decision to be reached has increased significantly over the years, not just for the application but all the subsequent decisions required for development to commence.
Chris Curtis
Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why we need significantly more planning officers in our local authorities to ensure that we can unlock a lot of that development?
Peter Lamb
My hon. Friend must be reading ahead. The impact on escalating costs and viability as a result of the delays is hard to overstate. The capacity issues do not stem from laziness or as a covert form of development suppression; they stem from one issue and one issue only: the absence of sufficient numbers of planners in the public sector. The rates of pay at local authorities are massively out of kilter with the private sector. The consequence is that an increasingly small number of extremely hard-working people are left trying to keep the system afloat principally out of their public spiritedness. Yet, instead of receiving the thanks they deserve, all too often they have to deal with public rhetoric that regularly denigrates them and the work they do. I hope that I am not the first or the last in this Chamber to thank those public servants for their efforts on behalf of our communities and country.
Much needs to be done to reverse the decline in public sector planner numbers. While the Bill sets out many positive steps forward, I remain of the belief that few areas in the public sector would be better suited to, or would generate better economic returns from, the introduction of AI than planning. It could use decades’ worth of computerised training data to deal with simple applications automatically, freeing up expert human planners to deal with the cases that would genuinely benefit from a human eye.
As a former council leader, I am defensive of the record of local government in planning. However, despite my initial scepticism, I found much that is good in the new national planning policy framework and in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, showing that this Government genuinely listen to voices across the sector.
Rebecca Smith
Given the hon. Member’s expertise as a former council leader, would he agree that the provision in the Bill that enables councils to set fees for planning could go further, particularly around the fees that could be charged for enforcement cases? He will know the amount of hours that planning officers spend tied up in their inboxes dealing with the enforcement of rogue individuals who seem to play cat and mouse with officials. Would he agree that a look at fees might be a sensible option?
Peter Lamb
I have learned over the years not to look a gift house in the mouth. This is a positive step forward. No doubt other steps could be taken in future, but this is significant in enabling the system to be far more sustainable than it has been of late.
There must always be a role for local expertise and knowledge in planning decisions and democratic oversight, but that does not mean that the way we have always done things in the past needs to be the way we do it in the future. Indeed, it does not mean a better or fairer outcome, and a longer process is not always a better one. I am sure that we all have experience of planning decisions, both nationally and locally, that have taken a long time to produce the decision we all knew would be the final decision from day one, and that in no way meet the needs of residents or our community. Planners tell me that planning is a matter of balance, and in this Bill, the Government balance all the relevant considerations well.
Another example of delivering balance is in dealing with nature. Crawley has the second worst housing crisis in the country, and during my time as leader of the council, I delivered over four times the number of units as our centrally assessed Government housing target. I point out that targets are a floor not a ceiling—they in no way restrict future development.
That came to an end when Natural England unilaterally imposed water neutrality restrictions on all development in north Sussex—an area that, according to the figures, has a larger economy than most of our core cities—on the basis that it had concerns about the wellbeing of the little whirlpool ramshorn snail. As a result, since that time, housing delivery in my area has ground to a halt and economic development has been hampered, and Members would not believe the level of debate taking place on Facebook about whether Taco Bell will ever open. All the while, we are waiting for our local water company to build the water infrastructure that has been desperately needed for some time.
I have nothing against little snails, but the consequence of that decision is that, until Natural England feels that its needs have been satisfied, almost 2% of my community is trapped in temporary housing at huge cost to the public sector—not to mention the enormous human cost to those families. The ability to improve our natural environment alongside development is a vital part of being able to avoid forcing a conflict between human and environmental need. The offsetting process that the Bill delivers is exactly the change that we require.
I am also pleased to see in the Bill the development of spatial development strategies, which are a vital part of ensuring that housing needs are addressed beyond the limitations of any single authority. Anyone who has dealt with the current duty to co-operate system will recognise that it is largely a paper exercise that in no way actually delivers the housing required across sub-regions. Spatial development strategies overcome that in a coherent and planned-out way, and at a level far closer and more democratically accountable to residents than the old regional spatial strategies—a significant improvement.
This Government are finally giving the planning system the modernisation that it needs, and I very much hope that they do not stop now. With that in mind, I will end on a topic of great concern to me: affordable housing. The NPPF is right not to set out strict affordability requirements for local plans, given the differences in local viability, in addition to setting out a 15% additional requirement for greenfield land. New towns will no doubt have a significant role to play in delivering new affordable housing, as will the relatively small amount of funding allocated so far, but I believe that much more needs to be done to deliver the number of affordable homes that are needed. Although I could bore the Minister with many suggestions, I will focus on sub-regional planning through the new spatial development strategies.
Housing is not merely a numbers game. Other factors matter, not least the size and cost of housing. Although there are mechanisms for delivering overall housing numbers, in areas such as my own, where the duty to co-operate is facilitated, meeting those numbers very often delivers housing that is neither affordable nor the right type and for which there are no allocation rights. I very hope that the Government will correct those issues in their work.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
There are so many points to address in the Bill, but I will keep my remarks to just a few. I have grave concerns that the Government’s agreeable aim of freeing up our planning system will be dragged further by this Bill into the bog of planning delay and indecision.
There has been a lot of talk about whether the Bill will afford special protections for peatland on sites of special scientific interest, but I have looked at the detail and have concerns that, rather than leading to better protections for peatland areas, the Bill does the opposite. I will start my contribution by explaining why that is such a huge issue.
Take Walshaw moor, which borders my constituency, just next to the Worth valley in my beautiful part of West Yorkshire. Most importantly, it is an irreplaceable blanket bog peatland and carries protected status. It is a site of heavily protected bird species and ground-nesting birds. Recently, it has become the proposed site for what would be England’s largest onshore wind farm.
I am firmly opposed to that development. The disruption that a new wind farm would cause, through the constructions of 65 turbines—each taller than Blackpool tower—would be devasting to the blanket bog peatland. In fact, peat bogs across the UK store many times more carbon than our forests. Disturbing that peatland by constructing a wind farm on top of it could release many tonnes of carbon back into the atmosphere, directly contradicting the aim of the whole development—namely, to reduce carbon emissions. It is simply nonsensical to use Walshaw moor when the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has shown that the Government could achieve their targets for wind power without building on a single acre of protected peatland.
Let me come to the substance of the Bill as it relates to that development. The introduction of environmental development plans seems like a good idea: why shouldn’t developers pay some form of compensation for the environmental damage that their developments cause? As is always the case, however, things begin to unravel when we delve into the detail. What this change effectively amounts to is a mercenary approach to environmental protection that gives developers a much freer hand to negotiate their commitments. Indeed, local planning authorities will be given a much freer hand to take a looser approach in ensuring that developers do their fair bit for any environmental mitigation measures, particularly on protected sites, with the emphasis on a financial contribution.
Funding for restoration, either on site or indeed mitigated elsewhere, does not undo the damage caused by the development—be it to assets of scientific, natural or cultural value. In the case of a protected peatland such as Walshaw moor, that is exactly why the current proposed development is completely the wrong approach. The bogs themselves take millennia to reform, and sphagnum moss breaks down so slowly—by just 1 mm a year—to form peat. That is why the removal of the moratorium on onshore wind farms, which will allow more protected peatland to be built on, is the wrong approach from the Government. I cannot stress that enough. The Bill moves us from a dynamic in which we proactively protect what we value to one in which we barter what we can price up and pretend that value and price are the same.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Many aspects of the Bill will affect Scotland and make things much more difficult for local residents to oppose certain types of application, including those in my constituency who are fighting hard against a 94 km pylon route and battery storage plants. For me, democratic accountability should be at the heart of the planning process, but we seem to be moving towards a planning system that China would be proud of. Does he agree?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree. It is why the Government should be honest with the public that, far from strengthening environmental protections, the Bill creates a direct avenue for developers to pay to do environmental damage and get around otherwise more stringent protection laws.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman was here in the last Parliament. Does he remember that, in their attempt to undo the problem of nutrient neutrality, the previous Government sought to disapply the habitats regulations entirely? Is that the approach that he would prefer we take?
Robbie Moore
The Minister gets to the nub of the issue in that the nutrient neutrality issue caused an absolute stagnation in housing development. Indeed, the Government want to give Natural England even more powers, which will lead not only to increased stagnation in development but to frustration for those who want development to take place. Many Members from across the House have referred to the £100 million bat tunnel and the development of HS2. Natural England raised that issue, yet the Government want to give that very organisation even more powers, which will lead to increased stagnation in development.
The Government may bring forward a Bill to create an avenue for more development, but this Bill will not achieve that given the environmental protection measures. In the light of the Government’s removal of the moratorium on onshore wind farm development, coupled with the provisions in the Bill, I fear for our protected peatlands, not only in the beautiful uplands of West Yorkshire but right across the county.
Secondly, I fear that the Bill will not create the speedy planning system that the Government hope it will. By placing the design and formulation of environmental development plans in the hands of Natural England, the Government have ceded much of their control over them. As a single-issue public body, Natural England operates with a very different interpretation of “reasonable mitigations” than the rest of the public when it comes to preserving nature—I have already referred to the £100 million HS2bat tunnel.
As developers, Natural England and environmental campaigners barter over the details of environmental development plans and lodge legal challenges against them, how will the Secretary of State speed up our planning system, as she is forced to sit on the sidelines of those negotiations and watch Natural England take a lead? She has created a Bill that hands more power to Natural England, not less, and removes her ability to ensure that infrastructure can be delivered at speed. The Government must be honest and up front about what they value.
Finally, I would like to raise another issue in the Bill which, in my view, moves from naivety to the realm of malice. Compulsory purchase orders are highly controversial at the best of times, but in another blow to our rural communities the Government have decided that landowners should not be paid the value of their land in full.
Chris Curtis
I have an essay in front of me, in which it is argued that when the Government pay for new infrastructure, new roads or new developments in order to unlock new housing, the landowner
“has only to sit still and watch complacently his property multiplying in value, sometimes manifold, without either effort or contribution on his part.”
The argument is that the landowner should not get that profit with no effort. That is not from Trotsky; that is from Winston Churchill—
Robbie Moore
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not fair at all for the state, be it national Government or our local authorities, to step in and not pay a landowner the market value they deserve. It is absolutely outrageous that this Government are introducing legislation, and changing section 12 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 on that basis. I do not think that that will create any efficiency within the planning system, and neither—dare I say it?—will it create any better means of money being spent by local authorities to deliver public services.
Joy Morrissey
We have seen with HS2 an example of planning authorities being taken over in a way that was not the traditional compulsory purchase process. HS2 has been allowed to take over properties, and not pay market value or even take possession. People are still waiting for compensation—their homes devastated, losing everything because of HS2’s ability to take over.
Robbie Moore
Let me get to the point—I know time is short, Madam Deputy Speaker. This Government’s approach in the Bill will not deliver planning done at speed, and it will not give the environmental protections that the Government are indicating to the wider public. It is not a good Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Mike Reader.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
The Bill represents the most substantial reform to our planning system in a generation, and one that is critical to my constituents back home in Northampton South. For too long our planning system has functioned as a brake on growth, rather than an accelerator, and when the public think about planning, they picture an antiquated, costly and labyrinthine system. While many Members of the House were probably glued to their TV screens last May, when a soggy Prime Minister stood in front of No. 10, I was at the UK’s Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum discussing this very topic. One stat stuck in my head: only 17% of people believe that the planning system works in their favour. It is clear that reform is needed.
The Bill introduces vital changes to our planning frameworks, including improvements to how we deliver nationally significant infrastructure projects, reforms to compulsory purchase orders, and measures to boost local planning. I wish to respond to the Bill through the lens of how it benefits strategic regional placemaking, and how it could massively improve the delivery of major infrastructure. The introduction of spatial development strategies, and the Bill’s approach to strategic planning, are significant steps forward. Combined with the forthcoming English devolution Bill, that will put more power, not less, into the hands of local people. For too long our planning system has lacked the regional co-ordination needed to deliver homes and infrastructure at scale. In my view, those reforms will help to ensure that local authorities work together effectively across boundaries and across political parties.
Some Members of the House will know that I worked in construction before I was elected, and for me a real frustration has been the lack of pace in delivering major programmes in the UK. Locally I saw first hand the delays that the development consent order process faces. Just down the road from me, the A14 Huntingdon to Cambridge bypass was a real success story when it was finally delivered—it was delivered early and on budget—but it took three attempts to get through the DCO process. That meant years of congestion and pollution for local residents, and a direct, negative impact on the logistics and manufacturing businesses that I represent. More recently, my experience working with teams on the Lower Thames crossing, the A303 Stonehenge bypass, Heathrow and new nuclear, has showed me just how antiquated and cumbersome our process has become.
I therefore welcome the steps taken in the Bill to improve consenting processes, speed up decision making, and reduce the risk of erroneous judicial reviews for major programmes, as was highlighted in the Banner review. However, I think the Government could go further, and I wonder whether the Minister would consider, in this Bill or in future legislation, reforming the outdated requirements for pre-submission consultation in the Planning Act 2008. I am hugely supportive of the Bill’s direction, but we must all recognise that legislation alone cannot fix this problem. To pick up on a comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), we must look at the Building Safety Regulator and make sure that that does not become a new bottleneck. Recent data reveal a concerning backlog, showing that only two higher-risk schemes had been approved out of 130 applications since the new gateway process began in October 2023. The decision process is now taking months, not the eight to 12 weeks that we were expecting from the regulator.
Finally, I have concerns about bottlenecks, and about part 3 of the Bill and the environmental delivery plans and nature restoration fund. In principle that solution is practical and will unlock delivery, but I ask the Minister whether Natural England will be given the resources and funding it needs to ensure that it does not become a new bottleneck in the planning system. Overall I fully support the Bill, and look forward to its progressing through the House.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Bill is about speeding up planning processes, judicial reviews and the development of critical infrastructure. Although some elements of the Bill are positive, others risk undermining the long-term success of any development. The Bill gives the Secretary of State power to decide the consenting route for individual projects, bypassing local input and oversight. That is combined with the overall reduction in local democratic control by transferring significant powers from local councillors to planning officers.
Currently, planning committees are the place where elected officials can reflect local concerns and represent their communities in decision making. By shifting more power to unelected officers, we risk alienating the public and further eroding trust in local democracy. That is especially important given the shift towards creating larger unitary authorities. We see that already in Somerset, where my constituents have seen Sedgemoor district council, a small but effective planning authority, replaced by a larger but less effective unitary council. That may be connected with the fact that Somerset is run by the Liberal Democrats. If local decision making becomes more detached, how can we be sure that developments will reflect the needs and desires of the people who will live with them?
Gideon Amos
Does the hon. Gentleman recall that when the Conservative leaders of the district council endorsed the unitary council, a poll was taken of the people of Somerset and they voted against it, but the Conservatives pushed it through?
Sir Ashley Fox
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the Liberal Democrats have been responsible since 2022 for the mess that has become Somerset. I am in favour in principle of building more houses, but it must be done in a way that brings local communities with us. We must ensure that new developments are accompanied by the right infrastructure —schools, health centres, roads, and a proper number of green spaces in between. When the Government announced their new housing targets, it became immediately apparent that the bulk of the increase would be in rural areas, so while Somerset as a whole has seen an increase of 41% in its housing target, the City of Bristol has seen its target reduced by 11%. Why is that? If it is related to the high number of Labour councillors in Bristol, and the very small number of Labour councillors in Somerset, we should be told.
The Bill also proposes a new nature restoration fund, which developers can pay into to offset environmental impacts, rather than conduct individual environmental assessments. Although I can see the logic of that move in some cases, I have concerns about the impact in Somerset. Given the network of waterways across the Somerset levels, the environmental impact of any individual site has the potential to spread to a much wider area than in much of the rest of the country. It is for such reasons that local accountability is so important, and by shifting the planning system to make it too top heavy, the Government risk unintended local consequences.
On compulsory purchase powers, the Government argue that streamlining the process will allow housing and infrastructure projects to progress more quickly. I am concerned about the abuse of power, particularly in relation to agricultural land and green spaces. By simplifying land acquisitions and reducing protections for affected landowners, the Bill could pave the way for large-scale developments that displace communities, damage the environment and undermine agricultural interests. The Government have already done great damage to the farming community in Somerset with their family farm tax and the closure, without notice, of the sustainable farming incentive. The proposal seems like another Government scheme to impoverish our farmers.
Although the Government’s aim to address the housing crisis and accelerate infrastructure development is important, the Bill raises significant concerns. It risks undermining local democracy, environmental protections and citizens’ ability to hold developers and the Government to account.
If we are to build a sustainable future that is responsive to the needs of our communities, we must approach this Bill with caution. That is why I shall seek to improve it before we give it a Third Reading.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I strongly support the Bill because at its heart is a vision for getting Britain building again—in the right way and for the right reasons. That is critical to overcoming many of the challenges we face as a country. It is central to the missions of change that the public have entrusted us with, and it is a call to action that we must answer.
The Bill sets out a bold plan to modernise our planning system. As someone who worked for decades with engineers, operational workers and planners, I can tell hon. Members that it is long overdue. It seeks to make the system more efficient and responsive to the demands of a 21st-century economy that is capable of supporting the ambitions that the Government have set forth: solving the housing crisis by delivering 1.5 million new homes; tackling the cost of living by reducing bills and putting more money back in people’s pockets; building a strong, growing economy; making Britain a global leader in green energy and technology; tackling the climate crisis, and creating thousands of high-skilled, well-paid jobs.
The housing crisis affects too many families across our country. For far too many, the dream of owning or renting a home in the areas where they live and work is slipping further out of reach. I was asked about that at the New College hustings by young adults who never thought they would get a foot on the housing ladder. I am proud that we are doing something about it. The Bill aims to tackle the challenge by streamlining the planning process, cutting delays and accelerating the delivery of new homes. It introduces provisions that will allow us to build where homes are most needed, while ensuring that development is sustainable and in harmony with the environment.
The Bill is about building not just new homes, but affordable homes. For years, waiting lists for social housing have stretched beyond acceptable limits, with families waiting years for a safe and affordable place to live. In my constituency, there is a mum with three children under five living in temporary accommodation because of section 21. She has no kitchen to make food and nowhere to wash her children’s clothes. Worst of all, she has no hope left. The Bill tackles that reality head-on and provides hope.
On Friday night, I slept out with 40 other individuals at Donny Rovers to raise awareness of homelessness, and took the time to discuss the housing crisis. That same night, 3,350 children were homeless in Yorkshire and the Humber. That is just wrong. It was wrong in the 1990s, when I became homeless with my mum and sister, and it is absolutely unacceptable in the 2020s.
The Bill will make a real difference to communities across the UK. It gives local councils the tools they need to meet housing demands, while ensuring that social housing is built in the right places and to the highest standards.
The Bill also recognises the need for infrastructure investment in driving growth and prosperity. From towns to cities, we must invest in transport, digital connectivity and energy systems. The Bill lays the groundwork for large-scale infrastructure projects, making it easier for local authorities and developers to bring forward critical projects, such as new roads, renewable energy solutions and expanded public transport networks. That is important for both rural and urban communities. The Bill is about ensuring that our infrastructure evolves alongside modern needs, enabling more efficient travel, supporting thriving businesses, and fostering growing communities.
The legislation is a vital step forward in addressing some of the most pressing issues in our country. I urge all my colleagues, on both sides of the House, to support the Bill. Let us unite in building a more prosperous, sustainable and secure future for the people we serve. No child should go to sleep tonight not knowing whether they will have a roof over their precious head tomorrow. We can solve that together.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s decision to introduce powers to create a bill discount scheme to help households closest to new electricity transmission infrastructure. However, to be clear, the scheme is nowhere near enough. It falls short as both a meaningful community benefit and a measure to address local opposition to new infrastructure projects.
The proposed £250 annual discount for households within 500 metres of major transmission infrastructure equates to just 6.25% off bills in rural Britain each year. It does not even match the cancellation of the £300 winter fuel allowance. Even that modest £250 concession is limited to a decade. For families living beside towering pylons and substations, it is a poor trade-off for the lasting impact on their environment and quality of life.
More fundamentally, why are rural communities, which already pay the highest energy prices in the country, expected to accept such a meagre offer? In our cities and major towns, such as Ashton-under-Lyne, households with access to mains gas pay around 6p per kWh for their energy. In contrast, those in rural areas, who are far more likely to be affected by these infrastructure developments, pay 24p per kWh for their electricity. How is it right that the very communities that live alongside renewable energy generation and face some of the highest rates of fuel poverty are expected to pay four times as much as those on mains gas?
Renewable electricity is cheaper to produce, yet rural households are still being charged four times the price of largely imported carbon fuel mains gas. Where is the fairness in that? If the Government are serious about ensuring that communities benefit from new infrastructure, they must do better than the miserable £250 a year.
Beyond energy costs, the Minister will know that transmission companies, such as Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, anticipate being required to build temporary housing for their workers. They have offered to build legacy housing, which would remain for the rural communities, but the Bill does not cover that. Affordable housing is one of the greatest challenges facing rural Britain. Including legacy housing in the Bill could make a real difference to affordable housing in those areas. Will the Minister explain why such a provision has been omitted and commit to addressing the matter?
If the Government want communities to accept new infrastructure, they must offer something meaningful in return: real, lasting benefits that acknowledge the burden placed on those who live alongside the developments. The energy bill discount scheme in its current form is a long way from that.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I put on record my strong support for the Bill. I want to focus much of my contribution today on two aspects—nature recovery and electricity infrastructure. Net zero and nature are two sides of the same coin, and it would be a coin with no value if we had one without the other.
The proposed environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund are positive steps that could transform nature’s recovery. In Suffolk, we have seen how that idea can work well. The Wildlife Trusts’ biodiversity net gain service has helped to establish new nature reserves, such as Martlesham Wilds on the River Deben. However, more can be done to ensure that nature and development sit happily alongside each other.
First, we must make it explicit that there are firm timeframes for the delivery of conservation measures set out in an EDP. Secondly, we must have higher expectations of developers. Nature-rich open spaces, nature highways and solar panels on new builds are incredibly simple things to implement, but they will make a world of difference to our communities and to nature.
I turn to the electricity infrastructure aspects of the Bill and why they are so important in Suffolk Coastal, where we have four nationally significant energy infrastructure projects planned with Sizewell C, National Grid, National Grid Ventures and ScottishPower Renewables. It is often said that up to 25% of the UK’s energy will be either made in or transported through my constituency. We are home to some of the most important biodiverse sites in the UK, with 36 sites of special scientific interest in the constituency, and more than 50% of Suffolk Coastal is designated as a natural landscape.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is quite rightly outlining how the environment should be protected, which I believe is part of the aim of the Bill. How does she defend to her constituents the fact that under Ministers’ proposals, her housing targets will be uplifted by 82%?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I wonder if the hon. Gentleman rolls out that line to every Member. I am actually talking about the SSSIs and the energy infrastructure, rather than housing. The sites that I speak of—the SSSIs and the natural landscapes—are not only recognised by but critical for this Government if we are to deliver on our ambitions to improve biodiversity.
There has been much talk in the press of late about nimbyism, but I ask the Minister: are people nimbys if they ask why nature-rich marshlands and the RSPB’s nature reserves are picked as the best place for National Grid’s energy infrastructure to make landfall? Are people nimbys if they question why the four projects I have mentioned are being brought forward in isolation from each other and with no co-ordination? Are people nimbys if they fully support our country’s push to net zero, but they ask if they can do more to protect nature? If we listened more to some of those fair and valid questions, we could do more to protect nature and progress with net zero.
The previous Government totally vacated the space of leadership in our country’s energy and biodiversity planning. That void was filled by energy developers, which were left to take the lead and bring forward proposals that were totally unsuitable in our landscapes, all because it was cheaper than taking projects to brownfield sites. We have been left with a series of unco-ordinated, whack-a-mole projects on the east coast of England. The much-welcomed land use framework should be extended to create a land and sea use framework to allow for better leadership and co-ordination of energy infrastructure projects. First and foremost, it is critical we ensure that energy developers that are working in the same area work with communities to plan for the cumulative impact of these vast projects.
The community often has the answers to problems that the developers do not. For instance, farmers have told me that it should be a requirement to bury network cables to a minimum of 1.8 metres on arable farming land. That is the minimum legal standard required for arable farmers to continue to use their land for farming. It seems common sense to make that a requirement.
I do not have time today to go into detail on the need for community benefits to deliver for communities who host infrastructure, but while I welcome the Government’s recent announcements, which mean that communities such as mine that may be set to host substations should benefit, we can be far more ambitious. We can and should expect more from private firms that profit so vastly from the great green energy revolution. I urge the Government to consider those aspects of the Bill.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
As a central Bedfordshire councillor, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
There is much to welcome in this Bill, particularly its ambition to get nationally significant infrastructure built to support our country. While I disagree with the Government’s allocation of housing targets that favour building over our countryside, rather than the densification of our cities, where building homes would alleviate the worst of the acute housing crisis, I recognise the Government’s mandate to build 1.5 million homes and the need for ambitious planning reform. What are the Government doing to ensure that the 1.6 million homes with existing planning approval are built? I see nothing in this Bill.
Mid Bedfordshire has done more than its fair share in recent years to accommodate new housing, with the boroughs of central Bedfordshire and Bedford growing by 16% and 18% respectively over 10 years. We are not anti-development, but some development has changed the character of our historical market towns and quiet rural villages forever. Development is increasing the flooding risk in Maulden in my constituency, where compounded up-slope development has exacerbated the impact of pluvial flooding. We have development that has not delivered long-promised infrastructure, such as in Wixams in my constituency—a development where shovels first went into the ground nearly two decades ago but residents are yet to see the delivery of a new GP surgery. It is because of such issues that communities have become hardened to the prospect of yet more building.
This Government have a real opportunity, with thought and consideration, to create a planning system that people can have confidence in. Instead, people have been dismissed simply as blockers. The pensioners who fear a flood every time it rains—blockers. The young parents who cannot get to their GP because a surgery has not been built in their town—blockers. People with real, genuine concerns whom we in this House were elected to stand up for are not blockers, and this Bill could do much more for them.
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the “blockers”. These are people who live on floodplains, who have been waiting years for a GP surgery and who have never had any of the key infrastructure that they asked for delivered. They cannot have property built in certain places because of floodplains. That is not acknowledged in this Bill, which makes no provision for those residents.
Blake Stephenson
Absolutely. Since Bedfordshire was flooded in September, Ministers will know that I have been vocal about improving resilience, and the Government can do that in this Bill. New houses mean nothing if residents find themselves ankle-deep in water in their living rooms, as they did across the country last year.
I want the measures on nature recovery to be strengthened to include explicit plans to deliver nature-based solutions to flooding. I want schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to be brought into force to ensure that communities have the right protections from flooding. I want this Bill to give internal drainage boards more powers to take over the maintenance of infrastructure to protect people from flooding. If it does not, local authorities should have the enforcement powers to ensure that sustainable drainage is maintained.
I also want to see more robust measures in this Bill ruling out development on floodplains, which goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). The Bill could make a real difference to our resilience to flooding, and I urge the Government not to miss this opportunity. Despite protections in the NPPF, we still see development in functional floodplains. Rivers were here before us; they do not know and they do not care that we are here. As the Dutch have done successfully, we need to make room for our rivers. We must get out of their way, with stronger protections against development in floodplains.
I turn briefly to new towns, which are provided for in this legislation through development corporations. It will be important to ensure that those corporations have the power to deliver real places and communities, not just the cookie-cutter dormitory-on-trainline that developers might like to churn out for the highest possible profit margins. New towns should capture the essence and spirit of the communities into which they are sown, and they need to be beautiful, as the Deputy Prime Minister reflected on in her opening remarks. The Government should also address important questions that they are currently dodging on how these new towns will interplay with wider local development strategies. I am disappointed not to see some of that detail ironed out in this Bill.
New towns will result in a double whammy of housing development for some communities, but we do not yet know exactly how damaging that might be. The Government are also yet to confirm whether the housing provided by new towns will count towards a five-year land supply, meaning that our communities could be forced to take far more housing than they need, without the right infrastructure, unless this Bill is strengthened.
This Government talk about being on the side of the builders, not the blockers, but without improvements, I am afraid that the Bill is almost guaranteed to create a new generation of so-called blockers. Homes are needed so that young people who aspire to own their own home can do so. Most of the blockers, as this Government like to call them, are not standing in the way of progress: they are standing up for their communities against bad development.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), on bringing this Bill before the House, not least because I really believe it is potentially the most important Bill to be brought forward in this Parliament. As a country, we have not been building enough homes or infrastructure, and our planning system does not deliver for nature. This is about more than just homes, infrastructure and nature: this is one of the root causes of our falling productivity. It has been undermining growth and jobs.
However, this is also about the home and the roof over people’s heads: it is fundamentally about people. My parents grew up in council housing. My grandparents spent most of their lives living in council housing—in fact, my nan and grandad on my dad’s side were low-wage cleaners, with my nan working into her 70s and living in a council flat in Battersea for the best part of 50 years. That council flat offered my grandparents the foundation to be able to bring up my dad—the same was true on my mum’s side—and, later on, to provide security and a better life for me and my sister. Too many people in low-wage jobs, wherever they are in the country, can no longer afford to buy or rent a home. That is fundamentally what this Bill is about.
To say that we would not start from here is an understatement. In 2010, the then Housing Minister boldly claimed that the Conservative Government would radically improve housing affordability. In my constituency, affordability has massively decreased; when the previous Government came to power, the median house prices to earnings ratio was 6.8, but it was 8.8 by the end of that Government. George Osborne promised a major change in how we build infrastructure in this country. What he failed to mention was that the average consent time for nationally significant infrastructure projects would nearly double.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
In my constituency, we have hundreds of acres of land that is perfect for new nuclear power to be built. As a country, we have not completed a nuclear power station in over 30 years, and part of the reason for that is the state of our planning system. Does my hon. Friend agree that by making the changes in this Bill, we will be able to unlock vital national infrastructure such as new nuclear?
Luke Murphy
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention —it is no surprise that he is raising the issue of nuclear, for which he is a doughty champion in this Chamber. I very much agree with him about the need to build new nuclear, and I recognise the previous Government’s failure to do so.
Fundamentally, this Bill is about building more homes, building infrastructure and protecting nature. My constituency of Basingstoke is a growing town—no change there. We have been a growing town for many years, since the 1960s, as a London overspill town. We have grown significantly, but I want this Bill to bring about a different approach: one that builds the homes that are so desperately needed, but also ensures that they are more affordable, builds the necessary infrastructure alongside them, and protects nature. The previous Government did none of those things.
I will mention a few measures in the Bill that I particularly welcome. First, the commitment to cut the timeline for nationally significant infrastructure projects by 50% is incredibly welcome—internationally, this country has become a laughing stock when it comes to our ability to deliver significant infrastructure. The measures to overhaul connections to the grid for the electricity network are also incredibly welcome; in a poll by Cornwall Insight, 75% of those involved in clean power said that the grid connection issue was the biggest barrier to us delivering on our clean power ambitions. The Bill also streamlines and improves our processes for transport infrastructure, as well as improving the roll-out of electric vehicle chargers, a technology that Conservative Members now apparently oppose.
I really welcome the changes to planning fees—not just the changes in this Bill, but those announced previously by the Government. One of the key reasons why developments have been gummed up in the planning system is the lack of capacity within that system to deliver on them. The Bill should restore the role of the planner, not just as a tick-box exercise but to genuinely plan the places in which people live. As someone who was a political adviser to the Labour Opposition between 2010 and 2015, I also highly endorse the proposals on development corporations and compulsory purchase. Contrary to what has been said by Conservative Members, CPO reform is essential to delivering the housing that we need. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) highlighted, it was backed by Winston Churchill, who recognised that hope value did not belong to the landowner but was the result of Government investment in infrastructure. That was also recognised by known left wingers such as Adam Smith.
To go back to where I started, this Bill is fundamentally about delivering affordable homes for people who badly need them, wherever they live. I want to be able to look my constituents in the eyes and say that they are going to have access to an affordable home, just like my grandparents did so many years ago.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
First, I wholly respect the intention behind the Bill; it is a serious attempt to solve a serious problem. I also recognise that what was happening under the Conservatives did not work, and never could have worked even if we had given it 1,000 years. All it achieved was to fuel house price inflation, which has now created a destructive division into a nation of haves and have-nots. But I judge this new Planning and Infrastructure Bill through the lens of my own constituency—will it work for Horsham? Will it deliver affordable homes in the right places and with the right environmental standards? I think the answer is no.
The main reason is that the Bill is based on the same mistaken premise as the previous system. The problem lies with how housing targets are worked out—not the national target, which gets all the publicity, but local targets. Why are targets so hard to meet? The reason is that the Conservatives invented a catastrophically bad formula for calculating housing need, which is called the standard method. It measures the ratio of local house prices to local wages, and the bigger the gap, the higher the target goes. The idea is that communities just keep building houses until the price comes down. The only problem is that it does not work. It turns out that in Horsham—as in many places—the average price of a new house is higher than the price of the existing stock, so the more we build, the worse the ratio gets and the higher the target goes. That is the exact opposite of what the theory says should happen.
Unfortunately, this new Labour Bill takes the same flawed Tory standard method and pours rocket fuel over it. Targets control planning permissions, but that is not the same thing as actual houses; Horsham already has 13,500 unbuilt permissions, including the emerging local plan. That total could double under Labour’s new targets. Does that mean that we are actually going to build tens of thousands more homes? No, it does not. We could cover every inch of Horsham district in permissions, but it is not the lack of permissions that is holding back the market. Houses do not get built faster, because developers cannot sell them any faster. Some 80% of what we build today is aimed at the top 20% of the market—all of this was described very well in Sir Oliver Letwin’s analysis back in 2017. The housing market does not behave as one market; it is like six parallel markets, and the houses we are building are largely serving the top two.
I am desperate to build more affordable homes in Horsham, but clogging up the system with unbuildable permissions is not the way to do it. The best way to build more homes is to build more consent. I said that I would judge this legislation on whether it would work for Horsham, and the answer is that it will not.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Imagine an English village, if you still can—old houses around a village green, with a little school, a pub or two, a post office, a row of shops, and an ancient church with a creaking gate and some crooked headstones with fading bouquets shaded by ancient oaks. It may be a place where old maids hike to Holy Communion through the mists of the autumn morning.
That sort of village is disappearing. Anyone who visits now will find the pub shut for want of drinkers, the shops empty, and the vicar gone—only the fading bouquets remain. There is no doctor’s surgery and no bus route. It has isolated, elderly residents; not a child in sight, as if the Pied Piper had been to visit, and ageing parents with none of their family nearby to help. Like so many problems in this country, housing lies at the centre. The houses in this sort of village are occupied by commuters with big cars lurking in the driveway, or by retired folk whose children have long since moved away. For the lowest-paid people, housing is more expensive in the countryside than in every urban area except London, with the cheapest housing costing nine times the average income of the lowest-paid quartile.
Therefore, as the Government construct 1.5 million houses, let us think long and hard about where we will put them. This Bill, together with the changes that the Government have made to the national planning policy framework, will do much to loosen restrictions on house building. The designation of land as grey belt is good for those in suburban green belts, but more can be done to earmark land for housing deep in the countryside.
We ought to encourage more house building at small scale on the edge of villages. For hundreds of years, that was the model of expansion across all of England. It has produced our prettiest villages, where progressively newer buildings radiate outwards from a historical core. That is the sort of development that preserves the character of a village. It is the most popular form of development in the countryside, and the Campaign to Protect Rural England has put its name to a call for small-scale affordable housing on the edge of villages.
We already have places set aside on the peripheries of towns and villages across the country for delivering such community-scale housing. They are called small rural exception sites. Currently, they allow affordable housing to be granted for local development on small sites not usually granted planning permission. Although those are intended to promote the construction of affordable homes, most of the plots are undeveloped. Minor changes to the national planning guidance are needed to allow for proper development. That will help us to get a lot more use out of such sites, spurring reasonably sized considerate development and ending the pattern of relocation that causes family ties to fragment. Construction will energise a village’s economy, giving work to local firms that are well placed to deliver housing quickly and efficiently. This Government can regenerate rural England. This is surely our generation’s chance, so let us grasp it.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
First, as I think the whole House has suggested in the speeches we have heard, our country does need more homes, particularly for young people. The most obvious stake that a young person can have in society is ownership of their own property that they live in with their family, but it is important that Government get their approach right. There is much to commend in the Government’s Bill, but there are also a few points I would like the Minister to focus on.
First, the rural-urban divide has become apparent. In my constituency, Bromsgrove and the villages is 89% green-belt. It is to the south of Birmingham and in the north of Worcestershire. In many ways, it is a rural idyll, yet Bromsgrove is seeing the housing target set by Government increase by 85% at a time when adjacent Birmingham’s housing target is decreasing by more than 20%.
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point, because the same thing is true in London. We have seen London housing targets decline for the Mayor of London, who has not met any of his housing targets, and all those extra housing numbers have been forced on to the outer counties surrounding London. I am not sure that is fair or will produce the housing that people need.
Bradley Thomas
My hon. Friend makes a great point. In fact, she leads me to a point I want to stress to the Minister, which is about intensive urban densification. Our country faces a real opportunity if we focus on increasing the number of properties, particularly in larger urban areas, including London and Birmingham. It is also a great opportunity to regenerate some of the larger towns across many of our constituencies.
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend is making an interesting and powerful point. As a fellow west midlands MP, I see that opportunity in my constituency. Does he agree that if we can genuinely regenerate our high streets and our town centres, that is the way to revitalise them? It takes the pressure off the peripheral areas and protects us against being subsumed into the cities and urban areas.
Bradley Thomas
I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend. She makes an important and pertinent point. If we get urban densification right, it is a catalyst for the economic and social renewal of town centres, which is desperately needed.
Bradley Thomas
I will make a little progress, and then I will give way. Linked to urban densification is a pertinent importance to focus on the quality and aesthetic of the development that is taking place. I have long been a fervent advocate for design codes and the role that locally led placemaking principles can play in determining the quality of an area and its attractiveness for future inward investment.
I believe instinctively that residents across the country are not nimby, but I fear that successive Governments, including the previous Conservative one and the Labour one before that, have allowed mediocrity to reign. There is a lack of local distinctiveness in development, which causes an entrenched perception of nimbyism running throughout the country. I implore the Government to consider reinstating the Office for Place, which was disbanded back in July, and to think about the importance of those aesthetically-based placemaking principles and the role they can play in promoting the positive impacts of development. Linked to that, we have an acute need and opportunity to promote smaller, more artisanal developers, particularly those focused on developing the vocational skills needed to generate the incoming pipeline of talent to support the house building industry.
I will make a couple of points that relate to my constituency, but they probably apply to many others across the country. One is on the protection of the green belt. Green belt is a technical designation, but to the public at large, it is often considered to be lush open fields and meadows. My constituency has this large buffer between Bromsgrove and Birmingham. It is not the case that residents of Bromsgrove are nimby—I do not believe they are—but they do not want the identity of Bromsgrove to be eroded and, by virtue of that, it to become some kind of extension of Birmingham.
For me, and for many of my constituents, that word “identity” underpins the fundamentals we should be talking about. It is about sense of place and a lifestyle that people identify with. When I think about constituents from my area, they have probably grown up in Birmingham and moved into north Worcestershire. In many cases, they have done that because there is an aspirational element to moving into the countryside, and they want to benefit from the countryside that Worcestershire offers, while being in close proximity to Birmingham and all the services it offers.
I will wrap up my comments with four quick points that I would like the Government to focus on. They should consider intensive urban densification and the positive role that can play in delivering housing where it is needed and where young people live, and in regenerating town centres undergoing a lot of change.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It strikes me that the hon. Member is speaking a lot about building where young people live. One thing that concerns me as a fellow rural MP is that young people are increasingly forced out of our rural communities. Does he not recognise that we need to look at intelligent, targeted, moderate house building within those communities to preserve them for the future and preserve their demographic future?
Bradley Thomas
The hon. Member makes a very good point, with which I do not disagree. We have to strike a better balance—that is the point I am making. That leads me to my second point, which is around infrastructure. Bromsgrove has suffered from a lot of development in recent years, and it has not had the infrastructure to go with it. If we want to strike the right balance and enable young people to stay in the communities where they grew up, particularly rural ones, we need to have the housing there, but we also need to recognise that rural areas cannot do all the heavy lifting.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
For 14 long years, growth in the United Kingdom stagnated with houses that were not built, roads that were not constructed, train lines promised and not delivered, energy and digital infrastructure not fit for current demands and a plodding planning system that has not kept pace with the needs of local communities. I welcome this Bill, as we can now see a pathway to a country where every family can access affordable housing, where businesses thrive with top-tier digital connectivity, and where transport networks support growth, rather than hinder it.
The introduction of a national scheme of administration will empower local planning officers to decide applications more quickly to support local communities and businesses, but at the same time, it is critical that the democratic process remains strong and that the voices of residents and local councillors are heard, if costly delays and appeals are to be avoided. I very much welcome the reassurances given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on that point earlier today.
In Scotland, unfortunately, we have all too often had a different story, with local, democratically made planning decisions routinely overturned by the Scottish Government reporters, leaving communities such as East Whitburn and Bathgate feeling ignored, with developments earmarked in areas rich with flora and fauna and where local road infrastructure is already creaking at the seams.
Another long-standing issue is the shortage of planning officers, with three out of 10 planning departments short-staffed and a national shortage of about 2,200 planners. This is a problem that both the SNP and Tory Governments have failed to tackle; indeed, they have exacerbated it through the hollowing out of local government. I welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring that local authorities have the skilled planning officers we need, with the right level of trust and empowerment to decide applications more quickly.
However, we must also consider the severe skills shortages across several sectors over which both Tory and SNP Governments have presided, from planning to construction. We cannot deliver physical and digital infrastructure without the people to produce it. On Friday I visited Sibbald Training in Blackridge, in my constituency, which specialises in construction and plant courses. It was clear from our discussion that there is huge concern in the business community about the possibility that if the skill shortages are not addressed, contracts will be lost, jobs will be lost, and opportunities for young people will go elsewhere. I was therefore delighted to hear yesterday that this Government will train up to 60,000 more construction workers, giving industry certainty that we are committed to investing in construction and infrastructure.
Our communities and industries have long waited for a Government who will take the challenges of energy, planning and development seriously. The Bill is ambitious in its goals, but, more than that, it is ambitious for communities and businesses across the United Kingdom, and it will get Britain building again.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
My constituents and I know how lucky we are to live in such a beautiful part of the United Kingdom. We need to see growth so that our young people can stay in their local communities, buy homes in the areas in which they have grown up, and continue to contribute to the local economy and keep Chichester thriving for generations to come; but the reality is that the planning system in my little patch of the country is not fit for purpose.
With the district council’s footprint covering 70% of national park and 5% of national landscape, the ambitious total for housing allocation in our area is confined to just 25% of the available land in a ribbon that is causing coastal squeeze. This has led to high-density developments built without adequate infrastructure, leaving my residents facing daily challenges navigating the horrendous congestion on the A27, finding local school places for their children, or simply obtaining an appointment with a GP. The current system has left my communities frustrated, my local businesses unable to grow, and local councils tied up in red tape, unable to plan.
Housing developers have a duty to create communities, not just buildings, but the very nature of the current planning system means that developers are putting forward proposals that look only at the patches that they are trying to develop rather than the wider picture surrounding it, and the councillors who are elected to represent their areas are fighting with their hands tied behind their backs. In both Chichester and Arun district councils, an application may be refused by the planning committees—perhaps owing to flooding risks, loss of grade 1 agricultural land or inadequate infrastructure in the area—only for that to be overturned at appeal, which is a costly, time-consuming process, taking planners out of the departments where they are trying to plan.
The previous administration in Chichester district council allowed the local plan to expire, which left developers riding roughshod over areas on the Manhood peninsula, a low-lying coastal plain that is susceptible to extreme flooding which seems to be getting worse and worse. The new administration in 2023 focused on producing a robust local plan, which has now been through inspection—to the relief of communities across Chichester—and protects areas such as the Manhood peninsula while prioritising brownfield development, which all of us, on both sides of the House, agree should be the priority for planning. However, the Government’s ambitious new housing target could force the council back to square one and put all the power back into the hands of developers, because we are being asked to increase our housing target by nearly 100%.
We do not have a planning crisis; we have a building crisis. Developers are land-banking consents rather than getting on with delivering the homes that we need, because demand drives up prices. Since 2007, more than 1.4 million homes given fully consented permissions have not been built. The Bill does not tackle the workforce issues or the supply chain issues, and it also does not acknowledge that water companies, which are responsible for vital infrastructure to ensure that that their reliance on storm overflows can reduce over time, are not consulted over individual planning applications because they are not statutory consultees. As the Minister knows, I have called for such consultation in other debates.
Finally, there is no target for social homes in the Bill. Registered providers in Chichester are currently refusing to take on the social homes on smaller mixed-use sites, favouring the larger developments and prioritising upgrading their existing housing stock, which is putting the viability of social homes in my area at serious risk—and they are homes that we are desperately crying out for.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I spent the last seven years of my career working in the social housing sector, so I should like to think that I have some understanding of the scale of the housing challenge, the mistakes made by previous Administrations, and why now is the time to be bold. We need this planning Bill to be bold, because at present we are witnessing a housing crisis in three acts.
First, according to the latest available figures, private renters across the country spend nearly a third of their household income on housing costs. Private renters in all income quintiles—compared with people living in homes of any other tenure—spend the highest proportion of their household income on rent, and we know that the problem is especially acute in our cities and in the south of England. The affordability challenge is not just a problem for the individual, but a problem for society. Money that would otherwise be spent in the everyday economy is going to private landlords.
That is linked with the second point. The vast majority of private renters aspire to home ownership, but as private rents increase and house prices stay stubbornly high, the dream of home ownership looks ever more distant for those who are not lucky enough to rely on the bank of mum and dad. In my constituency the median house price of £435,000 is nearly 11 times the median income of £40,000.
Thirdly, there is the crisis in social housing. Since the right to buy took effect in 1981, we have seen a net loss of social homes in almost every year. That brings me to an earlier exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). This problem was at its worst at the time of the coalition Government. As my hon. Friend said, there was a dramatic cut in the grant for social and affordable housing under that Government, and there was a double whammy because during the same Parliament, the Conservative Prime Minister increased the discounts for Help to Buy. Let me say to the Liberal Democrats that their former leader made a video apologising for university fees, and they may want to consider one apologising for their record on social housing.
To meet this crisis, we need to use all the levers at our disposal to build the homes and communities that the country needs. In the time that I have left, I want to focus briefly on two points. The first concerns clause 46—which has attracted some interest during the debate—and the provision to streamline planning decisions on smaller sites. It is vital that local accountability remains in the planning system, and that is protected through the need to have local plans in every community, all of which will require democratic consent. However, it is equally important that we speed things up so that we do not lose months or years endlessly discussing smaller sites that have already been debated and allocated in a local plan. Aspiring homeowners, hard-up renters and those in urgent need of social housing do not have time for that.
I am very invested in clause 91, which introduces long-overdue changes to the compulsory purchase order process and the removal of hope value. For far too long the losers in our system have been the prospective homeowners, the private renters and the social housing residents, while the winners have been the landowners. As it stands, many local authorities have to pay unrealistic premiums for land based on an estimate of its potential value, or hope value, which has too often made it unviable for councils to build much-needed social housing and infrastructure. That has to change, and the Bill will ensure that it does.
As we have heard in the House today, there are Members who want to find new and creative ways to argue against the need for new housing, but that has failed. The status quo has failed us. If we are serious about tackling the housing crisis, we need serious reform. The Bill will deliver it, and can be the catalyst for change.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the register of interests.
At his first Prime Minister’s Question Time in July last year, I asked the Prime Minister to reassure my constituents that they would have a meaningful say over the new development in the green belt in their area. He said that the Government “will work with communities”—but this Bill could not be further from that promise. We are seeing housing targets go through the roof in rural areas, as green-belt protections are removed. In my local councils of East Herts and Broxbourne, the targets are going up by more than 20% and within Broxbourne district specifically they are almost doubling. The loss of protections for unrestricted sprawl around the villages I represent is extremely worrying for my constituents who live in those villages of Brickenden, Hertford Heath, Great Amwell, Stanstead Abbotts and St Margarets, as their unique character and historical charm could be lost forever.
At the same time, targets are going down in London, where there is the infrastructure to cope. The plans do not add up. There is something in this Bill on which I can agree with the Government: the explanatory notes state that limited infrastructure delivery is a real cost on the lives of working people. I completely agree. It is far too common for new housing to be built without the increase in public service capacity to match.
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point on key infrastructure. Not only are we waiting for GP surgeries in my constituency, but we need a sewerage upgrade across my patch. We cannot even have new homes put in, because they cannot be attached to the sewerage system in its existing state. His point is valid: until infrastructure is put in place we cannot put homes in these new areas.
Lewis Cocking
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and she is right that infrastructure must come first. I will come on later in my speech to the fact that there is nothing in this Bill to make developers put that infrastructure in first.
In Broxbourne, we have already had more than our fair share of development. Thousands of new homes have been built in the past few years, but new or expanded infrastructure to take the strain off our already overstretched services is nowhere to be seen, and it is having a serious impact on my constituents. A Health Minister has admitted to me that patients trying to see their local GP in my constituency are more likely than the national average to wait two weeks. Drivers are forced to sit in traffic as roads clog up, and I hear time and again that parents are unable to get their child into the local school that they want.
The Bill before us seeks to make it easier to build major infrastructure. Of course I support building roads, airports and runways more quickly, but what the Government define as major infrastructure is way too narrow. Major infrastructure, to my constituents, is whether they can get a GP appointment or a school place. I see no mention of that in this Bill. There is nothing about providing new powers for local councils to ensure that that kind of infrastructure is in place before new housing is built.
I had to fight extremely hard to get the NHS round the table to say that we desperately need a new surgery to meet the demand from existing residents, but it would not listen to me—and now the Government are forcing us to build even more houses. In December, the Housing Minister said he was
“considering what more we can do to ensure that we get infrastructure for developments up front”.—[Official Report, 12 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 1068.]
But where is that within the Bill? That is how to get existing residents on side and get people behind the new development that we desperately need in the right location. Local councillors are in fact having more of their powers over and responsibility for planning taken away, which dilutes local accountability and removes the voice of residents in deciding what is built in the local area. That is an attack on local democracy.
The Minister should be taking on developers, not local communities and councils. I have sat on a planning committee, and the reason the process is sometimes so long and—developers would argue—so onerous on the developers is that they try to build utter rubbish. Some of the stuff they put forward is utterly disgraceful. I would not want to live on some of the developments that they bring forward and try to get councillors to approve.
Of course we must have a robust process, because we need to focus more on urban design. Simply making it easier for developers to get through the planning system is putting way too much trust in developers to build appropriate communities, with all the infrastructure that our residents need.
Bradley Thomas
Does my hon. Friend agree that with regard to good-quality design, not only society but particularly the Government in their relationship with developers have to shift their mindset away from seeing design as a cost to instead seeing it as an investment that will reap benefits in the form of better-quality placemaking and better quality of life for residents?
Lewis Cocking
I know my hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for urban design, and he makes an important point. Of course we must invest in urban design, because it is the council—and MPs through our casework—that picks up the pieces. If a development is not planned correctly, with the right number of car spaces, for example, there are issues when people try to park their cars. Our inboxes get clogged up with all of those issues and the council is put under extra pressure with antisocial behaviour and so on.
We really have to think about planning the communities, rather than just saying, “Oh, we will give in to the developers—they say it takes too long, so we’ll make it quicker and just rely on them to create places that people want to live.” As I said, I have sat on a planning committee, and I have seen developments come forward that are utter rubbish. We need to change the mindset of developers, and we must ensure that we have good design. The Government are not seeking to change that; they are embracing it by committing to a target that can only be achieved by rushing the construction of low-quality homes with no plans for those who will live there. The Government need to focus more on the communities that we are trying to build within this country, rather than specific targets and house building across the country.
This Bill reveals that the Labour Government have their priorities wrong. Local people should have the largest influence over where new housing development goes and when it happens in their communities, not Ministers in Whitehall.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I am surprised to hear the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) trashing hard-working local builders in his constituency and calling the homes that his constituents live in dreadful trashy houses. Before I came to this place—
Rachel Taylor
I am not going to give way; you have had your time. Before I came to this place—[Interruption.]
Lewis Cocking
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to seek your advice. I have just been cited as saying something in my speech that I did not say. I was merely talking about developers and my time on the planning committee, when developers would come forward and propose utter rubbish. I did not say the houses my residents live in are rubbish.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member has made his point. It is a matter of debate, but his point is now on the record.
Rachel Taylor
Before I came to this place, I was a property solicitor, and I cannot say how many times I had developers in my office, swearing and cursing at yet another of their projects having been put on hold because of an arcane planning system. Bat tunnels are only the half of it.
I will never forget the day a developer told me that Warwickshire county council had asked him to build a pavement outside his new development but had then refused to let him put up traffic lights to enable the works because there was a vaccination centre a mile up the road. After months of legal wrangling, which delayed the home buyers moving in, the county council eventually gave in, but not before wasting everyone’s time and resources.
There are already half a million fewer young homeowners since 2010, and millions are stuck in expensive, poor-quality and insecure rented housing. Despite that, planning permissions dropped to their lowest number on record under the last Government, because the planning system is outdated and no longer fit for purpose. I want my constituency to be a place where young people feel they can put down roots, whether in our towns or our villages, and I want to ensure that there is the necessary infrastructure for them and their young families to create a life in our towns and villages.
I welcome this Bill to fix our broken planning system and get Britain building again. As a solicitor, on many occasions I saw unacceptable delays in determining planning applications, which cost developers money. There were insufficient resources to deal with complex legal agreements or to consult in a meaningful way about necessary infrastructure. All too often, developers then bypassed the correct processes, only to end up with whole estates being built without key approvals, which have sat empty for more than 12 months because access on to the road has not yet been sorted. This Bill will properly fund planning departments, and I hope that that will extend to the associated legal work. It is rare that developers even go down the route of getting new roads adopted, because for them the delays that that causes are financial risks they cannot take, but that leads to more and more residents paying freehold management charges, which new homeowners can ill afford.
I am glad that the National Infrastructure Commission has welcomed the provisions in this Bill, calling them a
“bold and broad-ranging package of measures”.
After years of the Conservative party letting the planning system crumble, a bold approach is exactly what is needed. Just last week, I met those from National Grid in my constituency. They welcomed the Bill and said that this sort of sensible approach could not come soon enough.
Of course, it is crucial for us to get the balance right. Most people I have spoken to understand that if they want their kids to be able to afford a home and live nearby, we need to build more houses. I agree with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which has said that the Bill
“provides a necessary balance between the need to boost building developments, whilst protecting the natural world through a nature restoration fund, driving green initiatives.”
It is vital we get this balance right. Every person should have access to an affordable home, and green and natural spaces they can use and enjoy.
Paul Holmes
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I appreciate being able to make this point of order. I would like to seek your guidance on the speech from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), in which she defended developers and also solicitors. Did she have to declare her interest as a practising solicitor, for which privilege she was paid £7,500 this quarter?
Rachel Taylor
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I no longer have a practising certificate as a solicitor, and I gave up practising as soon as I came into this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I thank the hon. Lady for putting her clarification on the record.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
I speak as a former unitary authority councillor for over 17 years. In that time, I spoke many times on behalf of the local community at planning committee meetings, so I understand the importance of including communities in decisions. Shutting them out of the process breeds resentment about new developments, and this is the chance to take advantage of local knowledge to make sure those developments are of good quality.
I am proud that the council administration I led reversed the previous Conservative changes that gave one councillor the power to block applications heard by the planning committee, giving local people back their voice. I am therefore dismayed that this Government want to give the Secretary of State sweeping powers to enable planning decisions to bypass planning committees, and I urge them to look elsewhere to speed up delivery.
It is vital that infrastructure is provided ahead of development, and I would like to highlight a potentially more fruitful avenue for a Government who say that they want to tackle “blockers”. Not only can organisations such as National Highways be slow to respond to planning consultations, on both individual applications and strategic plans, but when they do respond, the answer can be a simple no. Instead, we need all such bodies to see their role as one of working with local planning authorities to overcome the barriers and be enablers of growth. Junctions 16 and 17 of the M5 in my constituency are good examples of where joint working could deliver the infrastructure improvements we desperately need, for which residents in villages such as Easter Compton are crying out. That could also unlock growth.
On the subject of infrastructure, my constituency has great potential for national energy infrastructure, whether that is new small modular reactors at Oldbury or tidal lagoons. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) referred to the community benefit available from proposed transmission infrastructure, albeit he referred to its derisory levels. However, I would like to see this benefit extended to other energy infrastructure.
As a former council leader, I understand the pressure on budgets. I know that, under the current fees regime, council tax payers are paying significant amounts of money towards the planning determination process, rather than the cost falling on the applicants. I therefore welcome the provisions in the Bill to allow local planning authorities to set their own planning fees. However, I would highlight the fact that there is room to help local authorities reduce costs. For example, local newspapers, with their dwindling circulations, are costly and ineffective routes for publicising applications, yet clause 84 only tweaks what needs to be published in those newspapers. I urge the Government to consider other ways to raise awareness, such as councils consulting local groups.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
The hon. Member has mentioned local newspapers. That money is a lifeline to local papers, and many people cherish their local paper as a way of finding out what is going on. I hear what she is saying, but let us not play too fast and loose with the money used to keep that lifeline going in many communities.
Claire Young
If the hon. Member would like his Government to support the future of local newspapers in that way, I hope they will look again at how they are supporting councils to fund local planning departments.
To conclude, I urge the Government to think again, tackle the real barriers to delivery and put local communities at the heart of the planning process.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Like so much of the midlands, Erewash as we know and understand it today was born of the industrial revolution. Ilkeston was transformed from a historic market town to a place of hard, serious industry, and Long Eaton was scarcely a village before the coming of the canals and the railways. While the economy has changed, this Erewash of good jobs, thriving town centres and proper communities is still very much in living memory. At the heart of the east midlands—halfway between Derby and Nottingham—Erewash is now a place of immense potential. With this Bill, I believe we can unlock that potential, unleash prosperity, spur economic growth and help to deliver national renewal, creating the jobs and building the new homes that my constituents and this country need.
In Ilkeston, the old Stanton ironworks was a British industrial giant, employing nearly 10,000 people. Now, 20 years on from its closure, on the largest brownfield site in Derbyshire, New Stanton Park rises from the rubble. Every time I drive past, new work has been done on the park, and new jobs are already being created, but this restoration has taken too long. The planning process, with the immense costs, time and insecurity involved, has a serious, direct and negative impact on businesses’ ability to grow.
Erewash has not met its housing targets since they were introduced in 2011—not once in the last 15 years. This problem is part of a decades-long national failure to build enough new homes, which has resulted in a housing crisis named by some as the worst in the developed world. As a result, the cost of buying a home has risen exponentially, rents are ever increasing and the average age of first-time buyers is rising consistently. From the peak, where homeowners represented more than 70% of the population just over 20 years ago, home ownership has fallen by nearly 10%.
Most disturbingly for me, Erewash borough council has a social housing waiting list of more than 5,000 people, or about 2,400 households. This is a staggering failure of the state. Recently, I had the pleasure of showing my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury around 50 new social homes built on a brownfield site in Long Eaton. While this site represents excellent work by my council colleagues, it is not enough. Fifty new social homes is a droplet in the ocean when we have 2,000 families waiting to move in.
For too long, politicians locally and nationally have clung to stopgap measures, trying to treat the symptoms but falling short of a cure. Nobody is denying that people may not like it and that this is really difficult, but the solution is simple: we have to build more new homes. For the young families wanting to settle down, the renters tired of having so much of their hard-earned income paying their landlord’s mortgage, and the 1.3 million households—not people, but households—on social waiting lists in England alone, we have a moral duty to build new homes.
This Bill is at the very heart of this Government’s decade of national renewal. If we are going to make Britain a green energy superpower, we need to build the vital infrastructure that is required. If we want to take back our streets, break down the barriers to opportunity and build a national health service fit for the future, we need to unlock economic growth, so the Government have the money to properly invest in and restore public services. If we are going to put money back in people’s pockets, we need to make it cheaper to buy a home, and if we are going to create the good jobs that people want and need, Britain needs to be a more attractive place to invest, grow and do business. To do all of that, we need to make it cheaper, faster and easier to build a better Britain.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that I always like to start by emphasising where there is common ground and agreement, so that we can start off on a positive foot. I do agree that there is a housing crisis. I do agree that we need to build more homes. We need to tackle the outrageous inequality in the housing market and the fact that there are nearly 1 million empty homes, as well as 1.5 million for which there is planning permission but that are, as yet, unbuilt. We need to build more homes—the right home in the right place at the right price, though—and I am not sure the Bill goes far enough to address those concerns.
There are more areas of agreement. I agree we need to reform planning. I agree we need a strategic approach. I agree we need to tackle the issues of hope value, community benefit from energy infrastructure, and planning fees—so many areas of agreement. [Interruption.] I can see the Minister is smiling. [Interruption.] No, I am not going to stop there; sorry!
However, there are a number of areas of missed opportunity, as well as fairly deep concern. Currently, the Bill has no content on a range of important planning aspects. It does not contain any measures to secure affordable, healthy homes, or to ensure that the planning system is fully joined up with our climate and nature obligations. There is not even a statement of a positive visionary purpose for the planning system, and it is so important to provide the framework for what we are doing here. We need clarification that development should be sustainable, benefiting future generations as well as meeting today’s needs.
We need joined-up policy: a new climate and nature duty on all planning authorities to ensure that all policies tackle our Climate Change Act 2008 and Environment Act 2021 obligations. Planning is crucial for tackling the climate crisis and reducing the environmental impact of new development. We need solar panels on roofs and high levels of insulation. There is nothing here on zero-carbon heating or embodied carbon. There is also nothing on climate adaptation. I find it quite extraordinary that in 160 pages there is not a single mention of the words flood or flooding, yet they are crucial to planning and infrastructure. We need to ensure that the Bill plans for active and public transport. Let us see a “no net new traffic growth” test applied to all developments, so we incentivise the shift to active and public transport.
The Bill should include a nature duty. It provides a great opportunity to specify wildlife-friendly design, swift bricks—I have talked about them previously—hedgehog highways and green roofs. Let us have a new chapter of the building regulations specifically on biodiversity.
I recognise that environmental delivery plans could be useful in some cases, but I worry that they may be a bit too much of a blanket approach. What is suitable for newts is not necessarily suitable for all aspects of wildlife and landscape. I have a little concern that we are effectively outsourcing the environmental obligations of developers to Natural England, without requiring sufficient attention to be paid to those issues. For example, the removal of site-specific survey requirements means we will effectively be shooting in the dark when we specify what remedies need to be taken.
We need to legally guarantee that nature benefits will significantly outweigh any harm. We need to follow the mitigation hierarchy, strengthen protection for irreplaceable habitats such as the ancient woodlands and chalk streams that have been mentioned, and remove the viability test for the nature restoration levy. Otherwise, there is a real risk that developers will altogether escape paying for the nature restoration that they should do.
We need to ensure accessibility standards and affordability standards—
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Nothing symbolises the drift and decline of the past 14 years more than the appalling state of planning and infrastructure in Britain: a housing crisis that has forced children to live in overcrowded and unsafe homes; an energy crisis that has left us dangerously exposed to shocks in the global energy market; and a litany of infrastructure failures. It is not just the reservoirs or the £120 million spent on the Tory bat tunnel for HS2, but the promised 40 new hospitals by 2030—a claim now exposed as fiction with funds not allocated, many schemes not new hospitals, and a tiny fraction due to complete on time. I can see in my constituency the direct impact that that failure, especially on housing, has on my residents. I admire the commitment of the shadow Minister, who has just left his place, to the spreadsheet that he has been quoting from throughout the debate. He seems to have missed the line in the spreadsheet that states the number of times the previous Government hit their housing target—precisely zero.
There are nearly 3,000 people on the waiting list for social housing in the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and more than 2,000 in temporary accommodation. Behind those numbers are stories of daily struggle, like Sansha and her five children who live next to Grenfell Tower. Her son is in a wheelchair and awaiting open-heart surgery for his life-limiting condition. They live on the top floor, and the lift frequently breaks. There is no heating, no reliable hot water and just one working bathroom. They have been waiting more than three years for a move to a suitable property.
Then there is Lacey, whose six-year-old daughter has autism—and has tried to jump out of a window twice. Despite repeated safeguarding warnings, the family remains in overcrowded and unsafe housing. Then there is another resident I met recently who spent more than 15 years out of the borough with her children before moving back. There are more than 164,000 children living in temporary accommodation in England, the highest number on record. Instead of tackling the root causes, as the Bill seeks to do, we poured money into managing the problem.
Joy Morrissey
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about temporary accommodation and the lack of housing availability. But why have the housing targets for London, which has some of the highest levels of unmet social housing accommodation need, not been raised to deal with overcrowding?
Joe Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for that point. The housing target for London is 88,000. She will know well that the previous target was never remotely close to being hit under the previous Government. With targets not being hit, we are interested in net new dwellings: affordable and social housing for the people I am most concerned about in my constituency. That is what the Bill will help to achieve.
I am delighted that we finally have a Government who have the ambition to tackle the problem. On energy, I am pleased that the Bill will deliver faster and more certain planning consent for critical infrastructure, including upgrading our electricity networks and maximising new clean energy sources. The Bill will move us on decisively from the era of the onshore wind ban, plummeting investment, and reliance on Putin and his fossil fuel oligarchs. If we are serious about speeding up delivery, however, we must address the capacity crisis in planning departments, so it is welcome that the Government have committed to 300 new planners. What assessment has been made of the total need for planners across the country to get to the level of approvals we need to meet our housing targets? Can the planning fee reform in the Bill support that recruitment through full cost recovery? We know that planning reform must be matched by the people and resources needed to make it work.
Nesil Caliskan
I thank my hon. Friend for his speech and for highlighting the gaps that exist in local government. I am sure he will recognise that, as the Local Government Association and the National Housing Federation have said, only 80% of local authorities have the capacity at the moment—in fact, it could be far less. Does he agree that that is a real concern?
Joe Powell
I could not agree more. That is why the devolution of fee setting is so important. It should enable an improvement in the capacity of planning departments and the training for councillors on planning committees to make those decisions effectively.
I also thank all the resident associations in my constituency who put time and effort into engaging in the planning system and who are passionate about making it work for our community. Their role will continue in the local plan and in applications that rise to the planning committee, contrary to some of the scaremongering we have heard in the debate.
The Bill sits alongside other crucial housing measures that the Government are taking, including the biggest investment in social and affordable housing in a generation, leasehold reform, stronger protection for renters, a new decent homes standard and the implementation of Awaab’s law. If we are serious about tackling the housing crisis, this ambition must also be reflected in the comprehensive spending review—this is not just day-to-day spending, but long-term public investment. That is exactly why the Chancellor took the bold decisions in the Budget to increase the capital available for investment and reverse more than a decade of under-investment and short-termism. I would therefore welcome any clarification from the Minister on the total investment in the CSR needed to meet our housing targets, in particular on the affordable and social component.
Advancing the Bill alongside new investment in the CSR could be transformative. We owe it to the constituents I mentioned earlier—to Sansha, Lacey and the thousands of children trapped in unsuitable and unsafe housing—to get this right. It will be a landmark legacy of this Labour Government to finally get Britain building again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am going to try to get everybody in. If interventions are taken, some people are going to lose out on being called to speak. Please keep that in mind.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The aspect of the Bill I would like to focus on is the nationally significant infrastructure project reform. This Labour Government claim that their reforms will make
“targeted and impactful interventions to the consenting system,”
but that will come as scant consolation to the local residents on the receiving end of the projects being foisted upon them. Having fought for my constituents against a solar NSIP, I know how difficult it will be to navigate for the average person, and the Government appear determined to make it even harder
The Government are moving the goalposts to reach their ideological aims, and it is my constituents who are paying the price without being heard. They are receiving nothing in the way of direct compensation as a result—no firm commitment to cheaper energy bills, with the Government only assessing zonal pricing, and no firm commitment to ensuring that community benefit funds appropriately compensate local communities.
This Labour Government have already forced through six solar NSIPs since July, compared with just three under the previous Government. The largest of the three approved by the Conservatives was 1,200 acres; the smallest solar farm approved by this Government is 1,300 acres, while the largest, so far, is 2,800 acres. The current threshold for solar development to qualify as an NSIP is only 50 MW, which has been the case since 2008. While the Government have legislated to raise the existing solar threshold from 50 MW to 100 MW, it is still a laughably low bar. Point 2.10.17 of national policy statement EN-3 clearly states that
“a solar farm requires between 2 to 4 acres for each MW of output.”
Such a low threshold will potentially allow hundreds of acres of good-quality farmland to be brought into scope.
Cambridgeshire is seen as a target-rich environment by the Government. We have already seen the Sunnica energy farm approved in the east of the county, and now East Park solar farm has been proposed in my constituency on an excessive scale—it is bigger than Gatwick airport, at 1,900 acres and spanning six miles. Nearly 75% of the site is graded as best and most versatile land.
In answer to a written question about how many consented nationally significant infrastructure projects use greater than 50% best and most versatile land. I was told by the Energy Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who is in his place, that
“no nationally significant infrastructure projects have been consented which will use greater than 50% best and most versatile agricultural land.”
Last week, when I challenged the Secretary of State on the same point, quoting point 5.11.34 of the national policy statement—that he should
“ensure that applicants do not site their scheme on the best and most versatile agricultural land without justification”—
he suggested that
“the decision makers will be looking closely at the issues”—[Official Report, 18 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 164.]
But will they?
The Government have pledged to achieve a target. They have moved the goalposts to make that target easier to achieve and stacked the deck in their favour at the expense of local residents, suggesting that achieving the goal
“is going to require our NSIP system to be firing on all cylinders.”
The Government will remove the requirement to consult category 3 people, who would be able to make a claim under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, while maintaining the requirement for notification at the acceptance stage. The first that residents will know about land being taken from them is after an application has already been accepted.
The illusion of statutory consultation appears to be nothing more than lip service. For all the questions I have asked—written questions, oral questions—I have not once heard a response from the Government that the views of local people will be taken into account nor explaining how the highest-graded land will be protected from development. I note that in her opening speech, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said that the Government would be protecting agricultural land, but gave no detail on that. I would be interested to hear what the Government are going to do.
It is particularly telling that the forthcoming solar road map will not break cover until after the Bill has progressed. Yet again, it appears that this Government will do anything to achieve their plan for change without any thought to the consequences of said change.
The Bill requires the national policy statements to be updated every five years, but those providing policy guidance on energy infrastructure were last published in January 2024. Although that should mean they will not be updated again until 2029, the Bill proposes that Parliament can make changes to the NPSs outside the rhythm of those updates. Given the clear desire of the Government to force through NSIPs wherever possible, my concern is that they are being given a window of opportunity to implement rolling tweaks in order to manipulate the NSIP process to better suit their own agenda.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
I rise to speak about how the Bill will allow us to invest in our communities, benefiting every part of the country and not just London.
I have spent my entire adult life in a no-growth economy where costs rose because we did not build enough. The rent we pay, our rail fares and our energy bills have all soared because we could not build the homes, rail or wind farms we need—higher costs caused by a planning system whose default answer is no. The Bill changes that answer to yes.
The Bill targets constraints that have stopped us from growing. Prices are information. Where prices are high, we can see that we desperately need more supply. Rents as a share of income are up by 20% since 2020. Our transport costs are 26% higher than in peer nations. When Putin invaded Ukraine, we had the highest electricity bills in the G7. What do these prices tell us? Not enough homes, not enough rail, and not enough clean energy.
Infrastructure is being held back by our broken planning system. Our infrastructure projects are among the most expensive and slow to build of high-income nations. The Bill lifts the constraints and helps get us building, but it can go further. The NIC states that the largest increase to planning timetables is at pre-application stage, adding over two years on average. It is delaying critical infrastructure. I hope that the Minister will address this in his remarks.
We must also ensure that the benefits of the Bill are felt across our nation. My constituency is in the east midlands, where transport spending is the lowest in the country, private rents are rising faster than anywhere else, and productivity is the lowest in England. That is why it is harder to get a good job. For too long, investment has flowed to London and the south-east. That is because the benefit-cost ratio in the Green Book has a hardwired London bias. Wages are higher in London, so the estimated benefits of spending are also larger in the capital. With more projects built here in London, the logic becomes self-fulfilling. That London bias is why the gap between London and the rest of the UK is larger than the gap between west and east Germany. The Treasury, to its credit, does understand the problem, but the tyranny of the benefit-cost ratio is sadly still with us. We must end this bias and build prosperity in the places that need it most.
The Opposition spoke about levelling up but did nothing to deliver it. The Leeds tram, upgrading the line from Cardiff to Swansea, electrifying the midland main line—all were rejected by the last Government, who put London first and everywhere else last. They spoke of levelling up, but as my dad likes to say, talk is cheap. Now is the time to stop talking and start building. That means fixing the planning system so that we can build the homes, wind farms and, yes, pylons that we need. If we change our approach to infrastructure projects, we can also build the roads and rail we need outside of London, making it easier to transport goods and for my constituents in Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages to get around.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I am pleased that the great majority of the Bill will not affect me or my constituents, but I will speak briefly to the areas that do, beginning with clauses 9 to 13 on electricity network connection reform. I acknowledge that the first come, first served debacle has served the development and drawdown of these schemes very poorly, but I simply ask the Minister: when will the regime materially change such that properly consented, properly financed projects, which are behind projects that are not either of those things, can get their connections approved?
In clause 14 on consents for generating stations and overhead lines, the amendment to the Electricity Act 1989 makes it clear that consenting to electricity infrastructure in Scotland is carried out by Scottish Ministers, not the Secretary of State. That is all well and good, but under clause 16 appeals would need to be made within six weeks of a decision being published, with challenges made to the inner house of the Court of Session in Edinburgh—that is all fine—but with a route to appeal to the Supreme Court in the United Kingdom. Can the Minister confirm that the final arbiter of any disputes over consents for generating stations and overhead lines will be here in London?
Clause 21 addresses the cap and floor mechanism, which I have mentioned to the Energy Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who I am touched to see has come in for my contribution. The cap and floor mechanism for long-duration electricity storage is vital for Drax’s plans for Cruachan and SSE’s plans for Coire Glas in Scotland. That they are track 2 and track 3 projects gives me some concern. Can we have some reassurance that the 2030 deliverable projects will be facilitated without delay by the ambition of those clauses?
Clause 22 on benefits for homes near electricity transmission projects is bordering on insulting. If the utility and value of someone’s home and area have been significantly impinged by the erection of a pylon nearby, £20.83 a month off their electricity bill will not ameliorate that. It is referred to as a financial support scheme—the implication being that people need financial support. They do not need it. Ministers should call it what it is: compensation for the imposition of electrical infrastructure. In all reality, a community has very little say over whether that happens at all.
That £20.83 a month off their electricity bill will be precious little compensation for people who have been mired in the planning process of a pylon or any other generating infrastructure, who have not been able to sell their property for the last two years and will not be able to sell it for the coming two years either. I am not saying that this infrastructure should not be built, but the Government should not insult people’s intelligence with vastly less money than they took off them when they ended the winter fuel payment.
John Lamont
The hon. Member is making an excellent point—it is a rare moment of unity between him and me. I agree that the compensation is not enough. Does he agree that part of the problem is that the developer—in our case, Scottish Power Energy Networks, which is building the pylons across my constituency—assumes that it will get consent and approval, so it pushes ahead and the compensation does not really matter?
Dave Doogan
I agree that the compensation is risible. Many people in the hon. Member’s constituency and mine who are subject to these installations are pretty much resigned, because no matter what they do or say, it will happen. Will the Minister confirm that where constituents are subject to multiple developments, that £250 a year will be cumulative per imposition on their property? Why is it limited to 10 years? Will the developers come and take the pylons away in 10 years?
In the ambitions that are represented by clause 22, people will see the very minimum that the Government can do while acknowledging that this infrastructure is an imposition. It is not reasonable that people should have a 10-year miserly compensation for a lifetime’s imposition on their home. With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will grant you 30 seconds for somebody else.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill, which reflects the priorities of a responsible Government committed to tackling the housing crisis and driving regeneration, jobs, apprenticeships and investment while protecting our precious green spaces and green belt. The Bill will usher in a new era of house building—a long-standing issue that successive Governments failed to address, but that this Labour Government will tackle head-on with exciting projects in my constituency.
Constituents in Wolverhampton North East know the importance of building more homes. It is the No. 1 emergency in my inbox. Nearly 8,000 residents are on Wolverhampton council’s housing waiting list, with only 260 properties becoming available each month. Nearly 20% of 25 to 34-year-olds in the UK are living with their parents, making it harder for young people to find the right time to start their own family. Every day I hear from families who are struggling to find a place to call home, renters stuck in poor conditions and young people wondering if they will ever have the chance to own their own home. The status quo is failing, and it is clear that we need change, but let me be equally clear that my constituents know that these must be the right homes in the right places. That means genuinely affordable housing alongside the infrastructure to support it. New homes must also mean new GP surgeries, school places and transport infrastructure. Communities cannot and should not be left to cope without the services they rely on.
In Wolverhampton North East, we are seeing great examples of just that. Canalside South is set to regenerate 17.5 acres of former industrial wasteland near Wolverhampton city centre. Having lain derelict for over 15 years, this brownfield site will be transformed into 530 energy-efficient homes. The new Park Village redevelopment is replacing 205 outdated, poor-quality maisonettes with modern two, three and four-bedroom homes, transforming the project for our community.
The Bill is a bold and necessary step towards addressing the housing crisis, supporting economic growth and investing in our communities. It strikes the right balance, delivering affordable, high-quality homes where they are needed most while protecting our green spaces and ensuring that infrastructure keeps pace with development. This is the action of a responsible Government delivering on their promises for the people we serve. I support the Bill, knowing that it will provide security and hope to countless families in my constituency and across the country.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Housing and homes matter, but so too do democracy, accountability and, really importantly, local communities and the local environment, yet the Bill scales back the ability of every planning committee in the country and reduces council involvement in decision making in its local authorities and wards. It creates a major democratic deficit, with councillors unable to have a voice or a say when deciding on a development. This is classic top-down socialism from a Secretary of State who has herself protested to local councillors in her constituency to oppose developments.
From the outset, the Bill aims to expedite development, but we must not allow that to come at the expense of our green belt and the wildlife that it protects, because, once lost, those spaces will be gone forever. There is growing discussion and concern about the so-called grey belt—the piecemeal erosion of our green belt—which risks setting a dangerous precedent. Surely the focus should be on a genuine brownfield-first strategy, unlocking underutilised urban land before reaching for our green spaces. I urge the Government to strengthen the Bill by putting green belt protection and nature at the heart of planning and ensuring that the pursuit of growth never comes at the cost of our environment and communities.
The top-down approach to housing targets, which has been embodied by the Government, is a disgrace, and it places additional pressure on boroughs like Walsall, which is being asked to do the heavy lifting for areas such as Birmingham. The Government have insisted that housing targets for Walsall rise by an eye-watering additional 27%, while housing targets in Birmingham are reduced by nearly half. I could say that that may be because of the trash currently in Labour-led Birmingham and mention the squeaky blinders, but I will avoid doing so today.
The Bill does little to prioritise the regeneration of our town centres and our high streets. There is no clear strategy to unlock urban brownfield sites at scale. There are pub sites crying out for development. Nor is there the necessary investment to make high street renewal a reality. Let us be clear: a brownfield-first strategy requires more than warm words; it needs real funding and a clear plan. The Bill lacks both. Brownfield sites often require remediation, yet there is no meaningful financial support to bring them back into use. We have seen it work in the west midlands at the Caparo site in Walsall under the work of our previous mayor, Andy Street.
Another area that the Bill fails to address is the 1 million planning consents for new homes in this country. Not one of those proposed new build properties will ever get built if the Bill simply makes it easier for developers to drive a coach and horses through our green belt. Placemaking must go hand in hand with infrastructure—
Robbie Moore
Does my right hon. Friend not realise that, in addition to placemaking, this is about making sure that infrastructure is at the heart of any new development, so that those who move into new places have GP practices, doctors surgeries and other facilities available to them?
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. Placemaking has to go hand in hand with infrastructure to make sure that there are additional school places and doctors surgeries to support the new homes. Employment and transport also matter. Otherwise, all we are doing is clogging up our transport systems and roads, and frustrating our local communities.
What is the Bill actually doing to address the need to create and foster new communities? That is what it should be doing, but I think it is really missing an opportunity. Few in this House would say that we do not need homes. Homes need to be part of communities, but in its current format, I fear that the Bill is a developer’s dream. It is also a neighbourhood nightmare, because it does nothing to create resilient and sustainable communities where individuals where families can grow up and thrive. That is what we should be seeking to address through big pieces of legislation like this. In short, there are some good things in the Bill, but it is a missed opportunity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The speaking limit is now three minutes. I call Amanda Martin.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
On behalf of so many of my constituents, builders and construction companies in Portsmouth North who are desperately waiting for the chance to have a home and build those homes, I rise today to express my wholehearted support for this Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It is both timely and essential for providing the affordable housing so desperately needed in Portsmouth. The Bill represents a decisive step forward, unlocking our planning system and propelling Britain into a new era of construction and development alongside nature recovery.
The housing crisis has been a persistent challenge, with many families struggling to find affordable homes in my city for far too long. The Bill aims to facilitate the construction of 1.5 million new homes by 2030, streamlining decision-making processes and ensuring that development moves swiftly. Under the last Government, we lost far too much time and wasted far too much money. By granting councils and Mayors greater authority to seize land for affordable homes, we are removing the bureaucratic burdens that have long impeded progress and stopped the building of much-needed homes.
While I commend the Government’s commitment to infrastructure development, it is imperative that we scrutinise the projects that receive national significant infrastructure project status. A case in point is the proposed Aquind interconnector project, which would, if approved, run through my constituency of Portsmouth North. The project faces huge opposition for several reasons, including environmental concerns and years of mass disruption, but this is not nimbyism. The project also faces opposition because of the national security risks identified by the Ministry of Defence due to the interconnector’s location near the Portsmouth naval base.
Another reason that this project’s proposal is difficult is the murky financials behind Aquind and the manner in which the national significant infrastructure project status was obtained. Aquind is owned by a former Russian oil boss who has faced allegations and accusations of corruption and misconduct, and the co-owners have also made many substantial donations to the Conservative party, raising questions around the impartiality of the approval process in 2018 under the last Government. As I have said, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a welcome and monumental stride towards resolving our housing crisis, but this Government must remain vigilant to ensure that the processes governing infrastructure projects are transparent, equitable and free from undue influence.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Our planning system is critical and should protect against inappropriate development, including on the green belt and flood plains. It needs to protect and enhance biodiversity, and it needs local democratic and community input. Rather than dictating to communities, the Government should work with them. We need not only houses but homes, and that means infrastructure, roads, schools, health services and sewers. Whether through “infrastructure first” or making them all statutory consultees, it has to work. Planning enforcement must also work, but it is an ongoing issue in my patch despite recent changes and improvements.
On the changes proposed to the NSIP system and development consent orders, I will speak about the experience in my constituency because we have had DCO complete, have one ongoing and hope to have one in the future. I will start with the one that has finished, which is the Esso pipeline project. It ended up blocking access to homes and ripping up green spaces, with poor communication and no compensation to the residents affected. When I asked for compensation, the answer was, “Well, it’s not in the DCO.” Reform must ensure greater protections for communities affected by a DCO project.
The M25/A3 DCO, which many Members will know about because of the M25 closures, one of which over the weekend, is a fantastic project that will improve local connectivity, but it has wreaked havoc through diversion routes and problems at the Painshill roundabout, which National Highways admitted was deprioritised in favour of the works. It has caused problems with kids getting to school and to their exams. When I tried to raise this to get enforcement, including through, among others, the Office of Rail and Road, no formal investigation was even opened, and it has been pretty much impossible to find a meaningful way to get enforcement when things go wrong.
We hope to have—we must have—a DCO in the future with the River Thames scheme, which will massively reduce my constituents’ flood risk and make it far less likely that we see a repeat of the impact of the 2014 floods. We have had countless rounds of consultation. I am concerned that, because of the current system, perfect has become the enemy of the good, and I am worried about the problems with local council reform and the impact they will have. Will the Minister in his wind-up explain and give advice to people putting together a DCO as to what they should do given the Bill’s impact when it gets Royal Assent?
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in support of this much-needed Bill to get Britain building infrastructure again. Dartford—the constituency I have the privilege to represent in this place—can serve as a poster child for the need for this Bill in its struggle to see the hugely needed lower Thames crossing built. Our community is regularly gridlocked by traffic because of the over-capacity Dartford crossing, creating near daily misery for residents. The unreliability at Dartford also acts as a significant blocker on UK growth, with huge costs through delays calculated at £200 million each and every year.
The commentator Tom Whipple recently highlighted in The Times:
“Some 36 years ago—or to put it another way, 22 transport secretaries ago—the words ‘Lower Thames Crossing’ first appear in the parliamentary record.”
It has been eight years since the former Transport Secretary, who is now in the other place, confirmed the route. Since April 2017, National Highways has run eight separate consultations, consulting for more than 400 days. The planning application eventually ballooned to 400,000 pages. Many years on, we look forward to a positive decision from the Department for Transport in May—a Labour Government finally delivering on a much-needed infrastructure project for the people of Dartford.
We cannot continue to face crucial national infrastructure taking this long to reach a decision. It is essential that we can deliver new infrastructure if we are to modernise our country, deliver services and unlock growth. We need a clearer system that has a degree of predictability for all participants, and that can move at pace while providing the right opportunities for local people to influence plans for the neighbourhoods in which they live. Part of the reason that so many consultations were needed for the proposed lower Thames crossing was the number of opportunities for judicial review. I warmly welcome the measures in the Bill to reduce such opportunities, which will ensure that cases totally without merit do not proceed.
Before I end my remarks, let me welcome the measures on nationally significant infrastructure projects. Big-ticket items are delayed again and again, leaving our constituents paying the price in higher energy bills, and in the case of the lower Thames crossing, leaving my constituents paying the price in congested roads. I encourage Ministers to think about—and perhaps to address in the wind-up—whether the Bill can be strengthened even further to speed up and streamline the process of getting critical infrastructure projects built faster, for all our sakes.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I have reservations about whether the Bill will achieve its aims. Somerset faces a significant need for more homes, particularly social and affordable housing, especially in rural areas. It is crucial that local communities such as those in Glastonbury and Somerton have a strong voice and a real stake in the process of shaping the places where they live, so I share my Liberal Democrat colleagues’ concerns that the Government’s overly centralised, developer-led approach will not mandate the nature-friendly planning considerations needed to protect our environment or deliver sustainable development, infrastructure and housing in a way that meets the needs of local communities. It will exclude them from decisions that they should be involved in.
The Bill looks to introduce the nature restoration levy requiring developers to meet environmental obligations related to protected sites and species, but I fear that Natural England, which is mandated with overseeing that, might lack the resource, expertise and budget to properly monitor and enforce the nature recovery fund. In addition, those new measures must not place additional unfunded burdens on councils. Local authorities must be fully involved in their implementation to ensure that they deliver meaningful outcomes for communities and for the environment. We must ensure that homes do not come at the expense of nature.
I am worried that the legislation fails to do enough to protect rare species such as the great crested newt, which can be found in Glastonbury and Somerton at Lytes Cary Manor and at the aptly named “The Newt” in Castle Cary. The Government’s manifesto pledged to make changes to the planning system to create places that increased climate resilience and promote nature recovery, but the Bill lacks the detail needed to really protect and support nature. Instead, requirements are supplanted by undefined improvement assessments. Planning should support integration between nature, new homes, agriculture and environment, including by achieving nature recovery and biodiversity by design.
The Bill also lacks a binding commitment to the land use framework to determine the balance between food production and infrastructure creation. That is a missed opportunity to ensure that farmers can improve food security and biodiversity, and climate change mitigation is protected. The family farm tax and the decision to close the sustainable farming incentive without notice will threaten the viability of farms in Glastonbury and Somerton and up and down the country. Farmers will play a key role in achieving many of the Bill’s ambitions, and it could have supported the long-term sustainability of their businesses to allow them to optimise their land for multiple purposes and to improve profitability, but sadly that is not the case.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Every week in my constituency surgery, families turn up with shocking stories of living in overcrowded rented homes. They show me photos of mould covering the walls, of four bunk beds crammed into one tiny room for the whole family, of the space on the kitchen floor where the parents sleep so the kids can have the sofa.
In Southall and West Ealing, I see people sleeping rough in all weathers. That is the human cost of 14 years of the Conservative Government’s ideological decision to halt Labour’s affordable homes programme and to push people into the more expensive and largely unregulated private rented sector. The Conservatives left over 100,000 families in temporary accommodation—the highest figure since records began.
The previous Government have a lot to answer for—I will not go through it all now—but we need to start working on solutions. The solution to the housing crisis is simple: we need to build more homes and the energy, transport and public services infrastructure to support them. This Bill will put an end to the previous Government’s dither and delay, and will start to get shovels in the ground and children in Ealing Southall off the living room floor. Labour-run Ealing council already has one of the most ambitious affordable housing programmes in the country, but with more than 5,000 families on the waiting list for a home, it needs more help to make schemes add up financially. I hope that the Minister will consider the specific barriers to building affordable homes in London, and how councils can be supported in that.
There is much that can be learned from London, where 98% of planning decisions are already delegated to expert officers. Ealing has one of the best planning teams in the country, which was awarded platinum by Planning magazine. It is the top London borough for on-time decisions on major applications, and has the lowest percentage overturned at appeal, showing that it is getting decisions right. Ealing also has a local plan, based on comprehensive local consultation, which is used to guide good quality planning applications. The Bill will help to spread good practice from places such as Ealing, and ensure that councils across the country can take a more consistent streamlined approach to planning applications and bring back strategic planning as there is in London.
I welcome mandatory training for members of the planning committees. We will have to look at that in London, so that it is regionally tailored for the London plan. Ensuring that councils can charge the full cost of planning decisions is welcome—let us have developers paying that, not council tax payers. Finally, the new nature restoration levy will allow for bigger and more effective environmental improvements, such as Ealing’s new regional park.
The Conservative party did not believe in affordable homes, but this Bill will back the builders, not the blockers, and again allow us to start building the homes and local services that people need.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
I appreciate the Government’s intention to speed up the planning and development process to build the clean infrastructure that we need, but we should not be rushing through such a huge Bill, given its impact on our communities. Currently, under the Planning Act 2008, applications for development consent orders on nationally significant infrastructure projects must include a consultation report that sets out requirements to ensure that that has been carried out robustly. However, clause 4 weakens those requirements, and under the changes, the report will need only to summarise relevant responses and outline any changes made as a result. Summarising is a dangerous game, and I do not believe that summaries have any place in decisions of national significance. I am particularly concerned about the impact that that measure could have on Welsh language considerations, environmental concerns and the voice of local people.
When it comes to the Welsh language, there is already a lack of consistency in assessing the impact of developments. The Bill may exacerbate that problem and weaken protections for the language. Concerns raised by communities about environmental impacts could be reduced to a handful of bullet points in a summary. I welcome the Government’s recognition that households living near new transmission developments are affected negatively, but that should go much further than the current proposals.
Why is that principle not extended to large-scale energy developments? For example, the proposed Maen Hir project on Ynys Môn will cover over 3,000 acres of the island’s land. Large solar farms are built on agricultural land and frequently sold to communities with the promise of economic benefit. However, replacing agricultural industry with huge solar farms will negatively impact the local economy. I recognise the need to improve our energy security, and to do that the Government should be focusing on innovative solutions to roll out new infrastructure such as undergrounding cables, and promoting rooftop solar.
In conclusion, I urge the Government not to rush the Bill, because it must give confidence to businesses and local communities, and it must also lay the ground for a more coherent and strategic approach to ensure that developments are fit for future generations.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for recognising the urgent need for the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, and I welcome the plan for 1.5 million new safe and decent homes by the end of this Parliament. My constituency is in desperate need of affordable homes to rent, and of one day people being able to own their own home.
Planning should be a powerful lever to tackle nature loss and climate change, as well as meeting housing and low-carbon infrastructure needs. For the Government to meet their nature and climate targets, the planning system needs to integrate nature recovery alongside development. A new nature and climate duty on all planning authorities should require planning policy decisions to contribute to meeting our climate and nature targets.
We cannot let developers avoid responsibility for biodiversity net gain simply by paying into the nature restoration fund, banking money that may never be spent on nature. We cannot let them see it as just the cost of doing business.
The fund offers no guarantee that the populations of protected species will be replaced. According to an analysis by NatureSpace, protected species have limited impact on development. More importantly, existing schemes, such as district licensing, already accelerate development by shaving months from planning applications. We need to promote existing schemes better. We should acknowledge that the nature restoration fund and environment delivery plans will take years to set up. It is within the Bill’s scope to give the Forestry Commission a nature duty. With a nature remit, the Forestry Commission could give greater weight to habitat recovery in the woodlands it manages. The Bill offers a prime legislative opportunity to introduce promised reforms to national parks and landscapes. It should introduce a nature recovery purpose for protected landscapes and institute the promised governance reforms.
In my constituency in Leeds, we are doing our fair share. Leeds city centre is planned to grow by 50,000 homes in the next decade. However, we are at crisis point with 27,000 on the council and housing association waiting lists, and 7,000 in the highest priority banding. They are now waiting for three years to get a home.
As it stands, funding for local authorities is not fluid enough and settlements are not long enough. Councils need to be self-sufficient if rents are to cover maintenance and replenishment of stock. A big part of the solution is to re-implement grant funding targeted at property additionality, with a long-term approach to funding to unlock additional opportunities. Housing investment should be reclassified as infrastructure to support not only the efficient and effective use of funding, but in recognition of a decent home being the foundation of lives and productivity for an individual and the wider economy.
I am asking us to marry the understanding that, when listening to community and ecological experts, environmental law need not be a blocker of development, but an enabler of nature restoration, sustainable development and everyone’s access to green space, with the understanding that housing and social housing are infrastructure for our local authorities to build and structure our communities for the future. Will the Minister meet me to discuss that, as he kindly did about the Renters (Reform) Bill?
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
House building is essential to provide the homes that people need, but there are significant problems with our current approach to planning, and it is therefore welcome that the Government are giving time and attention to those topics.
My constituency and the areas surrounding it have seen 35% population growth in 20 years, yet the housing that has been built meets only some needs. South Oxfordshire housing association analysis highlights a serious shortage of social and affordable housing, particularly for one or two-person people households.
I have personally experienced the challenge of finding suitable and/or affordable housing, with very little to rent that is furnished. I appreciate that very few small violins will be played, but even as an MP on my salary, the place I have recently bought is wildly expensive, at nearly £300,000 for a small, two-bedroomed terraced house. In my case, building new housing has freed up an older house for me to buy, but the current market is not delivering for people on lower incomes.
Between 2012 and 2021, the Vale of White Horse local authority had the third highest net increase in dwellings as a proportion of their starting stock. I am proud that Liberal Democrat-led Vale and South Oxfordshire district councils have been proactive in developing a joint local plan, which has successfully combined meeting housing targets and five-year land supply requirements with gaining significant stakeholder support, for example from the Campaign to Protect Rural England.
The councils’ innovative and inclusive approach to consultation with the public meant that they were shortlisted for three national awards. They ran three stages of consultation to encourage as much engagement as possible. More than 5,000 responses were received from residents, parish councils and local businesses.
A key concern for my constituency is how any further increase in housing can be accommodated, given the dominance of lack of investment in infrastructure in recent years, leading to local concern about further housing. We need targets and measures for infrastructure, as well as housing, particularly given that local authorities do not have the powers or funding to deliver health and major transport schemes. The Bill does not remedy that.
Luke Taylor
My hon. Friend mentioned the capex costs of the infrastructure. Is it not also important that local councils and NHS integrated care boards are given increased budgets to maintain staffing for those facilities? There is no point in building a GP surgery if it cannot be staffed.
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend is right. Buildings need to be staffed, otherwise we will end up like the episode of “Yes Minister” with an empty building.
Key infrastructure needs and asks for my constituency include the Didcot-Culham relief road, with better walking and cycling provision than in the current plan. It is a controversial scheme, but I have given it my backing. They also include walking and cycling investment in new and existing areas of the towns; a new railway station at Grove; Didcot to Oxford line electrification; and health capacity to keep up with our growing population, particularly a GP surgery at Great Western Park in Didcot. That is why it is so critical that we link housing targets to targets and measures for wider infrastructure. Communities need housing, but they also need all the accompanying public and private amenities and services that are essential for happy and well-functioning communities.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Many colleagues in the House will know that I love talking about education, but this Bill gives me the opportunity to talk about something even closer to my heart than that. No, it is not “Neighbours”; it is my home of Harlow.
Harlow is a post-war new town. It may not have been the first or the most successful—certainly not at football—but I argue that it is the one with the most heart. The principles that underpinned Harlow were about community and a collective identity. Despite its challenges, I believe that that sense of community shines through today. I welcome the Bill’s recognition of the importance of development corporations, and I urge the Minister to look at the not-so-new towns of Stevenage and Harlow—the one I have the honour to call my home and to represent in this place.
If we speak to some residents of Harlow—the more experienced residents, let us say —they will talk with great fondness about the Harlow development corporation. I will take a moment to recognise those new-town pioneers: they were people who made sure that they got things done. I also pay tribute to one of my predecessors in this place, Leah Manning, for her vision of what Harlow could be. We still have the Leah Manning centre, which cares for some of those more experienced residents.
I welcome the commitment to strengthen the link between the development corporations and local transport authorities, as that connectivity is vital. However, I also draw the Minister’s attention to Harlow’s neighbourhood centres, such as Bush Fair and the Stow. Before the idea of the 15-minute city was mooted—and, I believe, misunderstood by some people—Sir Frederick Gibberd recognised the need for every neighbourhood to have a sense of identity, a shopping centre, a central point to meet, a work of art or two, a park and our infamous green wedges, which mean that people can get from one end of Harlow to the other without ever needing to go on a road.
No one will know better about the issue of land banking than the people of Harlow. Huge swathes of our town centre are no-go zones, left in a state of decay. Abandoned buildings have been left to rot or to become a refuge for those outside the law. That needs to change, and I believe that this legislation will help with that. Contrary to misleading reports, this Bill is not about targeting landowners. Nothing in the Bill changes the core principle of compulsory purchase, but it must be used only when negotiations have not succeeded and where there is a compelling case in the public interest.
I welcome the Government’s ongoing commitment to build the homes we need. As someone who has worked in the charity sector for a homelessness charity, I know as much as anyone how much they are needed. For every resident who complains about a new housing development, I speak to five other residents who live in overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation or face the risk of homelessness.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I am delighted that the Deputy Prime Minister has arrived in time to hear my speech. I do not question her sincerity and intention, or that of the Planning Minister, regarding the legislation or the planning changes introduced in the revised national planning policy framework. My concern is whether they will actually deliver the 1.5 million target, and I sincerely doubt that they will. As with previous Governments—this is not unique to the present Government—the methodology of the housing targets is based on a delusion that private developers will collude with the Government to drive down the price of their finished product.
The constituency I represent is in Cornwall, and I worked in this sector during my nine-year sabbatical from this place. In places such as Cornwall, we have met targets—indeed, we have exceeded them. We have more than trebled the housing supply, yet local people’s housing problems have got significantly worse. There has been an increase in the number of second homes. The previous Government have handed out £500 million of taxpayers’ money to holiday homeowners in the last 10 years, when only half that amount has been put into first homes for local people.
We need targets that are based on delivering what communities need. The problem is that our targets are a means to an end, and building homes does not necessarily mean that we meet the need. If those targets were the end, rather than the means—in other words, if we were setting targets that were about reducing need, rather than simply filling developers’ pockets—those of us in Cornwall, and no doubt in the rest of the country, would be in a far better place. I hope that Ministers will look at this issue again and allow areas that have struggled in the past to set targets that address need, rather than developers’ greed. These are not nimby territories; they want to meet that need.
The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) mentioned the rural exceptions policy, which is a very good policy that could be developed further. Rather than being the exception, it should be a planning norm in many rural areas in order to deliver their need. Compensation for nature loss, which is dealt with in clause 55, needs to be strengthened—a lot of nature charities are very worried about that. Finally, part 5 of the Bill, which deals with compulsory purchase, needs to be built up to stand behind this. I would like the Government to develop that part of the Bill further.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
Britain finds itself in a chokehold, with bottlenecks leaving it unable to update its infrastructure to a modern standard. Part of the story behind that is the last Government’s inertia and infighting, which came at the expense of the national interest. [Interruption.] I hear that I have some musical accompaniment. The time that it takes to secure planning permission for major infrastructure has almost doubled over the past decade. That has real-world consequences, including higher bills, longer commutes, increased water shortages and flooding—I could go on.
It is essential that we recapture the Victorian and post-war sense of purpose that symbolised progress and possibility, and ultimately delivered improvements to people’s everyday lives. It was that kind of get up and go that made the Derwent valley the home of the industrial revolution, using the power of rivers to drive the mills in places such as Belper and Milford—cheap renewable energy, almost two centuries before it was fashionable. If we want this country to continue to punch above its weight, we must resolve the delay and frustration I have referred to. Failure to do so will literally mean that we cannot keep the lights on. Bearing that in mind, in the short time that I have, I will focus my contribution on the bits of the Bill that relate to energy.
Measures in the Bill will bring a much-welcomed boost to EV charging infrastructure. Drivers of electric vehicles know all too well the frustration of being unable to undertake long journeys, given the lack of adequate chargers in many areas—particularly the east midlands, which has one of the lowest proportions of electric chargers per 100,000 people anywhere in the UK. That investment will be welcome news to companies such as Trentbarton, a bus operator serving my constituency. It wants to transition to a greener fleet of electric buses, but it has been hampered by insufficient public infrastructure, including the high cost of connecting to the grid and a lack of availability of adequate charging facilities locally. This legislation must be a springboard for embracing not only the infrastructure we need today, but the infrastructure we will need tomorrow. In that light, I want to see work done on hydrogen infrastructure.
I also want to speak about people who feel anxious about change. This is nothing new; it is as old as time itself. People in my constituency have some concerns about National Grid’s proposed pylon upgrade between Chesterfield and Willington. I ask the Government to please ensure that National Grid listens to people in Morley, Stanley, Ockbrook and Borrowash and makes changes where it is right to do so, so that it can deliver projects with respect for communities. Communities’ concerns cannot be dismissed, and while we must upgrade our electricity infrastructure to help us transition to net zero, deliver cheaper bills and achieve energy independence, my role in this place is to speak up for people in Mid Derbyshire and ensure they are heard and respected. However, although opposing all new infrastructure without collaborating to improve it might feel like a victory in the short term, the costs of failing to step up will be borne by all of us, especially the next generation.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As a Glasgow MP, I emphasise how important this Bill is for Scotland and Scotland’s economy. We have huge opportunities in the form of offshore wind and floating wind, but those opportunities depend on the development of transmission infrastructure in England. This Bill will help to reduce bills in Scotland by getting us away from expensive gas and on to cheaper fixed-price wind. Delays in England cost my poor constituents a lot of money.
The Bill does much more than that. It modernises the regime for connections to the electricity transmission and distribution system, speeding up the connection of vital energy projects for energy security. The UK Government have worked closely with the Scottish Government—delivering on their promise to put country first and Scotland first, and party second—to modernise the regime for consenting overhead power lines and generating stations in Scotland.
The Bill also makes provision for long-duration energy storage. The House may wonder what that is. There is all sorts of exciting new technology in this area, but I commend to everyone a visit to Cruachan power station to see the hollow mountain in the glens of Scotland. They will see how important it is and what great opportunities it provides for British engineering, and for the children in our schools to pursue careers in engineering. There are also other reforms that are important to the electricity sector in Scotland.
This may be a historic moment of some agreement between the SNP and the Labour party in this Chamber, but I would not want to be too gentle on the SNP Scottish Government, which takes far too long to consent projects in Scotland. Far too many projects sit on Ministers’ desks for far too long, and that is holding back investment. The same applies with the SNP council in Glasgow. We need to get going on some of these consents, and the SNP in Glasgow and Edinburgh need to get a move on with consenting projects that will create jobs and assist my constituents.
This is a great Bill. It looks to the future. It will create opportunities for Britain. It is a bill of aspiration and ambition for our country. For too long, we have kept on saying no to great developments that create jobs and create wealth. This Bill says, “Let’s go for it. Let’s create jobs. Let’s create investment.” I support it fully.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the Front Benchers for the wind-ups.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
There have been many eloquent and thoughtful contributions to the debate today, and I would like to build on and respond to some of the comments that have been made. Great speeches have been made by hon. Friends and Members from all parts of the House. In particular, may I mention my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay)? Like me, he has some concerns about the Bill, despite knowing the Government’s genuine intentions. It comes with some serious questions, particularly about giving power to Natural England—a quango—while removing and cutting other quangos; and about the future resourcing of Natural England, with those extra responsibilities. I hope the Minister for Housing and Planning will be able to answer some of those concerns in his wind-up.
The Deputy Prime Minister has maintained that democracy will still be there for local people who want to have their say over planning applications, but the simple fact is that the Bill will cut the rights of planning committees and local authorities to make decisions for their local areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) mentioned that house building was up in rural areas versus urban areas, and I will come on to that point later. He was absolutely right to outline the challenges he has in Mid Buckinghamshire and in the wider county. He was also right to focus on the infrastructure and how it is wrong just to focus on renewables. Thousands of acres will be used up for solar power across the country, and the Conservatives believe that we should be looking at alternative options for energy.
The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) says that he is a planning bore, and that he became one during his time listening to various members of the Labour party. When we were both in opposing student political parties at the University of Southampton in 2000—not so long ago, I will say—he was not a bore then, and I do not expect that he will be in the speeches he makes during his career in the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) is a strong advocate for his constituency. He is right to say that the introduction of EDPs is a good idea, but as cases show—I will develop some of the thinking behind this later on—there is a mercenary approach that does not provide local habitat protection, and just tries to move the issues somewhere else.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) mentioned local planning and removing powers. He said that the use of the compulsory purchase order is anti-democratic when it comes to agricultural land, and he is absolutely correct. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) recognises, as we do, the Government’s mandate to try to build the 1.5 million homes required under their legislation. However, I have to say to the House that nobody believes they will be able to achieve it, including the Minister for Housing and Planning—[Interruption.] It is on the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) mentioned the “rural versus urban” competition that the Government have created, and the 80% uplift in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) said that targets had doubled in his constituency while they were down in London. I failed to persuade a single Labour Member to admit that the Mayor of London is not capable of delivering the numbers, although the Government have reduced them by a record amount. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) said that there were no details of community improvement funds, and that the threshold for solar developments was still too low and needed to be raised. We look forward to discussing that in Committee.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) mentioned the green belt and nature being at the heart of planning, and the top-down application in the Bill. I completely agree with her. Last but by no means least, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said that development consent orders should be accountable and better suited for local people, and we entirely agree.
We on this side of the House have always had concerns about the Government’s centralising zeal when it comes to planning. When they first introduced the Bill to the House, it cemented many of our fears about the traditional centralising mission that Ministers in this Administration have shown a taste for in various areas of government since taking office. Let us face it: that is the Labour party’s way. While we all recognise that there is a need for tangible changes to deliver suitable and relevant infrastructure, they should not be to the detriment of the rights and responsibilities of locally elected representatives and planning committees or those who now face having their land taken away by this Government’s unfair compulsory purchase order changes; but that is what the Bill does. The Deputy Prime Minister said that she wanted to streamline decision making, but we all know that the Bill takes those local powers away.
I once said during a Westminster Hall debate that it was fundamentally not good practice or good governance to deliver substantial changes to the national planning policy framework before legislating for an overarching change in planning infrastructure policy. It leads to confusion on the ground and delays in good planning, and rushed enforced devolution and local government reorganisation will further delay and complicate the intended consequences of the Bill. Let us also not forget that the Government have now introduced new housing targets that will reclassify land from grey belt, and will see areas green-lighted for development over the objections of local people and local authorities. This Bill will do that on a strategic scale that we have never seen before. Instead of delivering an algorithm that would fairly distribute building targets, the Government have introduced a politically motivated, unfair housing target regime that has opposition councils in its crosshairs, tripling the building burden in some cases, while rewarding Labour councils for their failure to deliver in their own authorities. This reeks of political gerrymandering, and the Government must think again.
The Deputy Prime Minister said that she wanted the homes that she will be delivering to be affordable. May I remind Labour Members that it was her Government, when she came in, who scrapped Help to Buy, scrapped shared ownership, and scrapped mechanisms that allowed the people in this country to get on to the housing ladder?
There are three areas of concern in the Bill. First, it threatens to remove local councillors’ ability to have their say by setting up a national scheme of delegation that will specify which types of application will be determined by council officers and which should go to planning committees—rules all made from the desks of Ministers in Whitehall—but not planning applications that can be decided in the committee rooms of town halls across the United Kingdom. The Local Government Association agrees, and has commented:
“there remain concerns around how it will ensure that councils—who know their areas best and what they need—remain at the heart of the planning process. The democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English”
—and British—
“planning system, and this should not be diminished.”
We agree; the Government do not.
These changes will require rural county areas to develop 56% more housing than the last Government’s standard method. That is more than any other local authority type and equates to over 180,000 homes needing to be delivered in counties per year, compared with just over 115,000 under the previous method. On average, that is a rural uplift of 115%, while urban areas with major conurbations—mostly Labour authorities—are only up by 17%.
Joe Morris
The hon. Gentleman and I both represent rural constituencies, and we both know there is a demographic crisis in those areas. Does he agree that young people in rural areas need homes to live in and homes to work from? What do he and his party have against young people in rural areas?
Paul Holmes
I do not have anything against young people in rural areas at all, but surely the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will not see it as fair that his Government have reduced targets on their own authorities in urban centres, where there is already the infrastructure, where generally housing supply is better and where it is easier to get that infrastructure through, but are punishing rural areas across the country.
It is not a sensible or feasible solution to a very clear problem; it will drastically increase pressure on existing rural infrastructure and override the democratically elected local leaders who have a stake in, and should have a say in, the development of their local areas. It also raises the question of how this legislation is deliverable when local government reorganisation will change the spatial development strategies of local authorities. It is further concerning that the chief executive of Homes England has cast doubt on whether the Government can realistically meet their goal of 1.5 million homes, and so did the Housing Minister, in a Select Committee hearing last year. Council leaders, developers and even the Government’s own experts are warning that these targets are unachievable.
Wendy Morton
On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that one way of helping to deliver homes would be to ensure that those that have planning permission are built out first, thus saving the green belt and some of our suburban areas and rural areas, sooner rather than later? [Interruption.]
Paul Holmes
Labour Members shout from a sedentary position to ask why we never did it. This is one of the largest planning Bills to come before the House in a number of years, and nowhere have the Government mentioned that they would force developers to build houses that have already been given planning permission. We have a Government who have reduced housing targets in urban areas, where it is easier to build due to existing infrastructure, population density and the availability of brownfield sites.
Instead, Labour’s reforms to the NPPF and their proposals in this Bill have resulted in top-down targets that will silence local voices. The Government have chosen to prioritise building in rural areas and on the green belt rather than focusing where the demand for housing is greatest, in our cities and urban centres. By only allowing councillors to debate and discuss the proposals that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government define as large development, local people’s voices within the planning system will be eroded, taking away the discretion that planning committees can use to resolve small applications that come down to very nuanced decisions.
The principle of environmental delivery plans is certainly welcome, and we know they have been looked on favourably by proponents of sustainable development. It is vital that nature recovery is incorporated into building plans. It is concerning, however, as the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) said, that Natural England will have its workload dramatically increased, amid uncertainty about whether it has the budget and authority and whether it can bear the burden of those additional responsibilities. Can the Minister outline any assessment his Department has done on the budgetary increases that would be required for Natural England to take on the additional responsibilities envisaged in the Bill?
Furthermore, and most concerning, the Government seek to overhaul the compulsory purchase process, allowing land to be acquired for projects deemed to be in the public interest, and will change the process to allow faster land acquisition. Farmers may be forced to sell the land for its current value, rather than its potential worth if developed, but farmers deserve a fair price if they choose to sell their land, rather than below market price. They are already being hammered over inheritance tax and the suspension of the sustainable farming incentive; the proposed changes to CPOs will introduce a further power imbalance that threatens to override their legitimate right to a fair deal.
The Countryside Alliance warns that
“giving councils more power to reduce the value of land is a step too far, especially in the context of such a challenging outlook for farmers and the inheritance tax fiasco. This is not about people blocking development, it’s about the state paying the market price for land. We need more houses and more economic development, but not at the cost of basic principles.”
Although it is true that tenant farmers will get an increase on any CPO purchases, landowning farmers who already face unsustainable pressure will once again be short-changed by this Government’s plans.
While the Government say that they want to deliver more homes, increase affordability, streamline the system and deliver the homes we need, nobody accepts that they can do it. They give with one hand, but have overwhelmingly taken away with the other, through destroying this country’s economy, the ability of developers and people to build the housing we need. As we have outlined, their plans, as with any rushed piece of work, threaten to overwhelm the system, in some cases threaten to erode the safeguards in place to encourage sustainable and vital development, and remove local voices from local people. I look forward to Labour MPs explaining to the Labour leaders of their councils why their Labour Deputy Prime Minister took away their local rights as councillors to represent their local communities.
We will always stand up against excessive Government centralisation, and in favour of local representatives who know their communities best. We have a duty to do so. We have a duty to defend farmers who, as stewards of the land, must have their land rights respected; to defend local democracy and the role of local councils, which disagree with their power being taken away; and to defend the people out there who want new housing, but want local choices for local people. It is clear that the Government cannot deliver on that challenge. We will amend and improve the Bill to ensure that it delivers for local councillors and local people; the Government simply have not done so.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a real pleasure to close this Second Reading debate for the Government, and I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have participated in it. Not unexpectedly, it has been a debate of contrasts. On the one hand, we have had the privilege of listening to a large number of well-informed and thoughtful contributions from hon. Members who agree with the main principles of the Bill. In a crowded field, I commend in particular the excellent speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), for Northampton South (Mike Reader), for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy), for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis). Set against those, we were subjected to a series of contributions from hon. and right hon. Members who, while professing support in principle for the intentions of the Bill, nevertheless alighted on a range of flawed and in some cases spurious reasons why they oppose it.
I am saddened to say that among the most glaring examples of that approach was the speech made by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), whose party’s reasoned amendment was not selected. While I appreciate fully his need to manage the discordant voices on his own Benches when it comes to housing and major infrastructure, the arguments he made were both confused and disingenuous. This Government wholly reject his claim that the Bill will not result in the ambitious delivery of the infrastructure and housing the country needs. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that a party that declared in its manifesto only last year that it was committed to
“Increasing building of new homes to 380,000 a year”
should be getting behind this legislation, not seeking to block it. I sincerely hope that, even at this late stage, the Liberal Democrats will reconsider their position.
Gideon Amos
Does the Minister accept that it would be easier to support this Bill if it did not include clauses that provide the Secretary of State with the power not just to take some decisions away from planning committees, but to take all decisions away from planning committees, because that provision is completely unlimited in its scope?
Matthew Pennycook
That is not the case, and there has been a huge amount of scaremongering when it comes to the provisions in the Bill that relate to planning committees. I will deal with that particular point in due course.
Among hon. Members who do support the main principles of the Bill, there were of course understandable differences of opinion. Some expressed their unequivocal support for each and every one of its provisions, others conveyed their broad support while arguing for specific changes to be made or further measures to be added, but all were in agreement that this legislation must progress if we are to streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, as the House as a whole ostensibly asserts that we must. Therein lies the crux of the issue and the reason, I must say candidly, for the cant at the heart of some of the speeches that we have heard.
We can all profess in principle our support for the ends—doing so is, after all, risk free—but what matters is whether we are prepared in practice to also will the means. When it came to housing and infrastructure, the previous Government were not willing to do so, hence the dissonance in their final years between their stated commitment to building more homes and their decision in practice to recklessly abolish mandatory housing targets and thereby torpedo housing supply in a forlorn attempt to appease a disgruntled group of their anti-housing Back Benchers. Thankfully, this Labour Government are prepared to do what it takes to deliver the homes and the infrastructure our country needs. The Bill is transformative. It will fundamentally change how we build things in this country. In so doing, it will help us to tackle the housing crisis, raise living standards in every part of the country and deliver on our plan for change.
During the five hours we have debated the Bill, an extremely wide range of issues has been raised. I have heard all of them and I will seek to respond to as many in the time available to me, but I will not be able to cover all of them. I will therefore deal with the main themes and issues that have been raised in the course of the debate. I will begin, if I may, with the various points made in relation to nationally significant infrastructure.
Members made a variety of points covering issues such as national policy statements and judicial review, but most of the contributions focused in on the changes the Bill will make to consultation requirements for nationally significant infrastructure projects. As the House will be aware, the NSIP planning regime was established through the Planning Act 2008 to provide more certainty on the need for nationally significant projects. In its early years, the system worked well. However, its performance has sharply deteriorated in recent years, at a time when the need for it has increased dramatically.
In 2021, it took, on average, 4.2 years for a project to secure development consent, compared with 2.6 years in 2012. The documentation, as has been referred to by a number of hon. Members, underpinning consents has been getting longer and in too many instances now runs to tens of thousands of pages. Alongside an increase in legal challenges, uncertainty about meeting statutory requirements has led to greater risk aversion and gold plating throughout the whole process. The costs of delays obviously increase the costs of projects, and those costs are ultimately passed on to taxpayers for public infrastructure and bill payers or customers for private infrastructure.
The measures in the Bill will provide for a faster and more certain consenting process, stripping away unnecessary consultation requirements that do nothing to improve applications or meaningfully engage communities. They will, to use the phrase used by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), ensure that the NSIP regime is firing on all cylinders. I want to make it clear that the measures in the Bill are not the limit of our ambitions on streamlining the NSIP regime. In particular, I noted the calls from several hon. Members to consider addressing the significant elongation of pre-application periods resulting from the way in which statutory procedures are now being applied. This is an issue to which the Deputy Prime Minister and I have already given a significant amount of thought, and I commit to giving further consideration to the case for using the Bill to address statutory requirements that would appear to be no longer driving good outcomes. I can assure those hon. Members that the Government will not hesitate to act boldly if there is a compelling case for reform in this area.
Many hon. Members touched on the nature restoration fund. We are fully committed to making sure development contributes to nature’s recovery, delivering a win-win for nature and the economy. We will be taking three steps to deliver on our new approach. First, responsibility for identifying actions to address environmental impacts will be moved away from multiple project-specific assessments in an area to a single strategic assessment and delivery plan. Secondly, more responsibility for planning and implementing strategic actions will be moved on to the state, delivered through organisations with the right expertise and the necessary flexibility to take actions that most effectively deliver positive outcomes for nature. Thirdly, we will allow impacts to be dealt with strategically in exchange for a financial payment, so development can proceed more quickly. Project-level assessments are then limited only to those harms not dealt with strategically.
To those hon. Members who raised concerns that the provisions will have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection of existing environmental law, I assure them that that is not the case, something attested to by the section 20 statement on the face of the Bill in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister. Our reforms are built around delivering overall positive outcomes for protected sites and species, and are the result of significant engagement across the development sector, environmental groups and nature service providers. That is why, at the Bill’s introduction, we saw a range of voices welcoming the new approach it brings to unlocking a win-win for development and nature.
The shadow Secretary of State raised concerns about how quickly we will be able to implement environmental delivery plans. We are confident we can get EDPs in place fast. That is why we have been clear that we want to see the first EDPs prepared alongside the Bill and operational for developers to use shortly after Royal Assent. We are also looking for opportunities to provide up-front funding so that we can kick off action in advance of need, with costs recovered as development comes forward, which will allow us to get shovels in the ground and unlock homes and infrastructure more quickly.
Lastly, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) raised concerns about the CPO powers given to Natural England. If we are going to be successful in delivering a win-win for nature and the economy through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, it is vital that Natural England has sufficient powers to deliver the conservation measures required. Compulsory purchase is just one tool, and we would expect Natural England to consider using such powers as a last resort, subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight, including ultimate authorisation by the Secretary of State.
More broadly, the nature restoration fund will provide opportunities for landowners to work with Natural England to drive nature recovery, improving our green spaces for generations to come. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a radical change. Many public bodies with statutory powers have compulsory purchase powers, including local authorities and—as he of all people should be aware—health service bodies, as well as some executive agencies, such as Homes England.
I want to touch on planning committees before concluding. Several hon. Members raised concerns over our plan to modernise them; indeed, some suggested that our reforms are tantamount to removing democratic control from local people. That is simply not the case. The shadow Secretary of State asserted that residents would lose the opportunity to object to a planning application, which is incorrect. People will still be able to object to individual applications in the way they can now.
Kevin Hollinrake
How is what the Minister is saying consistent with what he said on the Floor of the House on 9 December, when he said:
“the changes are designed to… focus the time of elected councillors on the most significant or controversial applications”—[Official Report, 9 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 673.]—
which he is going to dictate? Will he, at the very least, publish his draft regulations on what he intends through clause 46 alongside the passage of the Bill?
Matthew Pennycook
I will address that specific point in due course. The proposals are entirely consistent; we do want to make changes to where planning committees can determine decisions, but local residents will be able to object to applications in every instance, as they can now.
Planning is principally a local activity, and this Government have made clear at every available opportunity that the plan-led approach is and must remain the cornerstone of the planning system. Local plans are the best ways for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their areas need.
Matthew Pennycook
I am going to make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
We want more people involved in the development of local plans. The measures on planning decisions will simply ensure that the process of determining applications at a local level is more streamlined and efficient.
I have been a local councillor, and I have sat on planning committees, as I know many hon. Members have. We all know that there is significant room for improvement in how such committees operate. It is, therefore, disappointing to hear hon. Members portray what are sensible proposals for modernising the local planning system as a fundamental attack on local democracy when they are anything but.
Decisions about what to build and where should be shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. Local democratic oversight of planning decisions is essential, but it is also vital that planning committees operate as effectively as possible. Planning committees need to be focused on key applications for larger developments, not small-scale projects or niche technical details. The Bill will ensure they can play a proper role in scrutinising development without obstructing it, while maximising the use of experienced professional planners.
Wendy Morton
I would like to seek some clarity from the Minister on that: he says that local councillors will be able to scrutinise, but not actually stop—this is the point I want to probe—a large-scale planning application.
Matthew Pennycook
No; the right hon. Lady has misunderstood me. Planning committees will be able to scrutinise and make decisions on a series of applications. On a point raised by the shadow Secretary of State, the House should also be aware that we intend to formally consult on these measures in the coming weeks. Hon. Members will therefore be able to engage with the detail and precisely the type of question that the right hon. Lady raises, rightly, alongside consideration of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I am not going to give way; I am going to make some progress.
I will briefly address CPO powers before I conclude, as a number of hon. Members raised concerns about our changes to the process. Let me be clear: these reforms are not about targeting farmers or any specific types of land or landowners. We want to reform the compulsory purchase process and land compensation rules to speed up and lower the costs of the delivery of housing and infrastructure in the public interest.
We have already taken action, fully implementing direction powers that provide for the removal of hope value from the assessment of compensation for certain types of CPOs, such as those facilitating affordable housing —provisions, I might say, introduced by the previous Government in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. We have published updated and more detailed guidance on the process to help local authorities.
This Bill will now go further, ensuring that the process for acquiring land with a direction is more efficient and that administrative costs are reduced, and we are expanding the power to remove hope value by directions to parish and town councils. We want to see these powers used and will work closely with local authorities to ensure that they have the support to take advantage of the reforms.
To conclude, I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I look forward to engaging with hon. Members across the House as the Bill progresses. A wide range of views have been expressed over the course of the debate, but there is clearly a broad consensus that when it comes to delivering new homes and critical infrastructure—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister says no, so perhaps he does not agree, but the status quo is failing the country and more importantly those who last year sent us to this place to do better.
The process of securing consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects is demonstrably too slow and uncertain and is constraining economic growth and undermining our energy security. The current approach to development and the environment too often sees both sustainable house building and nature recovery stall. In exercising essential local democratic oversight, planning committees clearly do not operate as effectively as they could, and local planning authorities do not have adequate funding to deliver their services.
The compulsory purchase order process is patently too slow and cumbersome, and development corporations are not equipped to operate in the way we will need them to in the years ahead. It is abundantly clear that the lack of effective mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning mean that we cannot address development and infrastructure needs across sub-regions as well as we otherwise might.
We can and must do things differently. That means being prepared to will the means as well as the ends. Fourteen years of failure have left the country with a belief that nothing works, that nothing gets built, and that Britain can no longer do big things. This Government refuse to accept the stagnation and decline we were bequeathed. We were elected on the promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this landmark Bill, we will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)
Thursday 24th April 2025
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 24 April 2025 - (24 Apr 2025)
The Chair
The Committee is now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed. Date Time Witness Thursday 24 April Until no later than 12.05pm National Infrastructure Planning Association; Sir John Armitt CBE, former Chair of the National Infrastructure Commission Thursday 24 April Until no later than 12.45pm Energy UK; National Grid; Ofgem; Scottish & Southern Electricity Network Transmission Thursday 24 April Until no later than 1.00pm Natural England Thursday 24 April Until no later than 2.35pm Royal Town Planning Institute; Town and Country Planning Association; Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors Thursday 24 April Until no later than 3.00pm Public First; Britain Remade Thursday 24 April Until no later than 3.25pm NFU; CPRE Thursday 24 April Until no later than 4.00pm Local Government Association; County Councils Network; District Councils Network Thursday 24 April Until no later than 4.15pm Herbert Smith Freehills Thursday 24 April Until no later than 4.40pm Wildlife and Countryside Link; Forestry England Thursday 24 April Until no later than 5.05pm Home Builders Federation; National Housing Federation Thursday 24 April Until no later than 5.25pm Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope we can take those matters formally without debate. The programme motion was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee of the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 24 April) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Thursday 24 April;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 29 April;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 13 May;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Wednesday 14 May;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 15 May;
(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 20 May;
(g) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 22 May;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table;
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 19; Schedule 1; Clauses 20 to 37; Schedule 2; Clauses 38 to 47; Schedule 3; Clauses 48 to 61; Schedule 4; Clauses 62 to 72; Schedule 5; Clauses 73 to 76; Schedule 6; Clauses 77 to 93; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 94 to 97; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 22 May.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence will be made available on the desk in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I am a Hertfordshire county councillor until 1 May.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I was a planning consultant until the general election, but not any more. I am a chartered town planner member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and a chartered architect member of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I am a vice president of the Town and Country Planning Association, but that is an honorary position, so I have no pecuniary interest.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Until the election I was a commercial property solicitor acting for a number of residential and commercial property developers. I was also a North Warwickshire borough councillor until I resigned a couple of months ago.
Gideon Amos
I am also a member of the National Infrastructure Planning Association.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
I was a local councillor until I resigned last May, but I am not sure whether I need to declare that. I am a vice president of the Local Government Association, which will be relevant for the panel this afternoon.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Until the general election I, too, was a solicitor and I had a practice for many years in the energy sector.
The Chair
I thank all Members for declaring their interests, which have been noted.
Examination of Witnesses
Robbie Owen and Sir John Armitt gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Robbie Owen, board secretary and director at the National Infrastructure Planning Association and head of infrastructure planning at Pinsent Masons LLP, and Sir John Armitt CBE, former chair of the National Infrastructure Commission. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. We must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed for this panel. We have until 12.05 pm. I call the Opposition spokesperson.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Q
We remain consistent in our concern about democratic accountability and processes, and about the balance between speeding up planning delivery and retaining the power of local people to make differences and have their say on nationally important critical infrastructure. First, do you think that these proposals strike the right balance between speeding up the delivery of national infrastructure projects and public accountability? Do you think that democratic and public accountability will remain at the heart of the delivery of that national infrastructure under the Bill’s proposals?
Sir John Armitt: Yes. I think this is a reasonable attempt to address the fundamental question of getting the balance right between taking forward the critical national infrastructure that the country needs and local interest. Consultation has always been an essential part of that, and the ability of people to express their views is important. Having said that, it is and will continue to be a very complex area. People on the receiving end of new infrastructure will naturally seek every mechanism in their legal right to challenge where they feel that they will be adversely affected. The Bill seeks to set out a number of remedies for that, and I think one could reasonably expect to see some acceleration, but just how much acceleration there will be in the process only time will tell.
Robbie Owen: I broadly agree with that; I think the Bill largely strikes the right balance. Let us not forget that even in the light of the amendments tabled by the Minister yesterday in relation to consultation, there will still be an extensive amount of consultation required—justifiably so—in relation to these projects, involving, among others, the local community. The examination of applications for consent takes place over a maximum of six months, which is a very long time, within which the local community can express their views. The Government are retaining the ability for local impact reports to be produced, which I think is important. I have no fundamental concern that democratic and public accountability will be lost by these changes. I actually think they do not quite go far enough in some respects, but we may come on to that later.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Q
Sir John Armitt: The Bill seeks, to a large extent, to provide a regime of compensation to offset where people are going to be affected. That, in a sense, is no different from what we have seen in the housing sector in section 106, for example, for a very long time. The real challenge here is the ability of the process to actually slow things down. We know that judicial review is one of the big difficulties in this area. You could argue that the recent recommendations made for judicial review do not go that far. The only way in which it can be held back is where the court decides that the issue being raised is, perhaps not frivolous, but immaterial. But I would imagine that the nature of the legal system is such that people will find ways around that.
Judicial review constantly acts as a brake, and influences those who are developing projects to try to cross that bridge before they get there: you put in more mitigation than ideally you would wish, which raises the cost, and you potentially finish up with a more expensive project than ideally you would have had. That is the nature of people trying to second-guess what is going to be raised and how the judicial review will be handled.
I am not sure that the recommendations will go far enough to have a serious impact on that aspect, which is one of the central aspects of what has been holding up these schemes quite significantly. Each year of judicial review is likely to potentially add a year to the process, and that is why it is difficult to see that these changes will benefit the overall process by more than six to 12 months, at the end of the day. Robbie and I were talking about this before we came in; he is more of an expert in it, so I will turn to him for any other observations.
Robbie Owen: Minister, I absolutely support what is already in the Bill. I think that every provision on national infrastructure planning is appropriate, including what I hope will be added to the Bill through the amendments that you tabled yesterday, in relation to pre-application consultation and some other measures. As you say, those are all good measures that have followed extensive consultation and engagement.
There are two areas where I believe the Bill needs to go further, be bolder and be strengthened. The first relates to the further streamlining of the development consent order process. That should focus on allowing the standard process to be varied, on a case-by-case basis, where there is justification for doing so. That was trailed in your planning working paper in January; I encourage you and your officials to have another look at that, because there is a justification for giving some degree of flexibility to reflect the nature and requirements of individual projects and how the standard process might need to be adapted to them.
Secondly, we need to look again at the ability of the DCO process to be a one-stop shop for all the consents you need for construction of these big projects—that was the original intention back in 2008. All the discussions around that have yet to fully come to a conclusion. I note the review by Dan Corry, published a couple of weeks ago, but I do not think that it provides a full answer to allowing development consent orders to do more than they have been doing in practice, in terms of all these subsidiary consents, which, beyond the development consent order itself, are quite important for some of these big projects.
The other area where the Bill should and could go further relates to the whole area of judicial review. The changes that were announced in January, following the call for evidence off the back of the Banner review, are not particularly significant. They are really quite modest, and relate largely to the permission stage of judicial review. Approximately 70% of judicial review applications get permission and go forward, therefore we need to focus beyond the permission stage.
There are two other areas where the Bill could make some worthwhile changes. The first relates to the interaction between judicial review and national policy statements. As you will know, national policy statements are approved by Parliament, and the Bill contains some proposals to change that process. It has always struck me as strange that national policy statements can nevertheless still be, and are, judicially reviewed.
The final point on judicial review is that Parliament should be able, if it wishes, to use a simple one-clause Bill to confirm decisions to give development consent for projects of a critical national priority. This used to be the case: we used to have lots of provisional order confirmation Bills. I think that is a very good way for Parliament, where it wishes, to express its support for a big, critical project. That could easily be done through some amendments to the Bill.
The Chair
I remind everybody that we only have another 15 minutes for this panel, so please be as succinct as possible.
Gideon Amos
Q
Sir John Armitt: I would argue that local planning committees are not really professionally equipped to deal with NSIPs. As I said at the beginning, these are very significant projects. They are likely to be in the interests of a much broader area than that which any single planning committee is going to be taking an opinion from. The planning committee inevitably finishes up looking at things through a local lens, and I would argue that that is not really appropriate for projects of national significance. Clearly, their views can be taken, but one should recognise that local interest when doing so, and that should be set alongside the much broader considerations, recommendations and advice that could sometimes be received from much larger statutory bodies that clearly have a much more national interest.
Robbie Owen: Certainly, I do not see local planning committees as being particularly problematic so far as responding to proposals for national infrastructure projects is concerned. That is a segue into a broader point: improved guidance could be given by Ministers, not just to applicants about how they should go about their pre-application consultation and engagement, but to local authorities and other public bodies about how they should respond to proposals for national infrastructure.
Response performances, if I can put it that way, from local authorities differ markedly across the country. More uniform guidance would be really helpful there. The changes that the Government heralded yesterday in terms of pre-application consultation pave the way for a new set of guidance dealing with the pre-application period, because that is where most of the delay rests at the moment. As the Government said, and I agree with them, yesterday’s changes should really help to about halve the pre-application period, and that would be very welcome.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Q
Sir John Armitt: There are two things there: what should the target be, and will the Bill deliver it? I think the target clearly should be to try to get back to what we were handling and seeing back in 2010 to 2012. That was just over a two-year period. These projects are getting more complex and getting a lot larger—there are some very big ones coming down the line in the next 10 years—but if we could get back to that sort of level, clearly that would be welcome. Would the Bill deliver that degree of improvement? Frankly, I would be surprised.
Robbie Owen: We should not forget the role of national policy statements. They became rapidly yellowed at the edges in the late 2010s, which led to a dramatic increase in judicial review of decisions. The Bill does include a number of valuable proposals to improve how national policy statements are kept up to date. It is really important that they are, because they are the basis for decisions that are then taken on individual projects.
As a rule of thumb, we should really, at the very least, be aiming to be getting back to the performance levels in about 2015, which were approximately 12 to 18 months for pre-application and then around 15 to 18 months from application to decision. Obviously, if we could improve on that a little bit, that would be ideal, but if we could get back to that, that would be my rule of thumb.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Q
My question is for you both. One challenge for the planning system element of this Bill is that the local authority has a quasi-judicial role in administering planning law, and then statutory consultees and other organisations might be required to give consent for something, so the local authority has consented but Natural England, the Environment Agency or someone else needs to sign off. First, does the Bill strike the right balance in streamlining the different parts of that process, so that nationally significant infrastructure can make its way through quickly and efficiently?
Secondly, as well as judicial review, I am always conscious that a local authority may be subject to a maladministration complaint if it fails to take into account the legal obligations that Parliament has placed upon it. While the system may seem bureaucratic, the bottom line is that Parliament requires councils to go through that process when considering planning applications. Do you think there is a need to remove not so much the ability of others to challenge, but some of the requirements we place on local authorities, so that there are fewer loopholes and less complexity in administering that quasi-judicial role?
Sir John Armitt: That is a very complex question. I shall pass to my legal friend.
Robbie Owen: It is a complex question. On the balance and restricting this to national infrastructure, where the role of local authorities is among the role of many public bodies, as I touched on earlier, I do not think that we have yet got to a balance where the development consent order contains the principal consents and leaves subsidiary ones to be dealt with later.
I would like to see the Bill repeal section 150 of the Planning Act 2008 so that decisions can be taken on a case-by-case basis by the deciding Secretary of State on what they consider to be appropriate to put into the development consent order by way of other consents. I do not think it is appropriate for that decision to be subject to the veto of the relevant regulatory bodies, which it is at the moment. That is inappropriate.
If I understood the question on maladministration correctly, I am not sure that is a particularly relevant process for national infrastructure. My own experience is that it is quite ineffective generally. In terms of the role of local authorities in downstream supervision of the implementation of these projects, the answer is to make sure that the development consent order is very clear on the requirements and the conditions to the consent, which the local authority then needs to police and give approvals under. I think that is the way forward.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Q
Robbie Owen: I would say two things. First, any right-minded applicant for a development consent order is clearly going to continue to consult formally and then engage informally with local communities, even with the changes that the Minister tabled yesterday. The role of the new guidance heralded by yesterday’s written statement is going to be critical in setting very clear guidelines in terms of what the Government think is appropriate by way of consultation and engagement. It is critical, though, that the guidance is not so specific that it almost undermines the effect of removing the provisions from the Act, as the amendments would do.
The second way in which the local community is involved is the public examination of proposals for up to six months—it normally is six months—once the application has been made and accepted. Compare that with the process for major planning applications, where communities may be given three minutes to address a planning committee: it is a much more inclusive process for local communities to take part in. Work is always ongoing to try to improve the usability and experience of the examination process, and hearings within that, and I support ongoing refinement there. But, fundamentally, those elements will completely remain—there is nothing in the Bill to remove them—and that is quite right.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Q
Sir John Armitt: It is worth saying first that the Government have announced that they intend to publish a 10-year infrastructure strategy later this year. That will be the first since 2020. We are working with Government Departments on that at the moment, but it is vital that there is a clear, long-term infrastructure strategy. As Robbie said, the other key ingredients to implement that strategy are the national policy statements related to the different sectors, and the regular updating of them.
We recently went almost 10 years without an update on the energy strategy. In rewriting that strategy, the challenge is that you start with a large strategic ambition that can be contained in half a page and, if you are not careful, you finish with 25 pages that follow on and set out all the ways in which that ambition must be satisfied while dealing with environmental, community or any other concerns. The challenge will remain that we are trying to do two or three things at once here: we are trying to deliver major economic growth and infrastructure that will enable us to be resilient, to deal with climate change, to reduce the impacts of carbon and so on, while also recognising that local people will always have concerns about the impact of that infrastructure on their lives, and the—in a sense—compensation that they may face from that.
We have a live debate at the moment about whether we should all pay a different rate for our electricity according to whether we are close to the generating infrastructure or not. There are many ways these issues could be addressed, and they will not be simple. We should not kid ourselves that we are going to wave a magic wand and all of a sudden everything will change. We are a very democratic society; we are not like others who can steamroller these things through. That is the major challenge, and I argue that that challenge sits, in the first place, with the promoter.
The promoter has to get out there and be willing to be open and frank about what they see as the opportunities, broad advantages and local challenges, and demonstrate a willingness to enter into relevant consultation with local people. At the end of the day, there will be people who do not change their minds. Noting some of the remarks that Robbie made, you will always need the Minister to have the ability to step in when appropriate and make the appropriate decision, given the scale of the challenge.
The Chair
Order. We are nearing the end of the time allotted for this panel. These shall be the last questions.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Q
Sir John Armitt: In the circumstances, the Bill is a good first attempt to deal with those issues. As I have said, it is very complex—you are trying to trade off very different interests. That will not disappear overnight, and even with the new Bill people will seek to challenge its workings, but this is a good first attempt and, as we have both said, more needs to be done.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Dhara Vyas, Charlotte Mitchell, Beatrice Filkin and Christianna Logan gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Dhara Vyas, the chief executive officer at Energy UK; Charlotte Mitchell, the chief planning officer at the National Grid; Beatrice Filkin, the director for major projects and infrastructure at Ofgem; and Christianna Logan, the director of customers and stakeholders at Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks Transmission. I call the shadow Minister.
Paul Holmes
Q
Charlotte Mitchell: The set of connection reforms underpinned by the Bill are really welcome. They will move us from a “first come, first served” system to a “first ready, first needed, first connected” approach. Under the “first come, first served” system, we have seen a proliferation of projects in the queue. To bring that to life, there are about 450 GW of capacity in the queue at the moment, and that is about three times what we would need to achieve net zero. It is fair to say that not all of those projects will come forward, and they certainly will not come forward at the pace at which we originally envisaged when they found their spot in the queue. That ultimately means that it is taking a really long time to connect the grid to new projects coming forward, and promoters of those projects are quoted decade-long connection timeframes.
We welcome the reforms; we have been part of the discussions and have had a seat at the table, with the National Energy System Operator leading the approach to the reforms. For us, it is really important that the legislation comes forward quickly enough that we can move across to that new system and refocus our resources and priorities on connecting those projects that are ready and have the highest need to be connected to the grid.
Paul Holmes
Q
Do you have any concern, or do you think that that is the result of the industry not doing enough to consult local people when infrastructure was delivered previously? Will an unintended consequence of direct payments to consumers be to undermine your members’ emphasis on making sure that community benefit and community consultation are done adequately?
Dhara Vyas: Thank you for the question. I do not think it is a failure of the industry. I think it is a series of consecutive failures of regulation and policy over the past decade, if not longer, that goes beyond the energy industry.
It is really welcome to have this unified vision in the energy space for infrastructure build-out, and that goes across the Department, the National Energy System Operator and Ofgem. It is critical that we use all the levers we have to engage with people. The reality is that transmission network operations is a very specific piece in the Bill, and that is the large stuff—the bigger stuff—but it has to be part of the broader conversation that we need to have with people about the placement of assets. Infrastructure is part of that, with substations and of course generation assets. It is about the changes we are going to be making to homes and businesses across the country, and it is also about the difference that investing in this will make for future generations.
So, to answer your question about whether it is specifically a failure of industry, I do not think so. It is a failure, and I think we share the blame, but I am really positive about the steps set out, both in this Bill and more broadly, for the energy policy space.
It is worth being really clear about the context, which is that we need twice as much transmission network build-out as we have had in the last 10 years. That is a huge scale of work, and we need speed in doing it. The reality is that different communities will have different priorities. For some communities, investment in community spaces might be the right conversation to have; for others it will be about direct payments, or investing in community ownership of assets. It is really about tailoring.
Last, and you will all know this far better than I do, while having a significant conversation about how you balance national equity and local diversity is not unusual, it is a newer conversation for the energy industry. As we navigate this, we and all my members intend to work very closely with partners, including Natural England and other environmental groups, as well as local and regional government. It is important that we are honest and open about this shift in the way of working and not fall into the trap of assuming that one size fits all.
Christianna Logan: Our research has shown that, in areas where we have previously developed projects, perceptions of the benefits of projects are much stronger and more positive. The big challenge for us now as an industry is the scale—the magnitude—of what we have to deliver, when in many cases, the local communities likely to be impacted have not seen this scale of infrastructure before.
We have developed a package of local benefits that come with these projects, whether that is local jobs, contracts for local supply chains or, in fact, new permanent homes that will initially be used to house workers on the project, but then used by communities for their own needs after the projects are completed. Community benefits are an important part of that package, but so too is the very real engagement that we do with local communities. We have made changes around things such as substation locations and overhead line routes as a direct result of that engagement. That is what is building trust around these projects.
As Dhara said, we all need to work together to increase understanding of the benefits that the projects bring. Our recently produced national campaign, on which we collaborated across the sector, will help with that. Our own media campaign in the north of Scotland has resulted in a double-digit shift from neutral to positive around these projects among those who have seen the campaign. We cannot achieve this on our own, as transmission owners; we need to work cross-party, cross-Government and cross-sector to be able to help people to understand the real imperative and benefit of undertaking these projects.
Paul Holmes
Q
Christianna Logan: Genuine community benefits are the most important part of these projects. I think it would be risky to see direct payments as a silver bullet to reduce objection to projects. When you are delivering new infrastructure across hundreds of miles in these types of areas, there will be objections. In this endeavour, we all have to show courage to take forward well-designed projects that have been developed with local communities in mind, taking on board their challenges where we can, while recognising that that will require trade-offs and that we will not be able to appease all objections.
Paul Holmes
Just for the record, that is not my view. There are some concerns. I was not castigating you.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Q
Beatrice Filkin: As you said yourself, Minister, we have not seen any large scale, long-duration energy storage built in this country for decades now. We know that the market is not willing to take on those risks at the moment and it is absolutely right that the Government are instructing us through this Bill to expand the regimes and protections.
We support the proposed introduction of a cap and floor regime for long-duration storage. We have seen NESO’s advice to you as part of the development of the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan—that increasing the amount of flexible storage on the system is critical to getting through your clean power targets. We are very keen to be part of supporting that. We think the cap and floor regime has proved its worth over the last decade or so through interconnectors, and obviously, we are adjusting it now with input from a wide range of stakeholders to make it appropriate for the long-duration storage schemes.
Michael Shanks
Q
Christianna Logan: We really welcome the powers in the Bill that create that framework to increase the timeliness and effectiveness of consenting in Scotland, particularly around introducing timescales for determinations and replacing automatic trigger of public local inquiries with a reporter-led process.
Public inquiries are one of the main causes of delay to consent decisions in Scotland, with the impact and cost of that borne ultimately by bill payers and local communities through local authority investment. We believe that to make the powers in this Bill effective in practice, the secondary legislation will be critical. We ask that the secondary legislation providing the details of implementation is delivered in parallel with the Bill, so that it can be laid as soon as decisions are made, and that within determination, timelines are set at 12 months to make sure that we can get timely delivery.
We welcome all the joint working between this Government and the Scottish Government, and we would like to see that continue for that secondary legislation. We welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to a 12-month determination for projects, but we are not yet seeing that in practice. For example, our Sky project, which is both an energy security and decarbonisation project, is still awaiting determination more than two and a half years on. That is why the ask is so important.
Michael Shanks
Finally, Dhara, picking up on the questions on connections reform and the wider push in the Bill on how we build network infrastructure more quickly and the ambition of that, how critical is it to the broader energy space—particularly on the questions of energy security, bringing down bills and the wider space on our energy mix going forward—that we build more network infrastructure and get the grid working? How critical is that aspect to delivering in the 2020s, and in the 2030s in particular, to meet the demand that we are going to see, and the Government’s other objective of bringing down bills?
Dhara Vyas: That is absolutely the right question to be asking, because we will not achieve any of it unless we unblock the issues we are seeing within the infrastructure space. The reality is that with these so-called zombie projects, at least half of them are ready to move on to the next stage. In large part, that is down to the work that has been happening as part of the connections reform project. It is really important that we keep on moving with the momentum we have right now, because gaining planning permission and making progress through the new milestones that the National Energy System Operator has set out is the next big challenge for us.
We are in a really difficult position right now. Bills and debt owed by customers to energy suppliers are at a record high. We are still really feeling and living in the long shadow of the cost of living crisis, which was partly down to the energy security crisis following the illegal invasion of Ukraine. Investing in an abundance of clean power will be completely pointless unless we have the infrastructure to move it around the country, and unless we invest in clean power, we will not ultimately bring down bills to the extent that we need to. The other part of that is demand. We will see demand increase by at least sixfold. We are going to have electrification of our homes and our transport, which brings us back full circle to the need to be able to move the electricity around.
John Grady
Q
Christianna Logan: Our programme of projects to deliver for 2030 is a £22 billion investment. It is the biggest investment that we have seen in the north of Scotland probably since the second world war, so it is really significantyou’re your constituents. Our colleagues in ScottishPower have their investments in your area as well. Alongside that, there is a significant number of jobs—we expect around 6,000 jobs enabled through our investments in Scotland specifically. Just this year, we will be recruiting another 600 people into SSEN transmission to help with this transformation of our grid network.
All of that, as you say, is dependent on us getting consent to progress all these projects and the necessary regulatory approvals for the investments. We have been working very closely with Government and Ofgem on the reforms, and we believe that the proposals put forward in the Bill will take us forward in that regard. As I said earlier, the secondary legislation and the work with the Scottish Government will be critical to capturing those benefits.
John Grady
Q
Charlotte Mitchell: Yes, more jobs and more activity. Picking up on the point about consenting, we have similar yet different challenges in England and Wales. As you note, the Bill looks to streamline the NSIP regime. That is incredibly important for us at National Grid. We are very supportive of the measures in the Bill, and there are three in particular that I would like to namecheck as helping us to accelerate the projects that we need to move that power around, as we have been discussing.
The first one is the commitment to refresh the national policy statements every five years, or more frequently. We really welcome that, because it is incredibly important that we have policy stability for our projects. I would just caution that we do not update them so frequently that the policy landscape moves, but five years feels like the right cadence for refreshing those.
Another measure in the Bill that will help is the ability to opt out of the NSIP regime, where that is more appropriate for particular projects. At National Grid, for example, sometimes when we are upgrading a substation we need to move some overhead lines around. You can trip that threshold and end up in the NSIP regime, where really that does not feel like the spirit of the regime—that is not what it was set up to do. The ability to write to the Secretary of State and explain why it is not the most appropriate regime is really helpful for us, and we really welcome that measure.
The third one was spoken about by the previous panel: yesterday’s announcement of looking again at the consultation requirements and moving to a non-statutory footing for consultation on NSIP projects. Again, that will help us to engage in a more targeted, effective and proportionate way, so that we can bring projects forward while continuing to engage communities. That will help us to ensure that we have the right projects in the right places.
Gideon Amos
Q
Dhara Vyas: It is a fair question, but I would reiterate the point made in response to the earlier question about ensuring that community benefits are tailored to the community around the infrastructure. Different communities will want different things. In some of the conversations and in the guidance, there are explicit examples of proximity and the amount that would be paid out. The reality is that this is not a one-size-fits-all conversation, and nor should it be. We would be doing the country, and people across the country, a disservice if we took a one-size-fits-all approach to this.
It is right to have guardrails and guidance, but responding to what people need and want, and what is lacking in a community that the industry could potentially support and provide, will be the best route to bringing people with us on this fairly significant journey. In my view, it is important that there are parameters. We need the guidance from Government, and we certainly cannot do this alone—this is definitely something that we need to do in partnership—but to fully respond to and get holistic, close working with the communities that will be hosting infrastructure, we need to have that conversation. Having that conversation takes more effort from the industry, but it is the right approach.
Gideon Amos
Q
Dhara Vyas: You are absolutely right, and I think that is where the guidance from the Department has been really welcome.
Rachel Taylor
Q
Beatrice Filkin: I am very happy to take that question. We have had an ongoing process of reform to the approach to the connections queue with NESO and Government for quite a while now. We reached our conclusions last week and made a decision on how the reordering of the queue should work. As part of that, as Charlotte mentioned, we have been looking at how we move away from the idea that we had previously—a first come, first served application process—to looking at what we need as a country and which projects are most ready.
The decision we have taken on how that process will work now needs to be implemented by NESO. It will be implemented very rapidly over the next year, with the network operators, to give industry confidence and security that it can continue to invest to deliver clean power targets, as well as all the growth targets that we want.
One point that we did not touch on previously was that the demand connections are really important for the growth story. The queue connections reform deems all the connections that are already in the queue as needed, so they pass the first test. That is very important in making sure that we are prioritising access to our network, and that will enable growth in the country.
Charlotte Mitchell: Bringing forward the legislation at pace will enable us to move to the new system. It is important that measures in the Bill are brought forward quickly, so that we can move towards the new reordering and prioritisation.
Rachel Taylor
Q
Beatrice Filkin: One of the purposes of the queue reform is to make sure that the projects that we need and are ready earliest get earlier access to the network. At the moment, we have a lot of projects in the queue that are at an early stage of development, and are not so critically needed by the strategic plans that we are setting out. Projects such as connections for demand or for factories are already in the queue and are deemed as needed. They will therefore be prioritised for the queue, and we expect their connection dates to improve as a result of the connections reform process.
Luke Murphy
Q
Dhara Vyas: I think that the Bill is going to be crucial. It was as true for the previous Government as it is for this Government that clean energy and investment in clean power is seen as the safest and surest way to ensure the UK’s energy security. There is a programme of work for investing in clean power, but there is absolutely nothing to be gained from all of that net investment unless we can move it around the country. That is why this part of the energy industry is so crucial.
In terms of the impact on bills, the reality is that, at one point, energy bills were four times what they were in 2019. We are now seeing bill debt of £3.8 billion and growing. It is also important to note, generally speaking, that households are under more pressure now than they have been for well over a decade. I think more than half of households who go to Citizens Advice have a negative budget. Households are really feeling the pressure, and the conversation about energy bills has not really been off the front pages for the last four years.
As for being able to expedite the investments in clean power and make sure we are reducing the amount we are spending on curtailment costs, that should mean that in the future, if we experience an energy shock again, we will not spend the £40 billion that was spent in 2022-23 to support people. That is why this is so important.
Luke Murphy
Q
Dhara Vyas: I think it links neatly to the last question around demand. The reality is that we need to decarbonise business in a significant way. Right now, what businesses in this country are paying is among the highest of OECD countries, if not the first or second highest in that group. This is a big part of the discussion with the Department for Business and Trade around the industrial strategy.
Energy and the price of energy is hugely significant to business users, as well as to households. So while we need to be having conversations about linkage with Europe, we also need to be having significant conversations here about how we can speed up demand and connections for demand—and have that conversation for both homes and businesses. More broadly, we also need to be having a conversation about how we support businesses to consider how they can move off their dependence on gas.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Beatrice Filkin: What has happened to date is that NESO has done some preparatory work assessing options. We have made a decision about how they should go about reordering the queue based on need and readiness —that is the decision we made last week. NESO now needs to implement that decision, which is what they will be doing rapidly over this year to make those choices.
For the reordering of the queue, it will prioritise the projects that were due to connect in the next year or two, first of all, and then the completion of all the projects that are needed for clean power by the beginning of 2026. That is the process. We are not walking away from that. We are regulating NESO, but also working with them on this process. We see this as a very critical enabler of clean power. Working through this year of that process, we will be a partner alongside them. That is also why we very much welcome the provisions in the Bill to provide the legislative security of what they are looking to do.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Beatrice Filkin: We have made a decision about the way in which NESO now prioritises the queue. They are doing that going forward. Our decision-making process was finished last week. That is the process by which they make those decisions. They are now going to implement that decision and do that re-ordering decision—individual decisions—over the year.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Beatrice Filkin: We have set out in our decision the way in which NESO should assess the queue. They will use the information that we set out last week—that guidance—to implement and take each individual project, weigh it up against the criteria, decide whether they meet the need and the readiness requirements and use that to sort through the queue. That is a process. They will operationalise our decision of last week.
Christianna Logan: On the practicalities of how that will be approached, NESO’s proposal is that the customers with connections contracts will provide evidence of their readiness to meet the criteria, in terms of things like submission of planning consents and land rights—ways that they can evidence they are progressing their projects at the pace necessary to achieve the 2030 goals and, as Beatrice said, against the strategic alignment of different technology types with the needs of the clean power plan. Customers will put forward their evidence that their projects are best placed. NESO will use that to assess which ones should go forward. Within that, there is some protection for projects that are already well progressed, so that we do not impact investments that are ready to be deployed to hit those targets.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Beatrice Filkin: What we set out in the decision last week sets off the piece of work that NESO are doing over this year. That helps projects, because as we have talked about, there are a number of projects in the queue that are either nowhere near ready or are not deemed needed for the overall strategic plan. So the process of sorting through the queue will speed up that very constrained access to the network to enable those projects that are needed and ready to join and connect to the network earlier.
John Grady
Q
Beatrice Filkin: Are you asking whether it provides an opportunity to local communities?
John Grady
Yes.
Beatrice Filkin: Absolutely. We see this in terms of not only the build process, but the operations of these pieces of infrastructure.
John Grady
Q
Beatrice Filkin: Yes.
Christianna Logan: Investment in things like ports infrastructure comes directly as a result of the investment in these projects, and that investment is not secured until we achieve consents, whether that is networks or offshore wind as our customer. So absolutely there is a benefit. There is also the community benefit that will come as a result of these projects.
Beatrice Filkin: There are also the wider supply chain opportunities. Obviously, we want to see the international and UK supply chain relocating here and providing degrees of the supply chain directly for these projects from our home communities.
Amanda Martin
Q
Dhara Vyas: Yes, because access to clean power should eventually result in lower bills. In making progress in this space, you ultimately unlock economic opportunities and growth and increase productivity. The dividends of this investment are felt right across the country.
The Chair
That brings our second panel to a close. I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Marian Spain gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Marian Spain, chief executive of Natural England. We have until 1 o’clock for this session. I call the shadow Minister.
Paul Holmes
Q
In particular, the Royal Town Planning Institute has said that it is concerned about whether you will be adequately resourced. The Institution of Civil Engineers is worried about a two-tier system and stakeholders and organisations being resourced adequately. The County Councils Network has also said that it remains concerned over the resourcing of Natural England. Do you believe that Natural England is adequately resourced and has the management structures and systems in place to cope with the extra responsibilities that it will take on?
Marian Spain: Yes. We very much welcome this Bill. We think this Bill is absolutely the right thing to give us the growth the nation needs, while not just protecting nature but giving the opportunity to restore nature. My answers will be in that context. This is a Bill we very much welcome, and it is something we have worked very closely with Government on.
In terms of resourcing, in principle, yes, the resourcing should be adequate. We have £40 million in this financial year to begin the preparatory work for the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund. That will enable us to start on the first of those EDPs, and I can say a bit more about what we think those will be, if that is helpful. In future, the levy arrangement should allow us to fully recover our costs. It should allow us to recover the costs of doing the work on the ground and also the overheads that we will need to incur to work with developers to do the monitoring, reporting and so on.
I think the risk is in the early years of the scheme, when the levy is not yet flowing, but we need to get up front and do those delivery plans so that they are ready when the developers are ready to contribute. We are working with our parent Department, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on a bid for next year’s spending review. The limiting factor will be whether Government are able to put in initial preparatory money. For the district level licensing scheme, we had effectively a rolling fund—Government put money in up front that we then rolled over as the levy came in to fill the gap behind it.
Paul Holmes
Q
Marian Spain: To reiterate, the unknown that I cannot answer is the outcome of the spending review and how much the Government as a whole choose to invest in the next financial year. The other thing that this Bill and the other associated planning reforms coming forward will do is to allow Natural England to relieve some of its existing resources from lower impact work and move them into this. It is not all just about new resources.
I am confident that we can make that change. I am confident that this will be one of the most important things that Natural England does for the next five years or so. You had another question that I have forgotten.
Paul Holmes
Q
Marian Spain: Work is under way now. As I mentioned earlier, we are doing two main things. We are thinking about the first two environmental delivery plans. This is an opportunity to mention that they are almost certain to be improving the existing nutrient mitigation scheme and turning that into a full-blown EDP and NRF system, and also consolidating the district level licensing scheme—the scheme for great crested newts that we set up five or six years ago. Those can be relatively quick wins, done within this calendar year we believe.
We are then looking at what the next EDPs are likely to be. That conversation is live at the moment with our colleagues. We are looking at three issues. We are looking at where development will most need it. Where are the development pressures? That might be major infrastructure or the new towns. Where are the places that are going to most need it? Where is it going to be most feasible—where do we believe we have sufficient evidence to have robust plans that will work and where is the meeting of those two points? That thinking about the EDPs is under way.
We are also using this year’s Government investment to set up the systems and the digital systems we will need. The systems developers will need to test their impact and decide if they want to participate. That is the systems we will use to handle the money and to do the essential transparency reporting and monitoring. That will be in place this financial year.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Can I get you on the record in terms of the objectives of part 3 of the Bill? Is Natural England confident that the nature restoration fund will deliver better outcomes for the environment than the status quo? Specifically on the powers that will be available to Natural England in bringing forth EDPs, do you think the Bill gives you enough flexibility to consider a wide enough range of conservation measures to deliver those plans?
Marian Spain: We are confident that this will be an improvement on the current system. We have already run versions of the nature recovery fund for recreational impact, for great crested newts and for nutrient mitigation, so we have seen enough that these schemes can work. We are confident that they will work.
We are also clear that it is an improvement because at the moment the current arrangements are sub-optimal for developers and for nature. We see that developers are investing disproportionate amounts of time on data gathering that could be better done once and centrally. We see that investment in mitigation and compensation in the sequential scheme slows things down and does not always create the biggest impact. We also see that there is less transparency than the public and indeed developers themselves sometimes want about how the money is being spent. We are confident this will be an improvement.
The other important point to note is that many of the pressures nature is facing now, particularly water quality, air quality and recreation, are diffuse. They are not specific. They are widespread. They are cumulative. It is impossible for an individual developer to adequately consider, mitigate and compensate. We need to do that at much more of a scale. We think the measures in the Bill and the associated measures of having more robust spatial development strategies that look at nature and development together, and of having the plan up front that tells us what the impact will be and how to mitigate it, and then the fund to allow that discharge, is a major step forward.
It is unknown—well, it is not unknown, forgive me. It is a risk, of course, and people will be concerned that it will not be regressive and that it will not be a step back, but we think there are enough measures in the Bill that are clear that this is about improvements to nature—maintaining the current protections, but also allowing development to make its adequate contribution to restoration of nature.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Q
Marian Spain: I cannot yet give you specifics. This is thinking that is happening now. We have not yet made any decisions. I have mentioned that we are looking at feasibility, demand, and ability to deliver. I think that where we will look next, the areas that are at the top of our minds in our conversations with fellow officials, will be air quality; the impact of nitrogen deposition on nature, which we see as a major risk; water quality; water quantity —the availability of water for both nature and development is high on the list; and a certain number of protected species. The commoner species of bats are likely to be able to benefit from the measures—similar measures as for newts. It is not yet all protected species, and we do not yet know which, so I cannot give you a definitive answer. I think it will be the next financial year when we start to roll out those further plans.
It is also quite hard for me to give you any certainty about exactly how long the plans will take, because they will vary, of course. Some of them will be geographically defined; some will be subject defined; and some might be species defined. They will be varied and mixed. But we are conscious that we need to move quickly on this, because we need to give developers a better solution than they currently have.
Olly Glover
Q
Marian Spain: I suppose there are two parts to that answer. One is the success we have seen of the similar schemes already running; I could expand on that if you wanted any specifics. Also, the Bill contains a number of safeguards. I think the first thing that the Bill does is that it effectively maintains the mitigation hierarchy, because the best way to protect nature is to avoid damaging it in the first place. The obligations on developers and the legal protection for sites and species remain. The Bill does not remove those. The Bill maintains that obligation, but makes it easier and simpler for developers to discharge, and the fact that a developer will have to pay a levy will in itself make them think, “Am I better off avoiding this and therefore the cost, and building somewhere else?” There is a safeguard there.
The other really important safeguard is that the Secretary of State is the ultimate arbiter of whether an EDP will be adequate and will produce the net overall improvement. That is the other reason why it is hard to be very specific about EDPs—because until we start to develop them in earnest, it is hard to see. There will need to be a fairly robust evidence base for the Secretary of State to be confident that the measures will have a positive impact and we will have a net overall improvement.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Q
Marian Spain: Nearly all our work is done in partnership anyway. Perhaps I will just expand on what I think the crucial partnerships are for the Bill to succeed. Actually, before I do, I will say one other thing. The Bill will require us to not produce the EDPs in isolation. They will require us to do public consultation. They will require us to work with others. We will need to work with the local planners. We are also highly likely to need to work with those who already have the data. That might be the voluntary sector; it might be the professional ecology sector that we rely on heavily to provide us with the data to have the confidence to recommend a robust plan to the Secretary of State.
The other part very much on my mind at the moment is that one of our jobs will be to give confidence to everybody who needs to be involved in making this work that the plans are robust and adequate and will have the impact intended. One thing that developers say to me is that they want confidence that if they are going to pay money, it will be well spent. A developer said to me the other day that the thing he finds most frustrating is that he puts money into the community infrastructure levy and he never sees what it is spent on, so I think there is something about giving developers confidence that if they participate, they can see they have done some good. Planners will need a fair degree of confidence that they are giving planning permission that is within the overall planning laws still.
We need our wildlife groups to work with us on this. We need to give them confidence, because they will own a lot of the land on which we will make the improvement. But as important—a group that we have not often talked about in these conversations—are the private landowners, who we will also need to have confidence that they are participating in a fair market where they will be adequately rewarded, should they choose to put their land in, and that they will also see that they are doing something for the public benefit.
The final group, if I dare say it, will be parliamentarians, who need to have confidence that these measures will contribute to the statutory climate and nature targets. It is all about how we work with all those groups to show that this is better.
Lee Pitcher
Q
Marian Spain: We are already having those conversations as part of the preparatory work.
Ellie Chowns
Q
“the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law.”
You have spoken about how you think that there will be improvements. Are you absolutely confident that that holds, and that there is no way in which the Bill could result in a reduction in environmental protection—for example, in relation to irreplaceable habitats?
Marian Spain: I am trying awfully hard not to say that that is something for Parliament to be keeping a close eye on as the Bill goes through. There are risks. This is a very different system, and it will be embedded in legislation—theoretically, in perpetuity.
Again with our colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, we are watching issues that are being raised by others, including by parliamentarians and the third sector. We are conscious that the Bill needs to have those robust safeguards, and there may be drafting amendments that make those even more robust. The basic premise of the Bill is clear, as I have said already—that basic idea that the plans can be approved by the Secretary of State only if he or she is satisfied.
The bit that we want to keep an open mind on, however, is the fact that we need to have a system that is robust enough and has those safeguards, but that also allows flexibility in how we operate it for years to come. Nature is changing in the way it responds to climate change. Society is recognising that it needs different things from nature, with nature-based solutions to climate change and more nature for health and wellbeing, as well as just the protection of rare species. There is something about getting that balance right to have a system that is workable in a place, and that is adaptable to what a community needs and to a particular development, but that maintains that overall aim to make nature better.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
Q
Marian Spain: We are confident that the model works. The detail will come as we work through which topics and which situations we actually apply the environmental delivery plans to. It is perhaps also a version of the answer to a previous question; the plans themselves can rule things in and out. We may decide, for example, that a piece of ancient woodland cannot be replaced and would therefore not be subject to these measures, so that is another safeguard.
David Simmonds
Q
Marian Spain: I cannot tell you about modelling that we are doing for the future—that work has only just started—but I can refer back to what we have already. For example, with district level licensing, the formula is quite simple: how much does it cost to build a pond and how much does it cost either Natural England or, in that scheme, a third party, including private businesses, to deliver that? That is what drives the levy and that is what developers pay. They pay the cost of administration and the cost of delivery, and that is the model we will use for this. Those costs will, of course, vary—there will not be a single cost—because it will depend on the complexity of the issue and possibly even the geography, land price and so on.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank Marian Spain for her evidence, and I thank all our other witnesses so far today for theirs.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)
Thursday 24th April 2025
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 24 April 2025 - (24 Apr 2025)
The Chair
We are about to have a vote, so we are going to be interrupted very shortly, but let us crack on as quickly as we can. We will now hear evidence from Victoria Hills, the chief executive officer of the Royal Town Planning Institute; Hugh Ellis, the director of policy at the Town and Country Planning Association; and Faraz Baber of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. For this panel, we have until 2.35 pm, unless of course we have a vote, as we are expecting, which will change the timing. I call the Opposition spokesperson to start the questions. If Members could indicate to me early that they want to ask a question, that would be helpful to me and the Clerk.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Q
I want to ask a question of the Town and Country Planning Association about the level of public trust in the planning system. The Opposition consistently outlined on Second Reading that we are concerned about democratic oversight and the right of the public and local planning committees to have a decent and worthwhile say on the way in which developments are allowed to go ahead in their own remits and jurisdictions. I notice that your written evidence states of public trust:
“If the planning system is to be democratic it is essential that the public has a voice during the examination of plans. This includes for the new, and powerful, spatial development strategies”.
Could you elaborate on that view and outline to the Committee what amendments you would like to see, or what emphasis you would like changed, to address your concerns in this area?
Hugh Ellis: Certainly. There are two aspects to it. One is that public trust is at a very low level. There has not been a full examination of public participation in planning since the late 1960s. Wherever we go, we find people who are struggling to understand the system, very often struggling with the asymmetry when they come up against the development industry, and struggling with the very limited opportunities that communities have to participate. Those opportunities are described in statute both for national infrastructure and for local planning applications; people are given three weeks.
The most important thing to stress is that people are not a source of delay; their voice in planning is due process. Taking out democratic opportunities in the cause of speeding up the process is utterly counter- productive, because where communities resist, they create delay anyway—outside the system. For us, there needs to be a respectful conversation. Of course, we are not arguing for a veto; we are arguing for meaningful opportunities for communities to be involved. That leads to better development, more accepted development and better placemaking.
Our concerns about the Bill relate particularly to the scheme of delegation and the shortened consultation periods for national infrastructure. To put that right, we are suggesting that things like the scheme of delegation are not really necessary. Certainly, if you are going to do it, you have to preserve local democratic oversight of major decisions at the local level. To give one final quick example, if you have a scheme of delegation that takes out local demographic oversight of decisions, you also take out the community’s only right in development management to be heard as a planning committee. The point I want to stress is that, at the moment, communities are the people largely excluded from decision making, and we want to give them a powerful voice. That is not anti-development; it is about building legitimacy, consent and certainty for development.
Paul Holmes
Q
Continuing with this line of questioning on local planning authorities and their powers with democratic oversight, one of your interesting proposals, Victoria, is an amendment that would allow for a statutory chief planning officer per local planning authority. I find that particularly interesting because I can see the argument that you would have increased legitimacy with one planning officer per local planning authority, despite the fact that we already have those, as there would be one person within each authority who is vested with the power to make those decisions. Can you outline how you see that working with the political structures that are in place in local authorities, bearing in mind what we would argue are the legislative aims of the Bill in removing some of those powers from locally elected councillors and politicians?
Victoria Hills: You are absolutely right; one of our core asks, which we believe would be a pillar of the quite systemic change being introduced by the Bill, is to have a statutory chief planning officer in every local authority. If you want to drive innovation, change, and the delivery of a new planning system, with the Bill setting an ambitious drumbeat for how planning will be done going forward, then to mobilise that delivery, you need to ensure that you have the appropriate seniority, experience and professional competency of a senior executive leader, rather than an elected leader. They can work with the elected politicians locally to drive forward delivery of the planning reform that is before this Committee.
We feel that many of the changes proposed in the Bill, some of which are quite structural about the way that planning will be done differently in the future, require not only strong elected leadership but strong executive leadership. [Interruption.]
Paul Holmes
Q
Victoria Hills: Thank you very much. I was making the point that, if you want to mobilise delivery quickly, and if you have gone to the effort of producing a new Bill and getting all the bits and pieces in place that you need to deliver the growth that we know the Government have committed to deliver, it makes sense to have someone with the appropriate level of seniority, experience and competency within local government who can drive forward that delivery.
There are a number of changes proposed in the Bill to do planning slightly differently, and within that context, you absolutely need a statutory chief planning officer working with the local politicians to deliver what the communities want to see locally. There is a golden opportunity in the Bill to ensure that we put that role in place in statute so that communities can be assured that, as these changes go through, they have the right level of seniority and competency working with the elected politicians to deliver the changes that they would like to see locally.
We support much of what is in the Bill, but we feel that it would be a missed opportunity not to introduce a provision for a statutory chief planning officer. You mentioned that these people exist, but they exist at different levels in different shades in different authorities. Very much along the lines of the conformity that I believe the Bill is trying to bring in for planning committees, if you are going to bring in a new national scheme of delegation for planning committees, you really need a statutory chief planning officer who can deliver that scheme locally, working hand in hand with the politicians to do so.
Paul Holmes
Q
I do not want to put words into the chief executive’s mouth, because she is not here now, but she told the Committee that there was some concern with the new systems over potential shortfalls in funding because of the spending review, which has not yet allocated money in the short term to Natural England, compared with the extra responsibilities that Natural England will have to undertake on habitat and nature. Can you outline your individual organisations’ views on whether Natural England is adequately resourced at the moment to undertake those extra duties? Under its current guise and funding, do you think that it is in a fit state to deliver on those extra responsibilities?
Victoria Hills: We have been very clear in our position: we support Natural England taking forward some of these new powers and responsibilities, provided that it is adequately resourced to do so. I do not have a detailed diagnostic of its resourcing and capability plans, but we have been assured, working with the Department, that the resources will be there. That is something that we will be keeping a very close eye on.
We support the principle of coming up with strategic solutions to some of the approaches to the environment, which can be delivered at a strategic level. As you know, we are a strong supporter of strategic planning and we believe that some of the biodiversity and nature aspects of planning do not stop at district council boundaries, or even county council boundaries. It makes perfect sense to look at these things at a strategic level; we support that and we support the ambition of Natural England to do it. However, we will caveat that by saying that it must be adequately resourced to do so, and that is a point that we will continue to make.
Faraz Baber: I work as a practitioner for a planning, environment and design company called Lanpro, which operates across the country. With that lens, I would say that the provisions on what it is expected that Natural England will deliver are right. It is good that the Government are moving towards the delivery of environmental delivery plans and all the things that sit around them.
I thought that the challenge to Natural England earlier was interesting. The chief executive was challenged as to whether, given what is in the Bill, there could be a cast-iron guarantee of the environmental credentials that we need to see come through. I have to say that I was surprised at the response, because you cannot: we have to see how it works in practice. For Natural England to deliver that, it will need to significantly recruit dedicated teams to operate a number of the provisions that are set out in the Bill, the EDPs being a good example. It is right that there will be concern about the comprehensive spending review and whether Natural England will have the resources and function to deliver. In principle, the Government are right in their direction of travel on this, but they will need to commit to the resources and funding to deliver on their promise.
Hugh Ellis: To add to that, rather than repeat it, there are concerns about the scheme design. We at the TCPA are also concerned about the philosophy that lies behind it—that it may lead to an offsetting process. To be clear, the foundation of planning is that nature and development can be easily managed together to enhance both. That is our tradition, and it has always been the planning tradition, from Morris onwards. The philosophy of planning should always be that I can build a development for you that will enhance nature and provide housing. The setting up of the two ideas in opposition is destructive and distracting.
We need to focus on design quality in new housing, and principally that means allowing people to have access to nature immediately. They need that for their mental health and physical wellbeing. That is a crucial saving to the NHS and social care budget in the long run. We want high-quality design first, and offsetting and large-scale habitat creation elsewhere—as a second resort, but not as the first, principal test.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Q
Hugh Ellis: Since 1947, the greatest absence in all planning reform measures has been that we do not know what the system is for. The current round of reforms raises that question profoundly. The purpose should be sustainable development. We are signatories to the UN charter, and key concepts around sustainable development do not feature in the national planning policy framework. Those are really crucial ones about social justice, inclusion, environmental limits and precautionary principles. Those are all key to giving the planning system a purpose. That purpose is crucial pragmatically, because across the sector we need to know what the system is for, so that we can have confidence in it.
It is also crucial to understand that the system has long-term goals, future generations being one of them, and addressing the climate crisis being another. Within three to five years, the repeated impacts from climate change will be the dominant political issue we confront, and we need a system that works for that, as well as for housing growth.
Faraz Baber: Whether it should be in the Bill or in an NPPF-style document is more about whether people are able to know what planning is and how that is communicated. I do not necessarily believe that that has to be enshrined in the Bill, but it certainly should be clear, whether it is in the national planning policy framework, a local plan or a spatial development strategy, so that people—by which I mean all those who interact with the planning system—can know what planning is about and what it means for them. I feel that a Bill, and ultimately an Act, is the wrong place for it to be enshrined.
Ellie Chowns
Q
Faraz Baber: Planning is there to help, for want of a better phrase, with the placemaking and the delivery, and to ensure that there are guidelines for how plan making should take place. It is there to ensure that the various levers associated with the plan-making process and the development process are understood. Planning is the guardian that ensures that sustainable development can come forward.
Victoria Hills: One of the most important questions that anybody—elected leaders or executive leaders—can ask is “Why?” Why are we doing it? What is it all about? What is the purpose of this Bill? What is the purpose of planning? That is why we think it is essential, within the realms of this Bill, that a public purpose of planning is stated up front. You do not have to take our word for it. Our research published yesterday shows that the vast majority of the public do not have a clue what planning is. They do not know what it is for, and if you are going to drive through a major reform programme for planning, the likes of which we have not seen for 15 years, it might be a good idea if we are very clear on what the purpose of planning is.
For us, the purpose is really clear; at a strategic level, it is about the long-term public interest, the common good and the future wellbeing of communities. You need to be open and honest with the public up front that all this change that is coming in planning and infrastructure is actually for the long-term common good. Some of it people may not like in the short term, but we are talking about the long-term common good— delivering on climate, delivering on sustainable development goals and delivering for communities. We think it is really important that the opportunity is not missed, not only to help inform the public and everybody else who needs to know what the purpose of planning is but to provide that north star, that guiding star, as to the why. Why are we doing this? What purpose does it have?
Thank you for your question. We are absolutely clear that having a public purpose of planning is really important for this legislation, and we will continue to make that case.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Q
Hugh—the Bill provides a clearer, more flexible and more robust framework for the operation of development corporations. You know that it is clearly our view that they have to do a lot of work in the coming years to drive the kind of delivery we need and the types of development we want to see come forward. What is your assessment of how effective those development corporation powers are to support development and regeneration?
Victoria Hills: One thing we know about from our members, but also from those people who are actually in the business of building things—of course, that is really what is important if you want to see some growth coming—is consistency. You asked about the variation. Some councils have fantastic schemes of delegation and it is very clear what is and is not going to committee, but other councils have a slightly more grey scheme of delegation—let’s call it that—whereby things can pop up in committee on the basis of an individual issue or individual councillor.
The opportunity afforded to us by the Bill is for some consistency through a national scheme of delegation. We have in place some very robust processes that look at the business of development, through the local plan process. It goes to not one but two public inquiries, through the Government’s inspectorate, and then back to the community. What we recognise is that if you have had some very robust considerations of the principles of development and you have good development prescribed by, for example, a design code that says, “This is what good development looks like here”—so we have worked out what we want, where it is going and what it looks like—it is perfectly possible that suitably qualified chief planning officers can work out whether something is in conformity with a plan. We therefore welcome the opportunity to clarify that through a national scheme of delegation.
This is not to take away anybody’s democratic mandate to have their say. Of course, there are all sorts of opportunities to have that say in the local plan process, but if we are to move to a national scheme of delegation, we would want a statutory chief planning officer who has that statutory wraparound and has the appropriate level of competency and gravitas to be able to drive forward that change, because it will be a change for some authorities. For some, it will not be a change at all, but taking forward that innovation via a national scheme of delegation will require that statutory post, so that those decisions cannot be challenged, because they will be made in a professionally competent way.
Hugh Ellis: I think development corporations are essential if we are going to achieve this mission. You would expect the TCPA to say that, because we are inheritors of the new towns programme. The interesting thing about them is that, for the first time, they bolt together strategy and delivery. The existing town and country planning system is often blamed for not delivering homes, but it has no power to build them.
The development corporation solves that problem by creating a delivery arm that can effectively deliver homes, as we saw with the new towns programme, which housed 2.8 million people in 32 places in less than 20 years of designation, and it also paid for itself—it is an extraordinary model. The measures in the Bill to modernise overall duties on development corporations are really welcome. I assume you do not want me to talk about compulsory purchase orders right now, but hope value and CPOs are critical accompanying ideas in the reform package that go with that. In the long run, I think that they will become critical.
Obviously, the new towns taskforce has to decide what it wants on policy. The challenge that we face with them is legitimacy, and there is still work to do in making sure that there is a Rolls-Royce process of getting public consent for this new generation of places. However, the outcome is such an opportunity to generate places that genuinely enhance people’s health, deal with the climate crisis and provide high levels of affordability. What a contrast that is with what we have delivered through town and country planning at local plan level, which is a lot of the bolt-on, car-dependent development. Frankly, as a planner, I find that shameful. The opportunity with development corporations is there and I hope that the Government seize it.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Q
Hugh Ellis: I will be honest: as a planner, I am really worried about it. The one difficult thing is that you cannot build without consent, and I think governance in planning is really important. Environmental governance in general is important. I am sceptical about the degree to which this is a really big problem. I can see evidence coming through to suggest that delegation rates for normal applications that you can decide locally are very high already.
I made this point earlier on, but what worries me more than anything else is that if you sideline the opportunity that the public currently have to be represented at committee, the appearance—if not the intent—is that you are excluding people. In periods of change, you have to lean into consultation, participation and democratic accountability. You must accept that while it is not a veto, because you as parliamentarians may wish to decide that the development proceeds, it is either democracy or it is not.
For us, the idea of democratic planning is so central, and it was so important in 1947. That Government had a choice: it had proposed a Land Board, which could have made all the planning decisions centrally, but it gave those decisions to local government on the basis that people locally understand decision making best. My own experience is that people are a solution, not a problem. Wherever I go, I find people who know detail about development and can improve it, particularly on flood risk, and they want to contribute.
I do not accept that there is an anti-development lobby everywhere, and there certainly is not in my community. Instead, there are people concerned about quality, affordability and service provision, and their voice should be heard. The Bill could create the impression, even if it is not the intent, that there is a non-respectful conversation going on. Finally, as a planner, I would never want to be in the firing line for taking a decision on a major housing scheme that is ultimately a matter of politics, and should always be so.
Paul Holmes
Quite right!
Faraz Baber: If I may respond on that, there is real merit in the delegation scheme being proposed, within the confines of ensuring that the plan-making process is robust, and that there is engagement by community representatives through the EIP process, as well as other avenues that can help the plan-making take place.
I have created neighbourhood plans as much as I have worked on regional spatial strategies and the London plan. I know that if you get those processes to a place where, from the outset, everyone has engaged with the plan, and communities buy in from that point, you see the follow-through in the consistency of the delivery of the plan. Actually, it is not then a brave decision for a planning officer to make because they are following the lines of what the community has charged them to go and deliver for them. We must remind ourselves that it is about cases that are devoid of those policies and try to do something else, which is where it then needs further democratic overview. In the broadest sense, if we are looking at the growth that this country needs, at the delivery this country needs and at the pace at which that needs to come, we do need to think in a more dynamic fashion, and I think the delegation scheme does have merit.
I take the point that Victoria made about the chief officer. That seniority does provide good cover in a council, and it will enable them to provide that oversight and ensure that things that are required for the community are also delivered. Working in tandem provides a real opportunity for a good national delegation scheme to come forward.
Victoria Hills: To add to that, a professionally competent chartered town planner is very capable at ensuring that all the community interests are represented and balanced. That drives really excellent outcomes, and certainly that is the business that our members are in: delivering great places.
The Chair
We have less than 10 minutes, and seven Members, at the last count, wanted to ask questions. Please be very quick with your questions or we are not going to get everyone in.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
Q
Victoria Hills: Very briefly, capacity and capability have been a hindrance in local authorities for a number of years. We have lost 25% of local authority planners alone in the last seven years, and that cannot continue. We are working with the Department and many partners; Public Practice and Pathways to Planning are both really important at this moment in time. The chief planner is there to advocate for those resources at the top table of local government and to ensure that they have a statutory basis on which to retain the budget.
Despite everything that everybody is doing to bring in more planners—with private sector money as well; we are working with the British Chambers of Commerce on a new planning scholarship, using private sector money to solve the crisis of lack of capacity—our biggest burning platform at the moment is the uncertainty regarding the level 7 apprenticeship. Some 60% of apprentices in local government come from under-represented groups within the profession. Unless we have urgent clarity soon as to whether or not our chartered town planner apprenticeship can continue, we are seriously worried about the pipeline of planners going into local government. It would be remiss of me not to mention that in the context of your capacity question.
On local plans, of course it is not good enough that only 40% of local authorities have an up-to-date local plan. That is an urgent priority. Of the 25% of local authority planners who have left local government in the last seven years, we suspect the lion’s share were in those local planning teams, and we need to work urgently to put that capacity back in. The apprenticeship will go some way, as will Pathways to Planning and the planning scholarship, but there is no time to waste in ensuring that we put that capacity back in. We think that the statutory chief planning role will not only have the right level of seniority to advocate for it, but they will actually help restore planning departments as a real career choice for graduates coming out of planning schools now.
The Chair
Order. Please remember to keep it short, because other colleagues want to come in.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Faraz Baber: The outline, as you say, is an outline, but the reality is that any full application that comes forward should be aligned with the agreement on social infrastructure and all the other elements that are required, whether that is the affordable housing, social infrastructure, civil payments or whatever. There was an earlier question: what is planning for? Well, planning is for that—to ensure that those community benefits are derived from development and to ensure that it is inclusive, not just for new residents but for existing residents as well.
I think that is a guardianship point, where the planning team or the local authority have to ensure that what they said they wanted to see from the plan is ultimately delivered. People will go into viability discussions and say, “I can’t afford that and I can’t afford this.” That is a judgment that has to be made about what can be delivered in the public interest. In answer to your question, that is very much where planning sits at the fore, to ensure that the right development with the right social infrastructure comes forward, and that it is fitting for the place it is sitting in.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Q
Victoria Hills: We have been advocating for the ringfencing of fees since time began. It is absolutely essential, and—I am sure that Faraz will pick this point up in a moment for his clients—I have not met a single developer that is not willing to pay for more for a service. The problem is that they are paying more but not getting the service. In some places, they are, but not in others. The opportunity, through this Bill, to strengthen the ringfencing and ensure that the money stays within the planning team to deliver the service cannot come soon enough to help to reduce some of those delays.
Having the opportunity for local areas to work out what good looks like for them is absolutely a sensible way forward within that. Again, we do feel that having the right level of seniority within the department to ensure that the money stays there is going to be a key part of it.
Faraz Baber: Moving towards this ringfencing idea within the planning service is hugely positive, although when I say the planning service, it may extend slightly to the legal side as well, because you have to get those section 106 agreements signed off to make things happen. The key, though, is that it has to stay ringfenced for that resource to happen. We often see that PPAs—planning performance agreements—are paid up front for meetings, and that there is a very uneven balance in how well those deliver, in terms of the service that the clients receive when they pay those large chunks of change for that service. So, developers are right—applicants are right—to get frustrated when they think they are getting a premier service to help facilitate the bringing forward of an application, then find that it does not move the dial one iota.
I think the very basic premise is that instead of the chief executive or the finance director of the council saying, “I’ll take that because I need to put it into social care or into education,” the money actually stays there. Remember, if we keep that money inside the planning service, it will drive the growth that the Government have said that they want to achieve. The devil is in the detail, and we need to see that more, but it is the right direction to take.
Hugh Ellis: I would say that it would stabilise issues for development management, but, for the policy officers who we work with, it would not necessarily support their work.
Also, a piece of heresy, if it is okay: the private sector complains a lot about delays, despite getting 86% of all its applications approved, but I think that there needs to be more debate about competence in the private sector. When a private sector developer applies for a category 3a floodplain development and then complains that the Environment Agency wants it to go through a flood risk assessment process, my blood boils. Planners are doing life-and-death stuff. For example, no house built after 2009 is part of the insurance compact, so if we get this wrong, negative equity will look like a picnic. Planning is trying to do really complicated stuff and it needs time to do that. Statutory consultees are also crucial to that, and they need to be resourced properly to play that role as well.
The Chair
We are coming to the last few seconds so I am going to call an end to the session. Sorry that we did not get everybody in. As it is the end of the time allocated to the Committee to ask questions, on behalf of the Committee I thank our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Jack Airey and Sam Richards gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Jack Airey, director of housing and infrastructure for Public First, and from Sam Richards, chief executive officer of Britain Remade. This session will run to 3.25 pm.
Paul Holmes
Q
As you know, the Opposition were consistently concerned throughout the Second Reading debate—we asked previous witnesses questions on this—about the perceived democratic deficit in the future planning system should some of the measures go through, particularly those on national schemes of delegation and on statutory consultees and changes to the consultation process. Mr Airey, do you think this legislation will remove local people’s right to make representations and make an impact, to the extent that they currently can, on local planning decisions?
Jack Airey: First, we start from a very low base of democratic engagement in the planning system. Very few people engage in planning applications or the planning process, and often the people who do are not representative of their local area. The No. 1 thing we could do is to increase that participation and get a much wider range of people involved in having a say in planning. That is my primary concern.
On a national scheme of delegation, it all depends on the detail that the Government provide later and how it is implemented through regulations. In the context that I set out, I am not too worried about a perceived loss of democratic oversight, because I feel like it is so low. It would be remiss of me not to note that councillors who are on planning committees are often elected with very small mandates, given the very low turnouts in local elections, so in my view we start from a very low position in respect of people having the right say in what they should be doing.
It would be no bad thing if the intent of the reform that comes forward is to reduce the number of schemes that planning committees reject for nakedly political reasons. It is no way to regulate a major part of our economy—the construction industry. It creates lots of uncertainty for developers and for communities, and ultimately it means fewer things get built and much less growth happens than should.
Often, councils lose millions of pounds having to fight appeals that a developer is bound to win because it has put forward a scheme that is compliant with a local plan but has been rejected for reasons that are, in my view, quite odd a lot of the time. If the reform that the Government eventually bring forward begins to deal with that, it will be very worth while, but the threshold for delegation will have to be set in a way that removes as much ambiguity as possible so that planning officers do not always feel the need to direct every single application to a committee, because every application will be controversial to someone.
Paul Holmes
Q
I have a further question about the role of planning committees. What do you think of the proposal by the Royal Town Planning Institute for a chief planning officer to strengthen officer accountability, in order to tackle some of your perceived drawbacks in the system, such as the number of applications referred to committee and the number that are challenged unfairly? Do you see any advantages in that?
Jack Airey: There is certainly a capacity problem in planning committees. Every part of the system is saying that, so it must be true. Does that proposal deal with that directly? I am not sure. Another question was whether we need different layers of planning officers, or whether we need a chief statutory planning officer. I do not know. I think that that is the No. 1 issue. I am being quite neutral on the proposal, because I am not sure that it solves that issue, but there is definitely a capacity issue. Would their being statutory mean that they got more funding in the council? I do not know. I think councils are a bit more complicated than that sometimes.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Q
Sam Richards: For those of you who do not know, Britain Remade is a campaign, and 35,000 people across the country support us building the homes, energy and transport infrastructure that we need. It is worth briefly stepping back and remembering why we desperately need to streamline the planning system. I am going to give you four quick examples.
First, the planning application for the lower Thames crossing—I see the relevant Member here—has cost more than £250 million. That is more than it cost Norway to actually build the world’s longest tunnel. That has been all in planning. That is all paperwork—not a single spade in the ground.
Secondly, High Speed 2 is the world’s most expensive railway line, in no small part because we are doing things like building a £121 million bat tunnel to protect 300 Bechstein’s bats that live in a nearby wood—not actually the wood that the line goes through, but a nearby wood. I think most people would agree that that is a disproportionate response.
Thirdly, we are currently building the world’s most expensive nuclear power plant, at Hinkley. It is the most expensive nuclear power plant ever constructed in the history of the human race. Why is it so expensive? We used to build them more cheaply: 20 years ago, they were half the price; when we built the fleets in the ’50s and ’60s, they were a quarter of the cost of the ones that we are building now. Why is it costing so much more? In no small part, it is to do with the environmental rules that mean that EDF is currently wrangling with regulators, and has been for eight years, about installing an underwater fish disco—an acoustic deterrent to stop the fish from swimming into the exhaust pipes of the power plant. Millions of pounds are currently being spent on that.
Fourthly, the planning application for a 3.3-mile railway line between Bristol and Portishead—reopening an existing line that was cut in the Beeching cuts—is 80,000 pages long, with more than 1,000 pages dedicated to bats, on what is an existing line.
It is important to make those points, because the ambition of the Bill is absolutely right: we need to make it much easier to build the homes, energy and transport links that we need. In many ways, the Government are delivering on what they are setting out to do, but there is one crucial area where they are going to need to go further, and that is on the changes to the application of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
It is worth saying that while we are failing to build, we are failing to protect nature; all our key biodiversity indicators are in decline. The shift to a strategic approach to environmental protections is absolutely the right one: getting away from this site-by-site approach, which has led to the bat tunnels and the fish discos, is absolutely right. We need to do that both to help us build the stuff quicker and to help us better protect nature. My fear with the way the Bill is currently written and how the environmental delivery plans will be implemented is that, because the habitats rules remain untouched and sit underneath them, if EDPs are not brought in, the habitats rules kick in as they do currently. It relies on Natural England bringing out all these EDPs and, indeed, those EDPs working for species.
It is easy to see how they will apply in the case of, say, nutrient neutrality. We have basically already started doing that with the nutrient mitigation schemes that started two years ago. That is all to the good, and that should unlock lots of house building in the south of England. That is brilliant, but I fear that as things stand, the Government have not solved the bat tunnel issue, and they will need to come back to that.
Jack Airey: Whether it delivers more homes and infrastructure is almost an unfair question, because legislative reforms to the planning system take so long to have an effect. While a lot of the things in the Bill are very positive and will improve the structure of the planning system, it will take a long time for them to have an effect and for the various bits of regulation to be laid. I worked on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. So much of that has not been implemented and probably will not ever be implemented, and I fear we will be in that situation with this Bill, too.
The reforms the Government have brought forward in the national planning policy framework are much more radical and impactful, certainly in the short to medium term; ditto forthcoming reforms to the national development management policies, if they are done the right way. Policy changes by the Department have a quicker effect, and I would be looking to that in the short term.
In terms of where I would go further, I agree with Sam on that part of the Bill. If I were a Government who wanted to deliver a lot of homes very quickly, I am not sure this is the reform I would have brought forward. I would have looked again at the reform that was put forward by the previous Government, which would have totally disapplied habitats regulations when they related to nutrient neutrality requirements, so there would be no need to produce an EDP or for the developer to pay a levy. That would have been the quickest way to unblock the homes that are currently stalled by this issue.
Gideon Amos
Q
Sam Richards: As I said, that is where I think the big gap in the Bill is. There is a range of things. There are the rounds and rounds of consultation, which the Government have made some good progress on just this week by announcing that they will reduce the pre-application consultation stages. That is to be welcomed. It is the rounds and rounds of judicial reviews and the fact that the vast majority of major infrastructure projects in this country are brought to the courts. That has been the case multiple times for Hinkley and will be the case for Sizewell. Again, what the Government have done there is welcome, by reducing the opportunity for vexatious judicial reviews and reducing the number of opportunities from three to one and a half. That is to be welcomed, but it is also the additional environmental mitigations that have to be brought and the disproportionate responses that add costs and delay to building major infrastructure.
Gideon Amos
Q
Sam Richards: The key point is not just whether a particular species matters but the mitigation measures that developers are able and allowed to take under the current framework. I am not here to represent EDF, but it proposed that you could basically pay a fishing vessel to not fish a similar species in a similar area, which would then allow the replenishment of an equivalent amount of stocks. Under the current rules, you are not able to do that strategic-level mitigation.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Q
Jack Airey: The existing framework for doing that is the section 106 system and the community infrastructure levy system. I am not sure whether the CIL applies in Dartford, but in my mind that provides a fairly effective method of doing this in a way that does not make development totally unviable, while extracting enough value to provide some contribution to the community. I do not think there is anything in the Bill that really focuses on this—I could be proven wrong—but I think the existing system works okay.
It is really difficult to do this and it does not always work. Rightly, communities always want the right amount of infrastructure. This might relate to other comments I might make: we rely on the planning system to do so much heavy lifting to deliver all sorts of things that everyone wants, and we try to prioritise everything and end up prioritising nothing. We could have a system where we extracted more from developer contributions and that went to community infrastructure, but that would come with a trade-off, probably around provision of affordable housing and things like that. That would be a sensible debate to have if that is what your constituents want, but it is also quite difficult politically.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Q
Some of the large energy infrastructure projects have described having large pipelines of potential projects, some of which were very speculative and others of which were quite close to the spades in the ground stage. How can we ensure that what emerges from the Bill guarantees meaningful and proper consultation, so that the receiving community really understands what the impact will be and, where there may be local objections, people have a really detailed understanding of what the benefits will be in order to persuade them to be more supportive of the proposals?
Jack Airey: Is your question specific to nationally significant infrastructure projects, or does it relate to the TCPA as well?
David Simmonds
I think it covers both, but each of those things is addressed separately in the Bill.
Jack Airey: It goes back to my initial point that community participation in the planning process is so low, and you often only hear about the negative parts. If we could boost that a bit—in truth, I am not sure how you do that in a way that is not totally burdensome on local authorities, because often people have better things to do than go to a town hall on a Tuesday evening. Raising that is a difficult but necessary thing to do. That is how you begin to spell out not just the negatives but the benefits of development on the local planning system side.
On the NSIP reforms, I know you will hear later from Catherine Howard, who is much more of an expert on this than I am. It looks like a wholly positive thing to me. The Government press release talked about saving around 12 months off an NSIP development consent order process, which is a hugely positive thing.
Sam Richards: I agree with Jack. Dare I say it, I think there is a role here for elected representatives in making the case when we need to build things. I know it is hard, not least when development is poorly planned or ugly, and of course when there is local opposition it is often tempting to row in on the side of those who are opposing development, but there is a job to do here. Fundamentally, we have not built sufficient infrastructure for decades and, as a result, we have the highest industrial energy costs in the world. London has the most expensive housing in Europe. We have not built the infrastructure we need for decades. It is incumbent on all of us, including our elected representatives, to make the case for the building that we need.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Q
Jack Airey: I think what I said is that the system for securing and spending developer contributions is okay. I do not think the wider planning system is okay. In terms of how you can improve it, a lot of the measures in the Bill are very worth while, and a lot of the changes in the NPPF are incredibly worth while. There are many more things that the Government can do, especially on the national development management policies.
Sam Richards: The system is fundamentally broken. I am sure your constituents are furious that their energy bills are through the roof and they cannot afford the rent, and they are right to be so.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Jack Airey: At Public First we do lots of opinion research. We do public polling, focus groups and something we call immersives. We go and speak to people and ask what they think about things. In some polling we have asked, “Have you engaged in planning applications? Do you get involved in the local plan?” and it is minuscule proportions of people. We go and speak to people about developments that are happening.
There is definitely opposition to development and it is often very intense. Often, if you listen to debates in the building across the road or you look online, it looks like it is totally representative of a local community, but often, if you speak to people on the ground, most do not care about it. They might even support it. While there is some opposition—I am sure you hear it a lot in your constituencies when you go doorstep to doorstep —it is much smaller than it seems. That is the message I was trying to give. It is about engaging those people who need to be housed, if we are talking about housing, just as much as the people who oppose development. We should talk to them a bit more.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Q
Jack Airey: Do you mean geographically?
Lee Pitcher
No—where within the planning process?
Jack Airey: The Bill puts much greater emphasis on local plan making. In my view, that is a really good thing. We need plans that really stand up to scrutiny, and we need promised homes to be actually delivered. The Planning Inspectorate has a big role there, and I think that is where most engagement should happen. At the moment various people have many bites of the cherry to give their view on development. Often it is a negative thing; sometimes it is a positive thing. That could be concentrated a bit more on the plan-making process. Once a site is allocated in a local plan, it should be much harder for that thing not to happen.
Sam Richards: I agree with Jack.
The Chair
Rachel Taylor, you have about a minute and a half; maybe you will get a quick answer.
Rachel Taylor
Q
The Chair
You have less than a minute.
Sam Richards: This has been more Jack’s point than mine, so I will let him come back to it, but I think it is reasonable that that is handled through the local plan.
Jack Airey: Sorry, another controversial opinion: I do not think development necessarily has to have consent. Lots of development happens that does not have consent—for example, things that go through the permitted development rights regime. I lived in a home that was built through the PDR regime, and it was perfectly nice—it was really nice. You see lots of homes that are built that way. There is no democratic engagement because MPs grant national planning permission for that through the general permitted development order. I get what people are saying and I am not trying to question it entirely, but you can have nice homes that are delivered outside that system.
To answer your second question on whether consultation should be done through representatives, the most important thing is that you go and ask people what they think.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the allotted time for Members to ask questions. I thank the witnesses for their time.
Examination of Witnesses
Rachel Hallos and Paul Miner gave evidence.
The Chair
This panel will run until 3.50 pm. We will hear evidence from Rachel Hallos, vice-president of the National Farmers Union, and Paul Miner, head of policy at CPRE. We will start with questions from the Opposition spokesperson.
Paul Holmes
Q
In that vein, may I ask you about a relatively controversial part of the legislation—the Government’s proposals to reform some of the compulsory purchase order powers? Of course, the Opposition will table amendments throughout the process. I know that other Members want to come in, so I will ask you both all my questions and then I will shut up, much to the pleasure of others. What would be the cumulative impact of the proposals on top of some of the other proposals brought in by the Government, particularly in the autumn Budget? Can you outline some of the representations that you have had from your members about what the detailed reforms would mean for the level of payment to people, whether they are tenant farmers or landowning farmers, in relation to CPOs under the Bill?
I have another question for you, Mr Miner. In terms of the nature restoration fund, even though the Government claim that there will be no net loss to environmental outcomes as a result of the Bill, is your organisation concerned that it would unintentionally create a patchwork quilt effect, where some areas would essentially have a deterioration in their environmental outcomes compared with other areas in the country? Could you give us a general view of your organisation’s opinion on the nature restoration fund in particular? I will go to the NFU first.
Rachel Hallos: Thank you for your question; it is a big one and a very big concern among our members. First, as an organisation, we absolutely welcome measures to modernise the planning system. We all know that it needs to happen. We all know that we need to build and grow, and that our industry also needs to grow. I just want to make it very clear to the Committee that we are in no way saying that this is a bad idea.
We see parts of the Bill that we like and parts of it that we dislike, and it will not come as a surprise to any of you that the compulsory purchase element has raised the most concern among our members. Last week, when we brought together our council members, who represent the 44,000 people we have across England and Wales, this was the element that really had them concerned. I completely understand why when we see what has happened in the past, and what is still ongoing with matters such as High Speed 2 and other things around the country.
We can break down the compulsory purchase order element into two different things. The first is hope value, which is of real concern to our members. Again, they completely understand that we need to build and grow, and that we need infrastructure in place, because we are woefully behind with it. When you go to somebody’s home or business and lay down the order that you are going to compulsorily purchase it, there has to be fair reward to that person to enable them to rebuild their business or home elsewhere. There is not a lot we can do about it. This is something that can happen to them that is completely out of their control.
My members and I genuinely believe that if somebody is going to make commercial gain from the compulsory purchase of that land, or potentially purchases some of it, making the rest of the business unviable, the person having the purchase order served on them should also be commercially rewarded so that they can continue and rebuild their life or business in another place. It is really important that we have that fairness with compulsory purchase orders.
The second element, which is the one that really sent shivers, is giving Natural England the power to compulsorily purchase land. I have been sitting at the back and have already heard bats mentioned. We really do not believe that the Committee should vote for this clause to be part of the Bill when the Government have provided so little explanation for why it should be there. We are very concerned about giving Natural England compulsory purchase responsibilities and an ability to do that.
It is not just because of bat tunnels—another layer sits behind that. This is about putting environmental goods on hold over here while you build something, but you recreate it over there. Wildlife biodiversity does not have borders or boundaries. It is among us. It might seem strange to you for a farming representative to talk like that, but we genuinely believe that we can deliver food security—you know that good old line, “Food security is national security”—at the same time as enhancing or protecting the environment, or whatever you want to call it.
We need to be really, really careful that we ensure that whoever has the powers to compulsorily purchase land—if that is really the route you want to go down—has the capabilities and capacity to do it in the right manner so that there are not losses. That is where our members are. I fully support their stance on that and we feel very, very strongly about it.
Paul Holmes
Q
Paul Miner: We had concerns about biodiversity net gain when it was introduced because we felt that it would not lever in as many resources for nature conservation as some of its proponents claimed, and that it would not necessarily deliver strategic benefits. On that basis, we support the principle of a nature restoration fund as something that has the potential for taking a more strategic approach. From our perspective, it is particularly important that the nature restoration fund links well with the Government’s proposed land use framework, which we also support and which we urge the Government to bring in as soon as possible after the consultation finishes. There should also be strong links between the nature restoration fund and the local priorities that are identified in local nature recovery strategies.
We have concerns about the detail proposed in the Bill, and in particular about the potential compromising of the well-established mitigation hierarchy: the principle that you should avoid environmental damage before seeking to compensate for or mitigate it. We are also members of Wildlife and Countryside Link, which you will hear from later. We support what it has been saying about the nature restoration fund.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Q
Rachel Hallos: No.
Olly Glover
Please expand.
Rachel Hallos: I am not convinced that there is clarity on the balance and calculations. If you take such land out of production, what imbalance does that create with production elsewhere? If you move environmental goods from one area of land on to another, what imbalance is being created there? If we are going to go down an accounting route, what is the cost-benefit of doing it—whether it is food production, homes or environment? I am not sure that is in the Bill, and I think it needs to be to make sure that the right decisions are being taken in the right places.
As an organisation representing farmers, and as a farmer myself, I know that what we do on our land is a long process, whether it is producing food or managing the land for environmental goods. This is not a quick fix; we cannot move a dial and have something change overnight. We need to make sure that the right decisions are being taken in the right places, and we also need to recompense the people who are taken along with it as they go.
Paul Miner: We broadly agree with Rachel. Overall, the Bill needs to strike a better balance between the various objectives that the planning system seeks to fulfil. It is not just about facilitating development but about mitigating and adapting to climate change, as well as helping to secure nature recovery. We think that the Bill can do more to give the wider public and ourselves confidence that, in future, we will get better plans and decisions that will look to achieve a vision for getting more sustainable development, as well as meeting our climate change targets and our very ambitious nature conservation targets.
One element that has not come up in questioning so far, which we are particularly keen to raise, is clause 22 on householder payments for electricity transmission lines. We do not think that making payments to householders is the way to go. Instead, we should really focus on building on the good practice that we already have for onshore wind farms, where we consult and involve communities in community benefit schemes, and also look to achieve community benefit schemes that help communities, in turn, address climate change, get more rooftop solar on people’s homes in rural areas and improve the energy efficiency of rural housing. It seems to us that giving payments to householders completely goes against working in any kind of public interest, and we urge parliamentarians to look at that clause of the Bill again.
David Simmonds
Q
I am interested in your view on whether the Bill sufficiently addresses the balance between green belt and agricultural use. What improvements would you want to see on compulsory purchase processes to ensure that landowners in those locations have appropriate recourse? Also, where it is clear that the land in question provides a broader public benefit, as opposed to simply being a business standing on its own, how can we ensure that the broader public benefit can be accounted for in the reckoning up of the value of that land?
Rachel Hallos: It is almost like having ransom strips next to urban conurbations. That green belt gets sucked into that urban conurbation and, all of a sudden, it becomes a brown belt—I think “grey belt” was also considered at one stage. The reality is, when you are in that situation—I can completely understand, although some of my members would not; that is the leadership role that we have to take—that that land is of national benefit through development. That is because it increases the size of the town, the infrastructure—the whole thing. On what the Bill needs to do, again it goes back to doing the number crunching. What is the long-term benefit of this?
We also have to remember that when we compulsorily purchase land from a farmer who is running their business and living there, they have every right to make a decision to restart their business elsewhere. What if the land value goes up and they are being paid just the flat agricultural rate? Everybody wants that land, because guess what? Everybody wants land right now. Everybody wants land for everything, so land prices are creeping up anyway. There is then artificial inflation of the land price in that area because everybody is after it.
That bit also needs to be taken into consideration when it comes to recompensing anybody who has land taken away from them. It is a complicated formula, but the Bill really does need to look at that if we are to go anywhere near rebuilding confidence and trust between the agricultural community and Government. Especially if we put it in the package of everything else that is going on, we are very much in danger of having it go “bang” again. This has to stop. We all have to get on with life. We all have to get on with what we do—produce food, infrastructure or growth for the country.
Paul Miner: Green belt is a planning policy, but as you have rightly pointed out, green-belt land often has a wide range of public benefits and meanings for people who live in the towns and cities that the green belts surround. We strongly support the Bill’s provision for spatial development strategies, because you need effective strategic planning in order for green-belt policy to work effectively.
Also, from our perspective, we should not just be looking at how the planning policy should work. If we accept that the vast majority of green-belt land will not become grey belt in the future but will remain designated green belts, we need to think about how we can better manage that land. That is why it is really important that in spatial development strategies and in the Government’s land use framework, we have policies for improving the management of green-belt land. Until now, green-belt land has been relatively poorly served by successive Governments’ environmental land management schemes. There is relatively low take-up in green-belt areas. We urge the Government, as part of the land use framework but also with spatial development strategies, to seek to improve the quality of green belts for nature and for climate.
Rachel Hallos: May I add one last thing to that? Sorry to be rude. When it comes to the spatial development strategies, LNRSs and all the different things that are going on and are being consulted on at the moment, there is no legal requirement to consult the land manager. That worries me. It is just wrong.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Rachel Hallos: It is bigger than just this Bill on CPOs. There is a mistrust. There is a concern that people are not taking food production or agriculture seriously. This is what it is encapsulated in, but the CPO element for me is that people have felt the pain of badly delivered CPOs, through High Speed 2 in particular; other things have gone on in this country. That has lingered really heavily, so when you start mentioning compulsory purchase to any land manager or landowner, it sends shivers down their spine.
We are concerned that disregarding a hope value puts landowners and farmers in that tailspin again, so where do we go from here? How do we deal with this? We have found that especially with our members and HS2—I will keep referring to HS2 because it has been an absolute nightmare, and it is still a nightmare. They are still waiting for the final, agreed payment in many cases, so that they can start getting on with their life. That is the concern when it comes to the hope value.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Rachel Hallos: It is the fact that there is potential they will not get paid the true value of that land or that farm—that is the concern.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Rachel Hallos: Ultimately, it is a person’s life and livelihood. They are going to get paid only the basic agricultural value, out of no fault of their own, and they have to start up elsewhere. This is not going to happen just once or twice; if we follow the huge infrastructure plans that we all know the country needs—we accept as a union that we need to grow—this will inflate land prices elsewhere, as people choose to continue their livelihoods elsewhere and go looking for that land. That is the difference.
Paul Holmes
I will come back again, although I know you are under the cosh at the moment.
Rachel Hallos: It’s fine; that is why I am here.
Paul Holmes
By the way, don’t apologise. You are perfectly entitled, as every other witness is, to give your view on this piece of legislation. I would say, however, that the Minister is absolutely correct that there were some hope value reforms under the last Government, and I was not here—
Rachel Hallos: I accept that.
Paul Holmes
Q
Rachel Hallos: I am a tenant farmer; my landlord can do as they wish. In reality, I have few rights, so I understand what it is like to be a tenant farmer. If this will change the relationship between a landlord and a tenant, you have a very difficult situation. Of course, the tenant will have only a certain pool of money to take with them elsewhere to go and rent another farm. As we all know, there is not a lot of them there—that will be the difference.
It is the practical differences that I am looking at here. I am putting my farmer hat on, which says, “If that happened to us on our farm, where would we go and what would we go with?” We would be in a competitive market trying to get that farm to continue what we do, which is produce food. As many of you may know, not all farms are the same. That is the farmer answer for you, putting myself in those shoes.
The Chair
We have just over a minute and a half. With a quick question from Luke Murphy, and a quick answer, we might just get something in.
Luke Murphy
Q
Rachel Hallos: I think there is merit to reforming it, but it is about making sure that the reforms are done in the right way and are fair to everybody. I think I have already said it, but I have this line: if somebody is going to benefit commercially from that compulsory purchase, the person from whom it is being purchased should also benefit, and it should enable them to have adequate funding to go and continue elsewhere.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allocated. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the panel for their answers to the questions.
Examination of Witnesses
Councillor Adam Hug, Councillor Richard Clewer and Councillor Richard Wright gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Councillor Adam Hug, chair of the Local Government Association’s local infrastructure and net zero board, and leader of Westminster city council; Councillor Richard Clewer, leader of Wiltshire council and housing and planning spokesperson for the County Councils Network; and Councillor Richard Wright, leader of North Kesteven district council, and planning lead for the District Councils’ Network. We have until 4.25 pm for this session.
Paul Holmes
Thank you, Councillors, for being here. I put on record that many Committee members are former or still serving councillors.
Paul Holmes
Q
I will ask two mainstream questions: first, around some of the Government’s wider reforms, which in some cases the Opposition welcome, particularly around local government reform and the advent of new mayoralties—combined authority mayoralties. Do you think that undertaking a huge amount of work in terms of planning reform should come before we have seen the advancement of the reforms under local government reorganisation and mayoralties? In any area in the legislation, are you concerned that some of the intended consequences of the planning reforms will not be able to be delivered as they should, because we do not have the reforms to local government, which will fundamentally impact outcomes in the longer term?
Councillor Hug: Obviously, the Government are trying to do multiple things at once—that is the case for all Governments at all times on all things; the world does not stand still. The challenge for this piece of legislation, and everything else, is to try to build in the scope to evolve once the overall picture of local government reform is complete. There is quite some way to go on that in different parts of the country. I am speaking from a part of the country that is not currently in that round of discussions yet.
At the heart of it, the local plan has an important role, which we want to make sure is there in any new strategic set-up that is created, and that local councillors have a say. We want to make sure that, whatever core tier there is of local government, it has the ability to work with the new strategic mayoral authority in a collaborative and productive way so that both tiers are working in a partnership, which clearly recognises that the new role has been brought in by the Government and the importance of local councillors and local communities, which understand how to meet some of those strategic objectives in an effective way at a local level. It is about making sure that we are looking to build a partnership approach through any local government reform, and looking at how that then impacts on the planning agenda.
Paul Holmes
Q
Councillor Wright: Yes, completely. You always live in hope. I have sat on planning for 18 years, before any Committee members want to have a go at planning.
Paul Holmes
It is your fault then.
Councillor Wright: I have lived in hope that we get clarity on purpose and policy. At the moment, we have far too many policies all coming through at the same time. For instance, the conflict between LGR spatial development plans—it is chicken and egg, and seems to have come at the wrong time.
I have spent the last few months explaining to residents that, because of the huge conflagration of policies at the moment, we have policies that we do not think will achieve what they should. For instance, I refer to the 1.5 million permissions that will be put in place because there is not a single tool in anything we have seen so far that will compel builders to build. We have that on one side, and now we are having to explain to people that, alongside that, they will no longer have a voice in the planning system if some of these policies go through.
This has all been swallowed up. Perhaps the attention of some people in the local authority could rightly be on local government reform and devolution when, really, we need to see this in the round. There are so many policies coming through—conflicting policies and policies that we think are only part-finished. Some of them could achieve a lot of what we want to see and do, and what our residents want to see, but at the moment it is such a hodgepodge that it is very difficult to follow and to see where the concentration needs to be.
Councillor Clewer: From the county’s point of view, I think you are raising some valid points. Having been through unitarisation, it is extremely disruptive. You are placing an awful lot on districts and counties that are going through that and creating new authorities to then make them look at planning reform of this level of significance. Planning was one of the hardest areas to get into the new unitaries. We still struggle with it 16 years on. It has proved really challenging because of the local, granular impact that planning has.
If you then want to look at the issue around the spatial plans, when some of us do not have mayors, or even mayoral geographies, I have no idea how we are meant to be talking with equal voices to create spatial delivery plans when we have that hodgepodge. At the very least, we have to know our mayoral geographies to be able to make any headway in coming up with a meaningful plan. Honestly, without the mayors, and the authority, funding and the voice to central Government that comes with them, it will put everyone else at risk. That really concerns me. It creates the ability for mayors, perhaps in metropolitan areas, to push development into more rural areas when the rural areas do not have the voice and the same ability to express their challenges and concerns. You need the granularity to understand the impact of planning on the local level.
Paul Holmes
Q
“Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements”—
could you each, within the remits that you have, outline your concerns around removing some of the pre-application requirements, and what the impact might be on your workforce, which is trying to determine what is and is not right for your areas? Do you accept the premise of removing certain pre-application requirements to speed up planning processes?
Councillor Hug: Are you referring to new clause 44, not clause 44?
Matthew Pennycook
Nationally significant infrastructure projects, which I do not think you have chosen to talk about.
Councillor Hug: No—they are coming through very quickly. From a local authority perspective, I think the point is making sure that, if they are not formal consultees, there is some other mechanism for local authorities and others to feed into the process in a structured way to make sure that their voices are heard, even if formal statutory consultees are being reformed.
Paul Holmes
We are removing statutory consultees.
Councillor Hug: There is significant concern about that removal. That process is how you identify some of the specific issues on the ground that need significant further investigation. I do not think you will save any time by removing that, because the investigation will turn up at the planning stage. You will just delay planning, because these will be areas around statutory consultees. What it will do is give the public the impression that things are just being rubber stamped and railroaded through. That will be catastrophic. NSIPs are such contested spaces already. We have to give people the chance to raise concerns to identify issues on the ground at local level that need further work and further attention. If we do not do that, people will lose all faith in that process, and they are already sceptical enough.
Councillor Clewer: I have the same concerns. NSIPs are decided by the Secretary of State. I have five in my district at the moment, including battery farms, solar farms and a reservoir. It is not about objection—consultation can bring forth some really good ideas, some solutions and some changes. It is massively important. For instance, even if there will be an impact on your community, the community benefit could be discussed right at the start. All sorts of improvements could be put in place through consultation before it gets to the formal stage. It is also about the appearance of removing that consultation. At a time when LGR devolution is meant to be bringing decentralisation, to just say that this is all going to be decided centrally is not a good picture.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Councillor Wright: For a start, the vast majority of planning permissions or planning applications are already decided by officers anyway in many councils—something like 97% in my authority were decided—so what exactly do you think we are now going to pass when under more pressure?
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Councillor Wright: With regard to a national scheme, if it was advisory not mandatory—if there was some general advice out there that could be given as guidance —that would be better than mandating. What could be mandated for one area, when you look at super-urban areas compared with rural areas, might not be exactly the same sort of decision making that you are looking for.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Councillor Hug: I think there should be a common core. I am not quite sure how the mayoralties and others will feed into responding to particular issues around the urban and rural geographies. I think there should be a basic common core to this. Looking at how it might operate, again, I am coming from an authority that has only 3% going to committees—all told, it is about 1.4%, if you include all the advertising and listed building concerns that get through. A very small amount go through, so there is a lot of good practice happening already.
In terms of how that works, one of the things that we want to ensure that we do not lose is the ability, for example if a scheme is likely to be rejected by officers, to put that to a committee that might come to a more pragmatic decision than just a rigid response based on policy. There are some other things, such as we want to ensure that there are opportunities for councils to go beyond the scheme of delegations; if there was a nationally set thing, you want to make sure that it is not just a cap on what is delegated.
I think that some flexibility around urban and rural, and working with local authorities about the design of the specific scheme, would be good. It is clear that they will want as much guidance as possible about the types of things that the Government are wanting to see happen. Obviously, from our perspective we understand the point about the centrality of getting the local plans and making them as robust as possible to give people clarity about what goes on in future.
The challenge comes when quite a lot of schemes come forward that are not in full compliance with policy, because the real world is messy and things have to be traded off against each other. The question is basically to what extent can those trade-offs be dealt with at office level versus at committee. That is why we want to get into the details of that with you, to make it work effectively.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Councillor Clewer: I have a couple of points to add. There are elements in what you are proposing that I would welcome. On mandatory training, goodness knows why we do not have that already—it is desperately needed. I am not sure that Richard would entirely agree, but when it comes to local plan allocated sites, I struggle with the idea that they could come to committee to then be refused. I think there is a benefit in committees or someone looking at elements of design and whether 106s are being carried out appropriately, but once something has gone through a local plan, I think we have to be careful about where committees step in.
To give an example of where I think you have to be incredibly careful with this, I took a planning application to committee last week for a listed building where someone wanted to cut and raise a beam by 10 inches. They had had a stroke, and they were in a position where they were literally having to live in a conservatory. Officers had said no. I got that application to a committee so that the beam could be raised to allow a stairlift to go in—when the person leaves the beam could be lowered—and the committee almost unanimously approved it.
We had the ability at an incredibly basic level to give someone the dignity of being able to get to their bathroom through a planning system where the harm was conceived by everyone as minimal. We cannot lose that ability to resolve those local and micro issues in a really local way. Finding the balance there is going to be challenging. Too much permitted development, too many automatics, will prevent us from being able to do that. I am sure we could all give further examples of where we have needed to use that ability to deal with things, very often with refusals, to enable them to be granted.
On the flipside, sometimes it is fair to say that members will get something that is recommended for approval and call to committee because they do not like it. I think we have to be able to justify on good planning grounds why on earth we are calling something to committee. If we do not have them I have no problem with officers turning round and saying, “I am sorry; you haven’t got planning grounds,” but it is about finding the right balance.
Councillor Wright: With regard to local plans and to what Richard has just referred to there, we have already instigated that in our authority you have to give planning reasons for bringing something to the planning committee. You might consider that you could just delegate a decision on a local plan allocated piece of land, but some of those could be of considerable size; they could be for a sustainable urban extension, for instance, so you cannot just act on the principle that because it is in the plan it does not need to be at committee.
We are makers of place: we build homes, not houses. We do not want to see officers suddenly having to make a delegated decision on how many houses go on a piece of land based on how the developer wants to bring it forward. The master planning, the design coding and all those issues need to be taken into consideration. It should not be left to officers who will end up getting the same grief that members get, but as unelected officers.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Councillor Clewer: No.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Councillor Hug: No. We had a thing where someone in a public report was saying we had only built x number of houses, but the reality was that far more homes had gone through under delegated authority than had actually gone to committee, so we were being wronged by the fact we had done that process.
Councillor Clewer: But there may be some specific circumstance that creates a nuanced judgment where it absolutely should go to committee. And please do not just talk about the big projects; it is those small ones that are deeply personal to people where national policy says no, but circumstance actually says that you can get round national policy.
Matthew Pennycook
I take the point about the nuance. That is helpful—thank you.
Gideon Amos
Q
Councillor Hug: As the Minister pointed out, the consultation is going on in parallel with the Bill. Hopefully we can make this national scheme of delegation work, provided that there is a degree of flexibility built into it. I hope that working between local government and national Government can help to resolve some of those issues at pace. Obviously some things may need to be specified, but we are hopeful that that kind of engagement can help to resolve some of the issues.
Councillor Clewer: If in the scheme of delegation we see guidelines around how a scheme of delegation should work, I am not sure that that would concern me hugely. If they are prescriptive rather than guidelines, we will fall into the problem that you will create cases where you need to get round them but you cannot.
This is a simplistic example—I will get into trouble now with the New Forest national park authority—but we allow parish councils there to call things into committee. I think that that is crazy. It ends up with all sorts of things coming to committee that should never go near them. I would love a delegation that said that they cannot do that, on a personal level. There are elements where I think Government guidance would be really helpful.
Gideon Amos
Guidance?
Councillor Clewer: Yes. Pretty firm guidance, but still guidance, with the ability where you really have the nuance to be able to work around it.
Councillor Hug: It goes to the point about having a common core of things, with certain things that apply in certain areas but then a space for guidance on top of that.
Councillor Wright: I agree that it should be guidance, not mandatory. We always seem to see policy brought forward on the basis that there is a problem. Perhaps for once we could go out to where planning is actually done well—where authorities have gone through modernisation and done things in the way you would expect them to be done—and work with those authorities, instead of assuming that there is a problem in the planning system.
Also, how far will this delegation go? If it turns into nothing more than delegation that is almost similar to permitted development rights, if people think that that is not dangerous, they should look at a picture of Terminus House in Harlow. They would see somewhere where they would not want to live. Members were nowhere near that.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Q
Councillor Clewer: I agree that there are areas at the moment where planning simply delays or blocks infrastructure provision. That needs changing; I absolutely agree with that. I suspect people will judge the extent to which it needs changing based on where they live and the specific infrastructure that they are facing, but I think that that needs unblocking.
You need to be very careful with the assumption that the Bill will build more houses. It will not build more houses. The Bill, and the reforms that we have seen to the NPPF, will see more planning permissions. I have 18,837 extant planning permissions in Wiltshire at the moment. Developers told me that they could build only about 6,000 the last time I asked them, which strangely enough was just under the four-year housing land supply under the last Government. I am sure that if I asked them today, they would say that they could build just about 8,000.
I have 2,400 houses south of Trowbridge that have been stuck, failing to get the section 106 agreement signed, for something like 14 years. There has to be something in the Bill that forces building. If we are to issue planning, it has to come with the actual development. We have to compel. If developers have signed a commitment that they will complete houses on whatever basis and have fallen behind, they need to start paying the council tax on them or something. At the moment, the Bill is not going to do that, I am afraid. I do not see anything in it that will actually achieve that.
Councillor Hug: I support Richard’s point about working for more “use it or lose it” powers to ensure that planning permission does not just go on the books to raise land value and not do much else, although I note the points about hope value and everything. We recognise that there is a whole heap of challenges to delivery that sit outside the scope of the Bill.
On the Bill, we support the Government’s general principles about clarification and simplification. We recognise that the strong national growth and infrastructure demands open up some of the opportunities for green energy and all sorts of other things that we are calling for in local government.
I want to draw attention to the work being done on planning fees. Ensuring that local authorities have the best possible remuneration for the work to make sure they are covering their costs fully is key to making the system work well to deliver the outcomes that you are looking for. But we recognise that that alone will not deal with it, so we have to look at how we can further strengthen the planning workforce. Again, that is about making sure that the language does not say that the planning system or the planners are the problem. We want people to go into the industry and we want them to do it, but the planning fee stuff is helpful in supporting that.
We support the principles, but the key thing is to ensure that the local authorities retain a voice in what goes forward and work with the Government on some of the practical things such as the scheme of delegations.
Councillor Wright: I think we have got close to it. As we said, we have nothing against the professional training of planning committees so that the industry knows what it is dealing with and so that the idea that we do not know what we are doing on planning committees cannot be used to beat us over the head all the time. In my district, similarly to Richard’s, 11,500 permissions were put in place between 2016 and 2024 and 5,500 were built out. There is no excuse for the rest not to be built.
Unfortunately, the proposals that have been put forward do not include anything at all to mandate that builders will build. There is a proposal over CPO powers, and the missing thing that we would like to see is “build it or lose it”. If there is an allocated site and they have permissions, but they simply do not build on it, give us the CPO powers so we can CPO that. That would help to build houses, because we could then start to control the destiny of those sites. At the moment, there are some really useful things that could have been in the Bill that are missing.
Councillor Clewer: But CPO it at agricultural value.
Councillor Wright: Yes: agricultural value, not hope value.
Councillor Hug: I very much support the planning training. The LGA supports the approach to hope value that the Government are taking. The CPO power is particularly being deployed in urban settings around land assembly, which is the intent behind the Bill.
David Simmonds
Q
Secondly, coming back to the point about strategic infrastructure projects, one of the issues is that local authorities have a lot of obligations, particularly under environmental law, whereby they have a specific legal duty around issues like air quality. Effectively excluding them from the decision-making process or even a failure to intervene in the process would leave them open to legal challenge. Air quality is a good example: I know from my experience at Heathrow airport that there was a local authority fine of £300 million per annum for the level of air quality breaches caused by Heathrow airport, through which we would have been judicially reviewed by ClientEarth had we not judicially reviewed central Government over their proposals to expand that.
Can you think of some other areas, around either environmental or other legal obligations, that are imposed on local authorities where the role you play in either the development and consent order process or those national strategic infrastructure projects is arising not simply out of local politics but because of legal obligations to your residents that you have to fulfil?
Councillor Wright: With regard to nationally significant infrastructure projects, for instance, I was thinking about the fact that we are responsible for the environmental impact assessments. I worry at times that we do not have enough weight with those when it comes to the actual decision making.
One example, which we are testing at the moment, relates to battery storage—a new thing that is exciting lots of people—and whether we can predict not just the here and now, but what would happen in the event of a problem. If we are going to have a huge array of batteries on what was good agricultural land suddenly blighting the landscape, we could ensure that the industry is not allowed to use a type of battery that is more prone to cause huge environmental issues if it catches fire, when there are already good batteries that could be used. But it comes down to a financial decision. In some places, we would actually like more weight to be given to the powers that we already have, but quite often, as you say, we find ourselves guarding the place but not being able to make the decisions that would avoid the need for guards in the first place.
Councillor Hug: My concern is not about gold plating. It is about the question whether local authorities across the country have the capacity on their planning teams to deal with the range and breadth of the requirements that are placed on them. That is one reason why local government reform is in the air, but I would also welcome some movement on fees. We have to make sure that planning is seen as a field that people want to go into, to help unlock these things, rather than these people being seen purely as the blockers. Ultimately, part of the blockage is that the system is not working effectively. The question is how we can work with local authorities to deliver not only training to communities, but greater support to the officer core so that they can move stuff through as quickly as possible.
Councillor Clewer: I do not think we gold plate our local plans. There are many councils that want to go beyond existing guidance, particularly on net zero, for example. That is mostly to stop expensive retrofitting in future and make people’s bills cheaper. There are areas where councils will want to go beyond existing national policy, but every example I can think of was done for a very good reason and will end up with broad public support.
On the bigger issue of legislation, yes, there are some real challenges. Some environmental legislation can be significantly challenging when you want to see building or when you are looking to find a way to mitigate or even unlock. For example, I have a brownfield site in Trowbridge where they need to leave a bat corridor by a train line. How on earth that makes sense I honestly do not know, but it is making the viability of the site really challenging. Some sort of off-site provision would be far more appropriate: it would be far better for the bats and would help to unlock development.
There are also problems around highways issues, for example. Whether it be for economic development or building land, there is an inability for us to work properly with National Highways to deal with motorway junctions, or the A36 in my case. The constraints that that places on us can be real blockers to our desire to build in areas that would be sensible, as opposed to in areas where developers are putting forward planning permissions.
Lastly, it would be really nice if we could tell developers where they should be building, rather than developers saying, “This bit of land? We can’t build on it yet,” when we know full well that we will get a speculative application the moment the local plan is through for that bit of land as well, having just fought the contentious bit of land.
Amanda Martin
Q
Councillor Hug: The LGA broadly supports the new powers. Obviously we are looking to find ways to ensure that local authorities can take advantage of those new powers when they come in. That goes back to helping councils to be more entrepreneurial about unlocking land and giving them the support that they need to do that. Whether it is in Portsmouth—a place I know well; I was born there—or to a certain extent in parts of my patch, these are important tools in the arsenal, but it is also about unlocking those conversations. Having that on the books should hopefully enable those conversations to happen, because ultimately you want to come to an agreement with a partner to avoid having to use legal powers. It will help to unlock those conversations. It is still not going to be a magic wand, and I am not going to be able to walk down my high street and say, “That, that and that,” and suddenly unlock all these things. There are processes in place to prevent this being misused. We strongly welcome the intention to go into this space and the proposals in front of us.
Councillor Clewer: If you look at the points about London and land assembly, they make a great deal of sense to me. Please be careful, however, with the assumption that brownfield land will be made viable simply through compulsory purchase. The problem with most brownfield development is a viability one. By the time you have demolished what is on it and then remediated the land, the net value of that land is negative.
There is no point in a council compulsorily purchasing something that then has negative value for the council. That will just bankrupt councils. If we are going to unlock brownfield, something more significant has to be done, either to use some sort of brownfield development fund—that feels a bit wrong, but it is a way you could look at it—or to compel developers to deal with brownfield before they are allowed to build on greenfield. We would suddenly see town centres all over the country being redeveloped if developers were not allowed to build on the greenfield until they had built on the brownfield.
Councillor Wright: I will not repeat any points. Brownfield, for instance, in a rural area could be something that had glass houses on it. It could be a site that has no connectivity whatever to any settlement and has no services, and still be brownfield land. It would potentially come under CPO. At DCN, we think that there should be a subsection to CPO, and not just concentrating on land. If we want to look at regeneration and the issues in town centres, where there are vacant properties and areas blighted by crime or that just need added value, at the moment the CPO process is still a little too legal-heavy. The route to appeal, which a lot of it will go through, takes far too long. Perhaps there is a role going forward with mayoral authorities for that to be the appeal route. If we could see a system that shortens the CPO process for regen of property in town centres, different from land assembly, that would be useful.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the allocated time for questions. I thank the panel for answering the questions and for their time.
Examination of Witness
Catherine Howard gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Catherine Howard, partner and head of planning at Herbert Smith Freehills. For this session we have until 4.40 pm.
Paul Holmes
Q
Catherine Howard: Yes.
Paul Holmes
Q
Could you also outline how you think the proposal could help the speediness of planning applications, but also have a greater impact on local government’s workforce challenges in recruiting and holding on to planning experts? Do you think the legislation will allow local authorities to have enough funding to keep town planners in local authority town halls and not going off to private companies?
Catherine Howard: The way the legislation is drafted, it looks to me like it is highly prescriptive and will be very effective at ringfencing. It talks about the need to secure that the income from the fees or charges is applied towards the carrying out of the functions that are listed. Those are functions such as dealing with planning applications, certificates of lawfulness, tree applications and listed buildings. There are things it does not deal with—that is presumably deliberate—such as general enforcement and plan making. It seems to me that, the way it is drafted, you could not use the money from all of those developer application fees and just apply it to plan making and those kind of functions. If that is the intention, that is what it appears to achieve.
Regarding recruitment, I know that fee recovery has been put into law in a number of different planning regimes. I am more of a specialist in the national infrastructure regime, where those provisions have been added quite liberally. It will be interesting to see how effective a pay-as-you-go system is. My concern still, in terms of how effective that will be at recruitment and retention, is that I do not know how much flexibility statutory authorities will have to set public pay scales. I would have thought—I am not an expert in this area—that if you want to attract and keep people who are otherwise tempted to go off to the private sector where pay seems to be higher, particularly with supply and demand the way that it is, you will need to make the applicable pay scales higher.
I am not sure that the fees that are attracted by a developer can just be used to give people bonuses or higher salaries within the private sector. That is my concern. If the fees can somehow be used to recruit and retain more people within planning authorities, that must be a good thing. It seems to me that there has been more of a drain of talent out of the local authorities and all of the public sector authorities and regulators post Covid in particular, now that people can work from home. Some of the benefits of working with slightly more flexibility, which the public sector was always better at than the private sector, have slightly gone. I imagine there is more of an inducement for people to move across if they are being offered more money, so I recognise the problem.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Secondly, on the broad ambition to provide for a faster and more certain consenting NSIP process, do you think there is anything that we are missing here that we should still look at?
Catherine Howard: I hugely welcome the change that was made yesterday, in terms of speeding up and cutting out unnecessary bureaucracy that helped no one, except for helping professionals like me to spend more time and gain more fees out of our clients. There is, as we just talked about, a lack of enough professionals in the whole industry to staff the system. The Government’s ambition is to triple the rate of DCO consenting to get 150 DCOs through in this Parliament. We cannot magic up more comms consultants, lawyers, environmental impact assessment consultants and planning consultants in that period, so we desperately need a way to apply those professionals most efficiently in a really focused way across all the projects we need.
I have seen it in my career, having consented a number of projects since 2008, when the regime came in. Without the law changing at all, custom and practice has built up gold plating and precedent to slow the system down hugely. That is particularly true for the pre-app process, which I think the Government’s stats say has gone from an average of 14 months in 2008 to 27 months a few years ago—I suspect it is even longer now. I have seen more and more rounds of consultation on small changes. I have seen developers not putting through other changes that would be really beneficial and that communities or statutory consultees want, because they would have to have a three, four or six-month delay to do more consultation on the change.
I think the cart is before the horse. It has become a very clunky and bureaucratic legalistic process, rather than what planning should be and is in all other regimes—town and country planning, and even hybrid bills—where you have more latitude to change your mind, do some lighter-touch consultation if appropriate and do some focused consultation with the key statutory consultees on the key issues, rather than producing these huge preliminary environmental information reports, which are incredibly daunting and time-consuming for everyone to read. The public sector, local authorities, regulators and the public are feeling overwhelmed by the amount of information that is put out there, which is ultimately just a form of legal box-ticking without the laser focus that you really need on key issues, so I hugely welcome the change.
I was with an international investor yesterday who is interested in investing in a big portfolio of solar projects in the UK that have not yet been consented, and I was asked to explain the regime. The pre-app is always something I feel I have to apologise for and explain, and give the best story about how quick it might be, but it was great yesterday. They really welcome this change. I can see it being highly beneficial for investors who can shop around Europe and elsewhere, in terms of bringing development here.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Catherine Howard: Perhaps some guidance to the Planning Inspectorate about how to run the examinations with slightly more focus than we have seen. There has been a drift towards more questions and more rabbit holes, and we do not have time for this or enough professionals in the industry. That does not seem to benefit the consenting system, which has also slowed down, become a bit less focused and become more bureaucratic. I would welcome anything that we can do to encourage the examination process to be more focused—possibly shorter, but certainly less labour-intensive, unless there is a purpose to it.
Gideon Amos
Q
Catherine Howard: There should be some education on judicial review for inspectors. As a lawyer, I can tell you that people do not bring judicial reviews because not enough questions were asked or the environmental statement was not long enough; you will never pick the one thing that someone brings a judicial review on. Most of them are not successful, and they are very niche.
That probably is one of inspectors’ fears, but I also think that they want to be seen to be hearing all the issues, even if they know that those are not going to be material to the determination. That was not really the purpose of the regime; it was supposed to be mostly written reps and so on. We could do some education for the inspectorate about the things that do and do not lead to judicial reviews. Inspectors actually have a lot of latitude about what it is rational for them to consider a material planning consideration and what it is not, and so the depth at which they need to look into things. I think they sometimes go slightly overboard.
Gideon Amos
Q
Catherine Howard: That side of the planning regime is not my specialism, but hope value is part of the value of the land, as far as the ordinary person sees it, so they will not be delighted if they are not going to get paid what they see as part of the value of the land. It is a wider public interest test, is it not? I am not saying that it is the wrong thing to do, but I imagine that if people know that they are not going to get the market value, they will object to compulsory purchase orders perhaps a bit more than they otherwise would have.
Of course, if the compulsory purchase order is made, people might try to bring more judicial reviews. However, I think that it would be quite hard for them to bring a judicial review on the basis of the test, which is quite wide in terms of the purposes for which hope value can be disapplied. As long as the acquiring local authority is within those tests, I think it would be hard to JR on that basis, but people might find other grounds, such as procedural grounds, on which to have a go.
The Chair
We have just over a minute, John Grady, so it will have to be a very quick question and answer.
John Grady
Q
Catherine Howard: It definitely makes us more attractive to international investors on the nationally significant infrastructure side. I also like the fact that we can now opt out of the DCO regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects, because sometimes it is lighter touch and more helpful to go local. That is helpful as well. As I say, the pre-app stuff is incredibly helpful, and the national policy stuff. The EDP stuff is helpful, and the nature recovery matters in relation to housing. I will flag, however, that I will be making a submission about how I think the Bill could go a bit further on habitats regulation matters with regard to nationally significant infrastructure, because the nature recovery plans are slightly harder to apply—
The Chair
Order. We have run out of the available time for questions in this session. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you for your evidence.
Examination of witnesses
Richard Benwell, Mike Seddon and Carol Hawkey gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now take evidence from Richard Benwell, chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link; Mike Seddon, chief executive of Forestry England; and Carol Hawkey, director of estates at Forestry England. For this panel, we have until 5.5 pm.
Paul Holmes
Welcome to the Committee, and thank you for your time this afternoon. I only have one question—I mean no detriment to you guys, but we have recycled some of the themes and I know that Back-Bench Members want to ask questions, too, so I will be quick. We have had a lot of conversation and heard a lot of evidence about the nature restoration fund element of the legislation, as well as some concerns—for example, in my constituency from the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust and other organisations—about the nature restoration fund, and about other elements such as EDPs and Natural England’s ability to manage them. Are you confident that, under the Bill as drafted, nowhere in the country that is affected by the NRF or an EDP will see a reduction in environmental standards? Will this Bill in fact do what it attempts to outline, which is to increase environmental standards across the United Kingdom?
Richard Benwell: Thank you for having me. Quickly, to deal first with the question of whether nature is a blocker—that has come up a lot today—it is an absurd notion to suggest that it is the fault of nature or environmental regulations that we are not getting the infrastructure development that the Government want or the renewables infrastructure development that we want.
It is worth noting that Natural England reckons that 99% of the housing applications that it is consulted on go through perfectly properly; only 1% receive objections on the basis of environmental concerns. It is also worth noting that what you heard earlier—that the vast majority of major infrastructure projects are JR-ed because of environmental concerns—is both misrepresentation and factually inaccurate. There has been a recent spike, yes, but the long-term trend is that only 10% of major infrastructure projects are challenged. Lots of them go through the paper permission stage and have been found to have merits. It is important not to get drawn into that sense that nature and development are at odds; they can proceed perfectly well together. The question is how to do that.
We think that the Government are genuinely on to something—that there are ways to speed up development and allow developers to meet their environmental obligations more quickly and more simply, at the same time as helping to restore nature. We know that the planning system needs to do more to restore nature, so that aspiration for a win-win is a good one. To return to your question, however, we think that at the moment, as the Bill is drafted, that is not what will be on the page of the law—what is here now would represent a regression in the strength of environmental law. The situation at the moment is a high degree of certainty about the environmental results that are supposed to result from environmental law. That is being swapped, frankly, for a lot of wishful thinking in the way that the Bill is framed.
The Bill would allow developers to pay a levy to discharge their environmental responsibilities, and then, through legislative sleight of hand and some magical legal jiggery-pokery, that would be replaced with a lot of subjective opinion in how results are judged. The mitigation hierarchy would be lost, so the expectation to avoid harm would be short-circuited. We would be in a situation where damage could happen now in return for promises of future environmental improvements that are very loosely measured under the Bill. At the moment, developers are expected to pay fully for environmental results, but the Bill sets out a situation where developers may pay only part of the costs of remediation, and that is subject to a viability test.
In the Bill, the Government are putting a lot of reliance on the idea of an overall improvement test, whereby the Secretary of State is allowed to bring in an environmental delivery plan if it is likely to lead to measures that will outweigh the harm to nature. That “likely to” test is a much lower legal bar of certainty than the one we have at the moment, where you need a high degree of scientific certainty that the environmental measures will actually lead to results. It is worth emphasising that I understand why a lot of people want to immediately pause part 3 of the Bill. We are in an ecological crisis, with 19% of species abundance lost since 1970 in the UK—32% in England—and one in six species at risk of extinction. To mess with our most important nature laws is a really risky thing to do.
What I would much rather see is the law being amended in Committee and through this process, so that the win-win the Government have rightly identified—that, actually, we can better spend some of the developer money to lead to bigger, better projects for nature restoration, at the same time as speeding up development—can be achieved. We have some proposals for how the Bill could be amended in some quite simple but important ways to bring that mitigation hierarchy back in, to achieve surety of results and to make sure that polluters really do pay for harm. I would love to talk through those with the Committee.
Paul Holmes
Q
Mike Seddon: indicated dissent.
Carol Hawkey: indicated dissent.
Paul Holmes
Q
Given your previous role within the Department, working with a Secretary of State, and given your expertise from your current role, do you think that in its current guise Natural England is capable of undertaking the responsibilities outlined in the legislation? Are you worried about the resourcing of that organisation going forward, considering that it will have quite new, detailed and complicated responsibilities?
Richard Benwell: There is no doubt that Natural England will need a significant uplift in resourcing to enable it to do this job properly. Natural England was subject to some pretty serious cuts over the last decade, and the last settlement was not very positive for Natural England either, with more job losses coming. When you look into the statistics of Natural England’s funding, some of the increases in recent years have been on capital fund rather than day-to-day spend on the kind of experts we need to do this work out on the ground. Part of the problem sometimes, with the risk aversion surrounding the current incarnation of the habitats regulations, is the lack of expertise from advisers, to give it the confidence to go out and suggest where strategic solutions can happen and to implement the law well.
Natural England will definitely need a boost. It is worth noting that it is not even able to fulfil all its current duties to the standard that we would expect. Only half of sites of special scientific interest have been visited in something like the last decade, and Natural England is already having to focus its work on statutory advice for planning applications. It will need more of that expertise, but we have confidence in the organisation and its leadership. We hope that the Government will properly resource Natural England and other agencies to help to make this work if it goes ahead, as amended.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Richard, you will know that we do not accept that development has to come at the expense of nature. We are very much targeting a win-win solution when it comes to development and the environment. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I have had a huge amount of engagement with you and others in the sector to try to develop a solution that achieves that. I therefore want to drill into some of the concerns you have outlined, in two ways.
First, on the introduction, you welcomed the
“legal guarantee that the Nature Restoration Fund must not only compensate for damage but actually benefit protected wildlife.”
But the claim today is that the Bill leaves us open to regression. Could you elaborate on how those two square together?
Secondly, you have just said that you have confidence in Natural England and its leadership. Marian Spain, the chief executive officer, gave evidence earlier today. She said that the Bill effectively maintains the mitigation hierarchy, but you have just said that the Bill undermines the mitigation hierarchy. Can you clarify why you have a difference of opinion with Marian on that particular issue?
Richard Benwell: Of course. On the first question, we were grateful for engagement ahead of the Bill’s publication, and we were really pleased to hear your aspirations to achieve a win-win. The question is whether the overall improvement test in clause 55(4) does what it is meant to do.
The legal drafting suggests that a Secretary of State can agree an environmental delivery plan only if he is satisfied that the benefits for a protected feature “are likely” to outweigh the harm to that protected feature. That comes some way short of the high bar of legal certainty that is expected in the current habitats regulations.
If you dig further into the Bill, you find that once an environmental delivery plan is in place, if there is evidence that it is not meeting the standards expected, it is up to the Secretary of State whether to withdraw the EDP and then only to take measures that he considers appropriate to remediate for any shortfall in environmental benefits that are supposed to be derived from the measures in the Bill.
Both of those points leave far more leeway for a Secretary of State to undercut nature restoration compared with the current situation, especially when it can happen up to 10 years after the initial harm to nature. We have all heard of circumstances where promised offsets for supposed harm to nature never materialise or die a couple of years down the line.
We think this can be fixed. We think that if you were to strengthen that requirement so that it matches the kind of legal certainty that we see in the habitats regulations, you would be in a much better position. On the positive side of the scale, if that promise to outweigh harm were a more substantive requirement to go beyond just about offsetting into real nature restoration, you start to get to the territory where this really could be a win-win.
We know you will be advised by Government lawyers to minimise risk. That is what always happens, which is why Governments like to have these subjective tests. But as it stands, the level of certainty of environmental benefit that is required of an EDP up front, and that is then required of proof of delivery along the way, is less than under the current law.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a very clear elaboration. On the Natural England point—on the mitigation hierarchy?
Richard Benwell: As it stands, before a development that would have adverse effects on a protected site can go ahead, it is necessary, first, to try to avoid those harms, then to reduce those harms and only then, once all those steps have been gone through, if a project is of overriding public interest, can it go ahead with compensation in place. The Bill essentially short-circuits that process.
In clause 50, there is a provision that makes it explicit that the compensatory measures set out in an EDP do not need to apply to the particular features and the particular site that is affected by a development. Once a developer has paid their levy, they can essentially disregard the provisions that are in the habitats regulations at the moment, and go straight to development. Of course, that is something we could also fix in the Bill by requiring Natural England to have confidence that development applications have sought to avoid harm before they go ahead. I think there would still be substantial and material benefits for developers from the simplicity of the process and their legal confidence, even if that requirement to avoid harm were put back in.
We know there would need to be flexibility, such as on the phasing of benefits versus time, but you could still have this important principle that you should not go straight to squishing the ancient woodland, or make it easy to splat the species. You need to make sure that you try to avoid that harm first, before the development goes ahead.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Richard Benwell: Yes, certainly at the project level. There is more of a requirement for Natural England to consider some of those circumstances at the EDP level. When it comes to specific projects, where it is all-important for the particular site or species, we think it is short-circuited. We will check in with Marian on that afterwards.
The Chair
We can possibly get two more colleagues in, so let’s be succinct with our questions and answers.
Ellie Chowns
Q
Richard Benwell: Let me see whether I can winkle out my clause numbers. Clause 62 requires the EDP levies to be set at a level that takes into account the viability test, and we all know how often viability gives wriggle room for developers. Our view is that the level of levy payments should be enough to secure the compensatory measures needed to go further than remediating the damage caused to nature.
Again, when you look further, you will find the provisions say that the levy needs to cover “wholly or partly” the amount needed to remediate that damage. That could lead to dangerous situations where you are cross-subsidising developers for harm to nature from other pots of money, such as farming funds. It would make far more sense to have a straight-up “polluter pays” principle, where developers pay for the cost of remediating the harm they cause to nature.
Ellie Chowns
Q
Richard Benwell: We have a “polluters possibly pay” principle here, a “maybe prevent” principle with the mitigation hierarchy, and the overall improvement test is a “possibly improve” test. All the way around, those fundamental principles are brought into doubt by the ways in which the Bill is drafted, particularly for species protection, where these are least appropriate.
Ellie Chowns
Q
Richard Benwell: They can be fixed, but we know it will take bravery and leadership from the Government. We hope that Ministers will go for it and the House will unite behind those changes.
Luke Murphy
Q
As someone who has worked on both housing and protecting the environment for the last 10 years, I support this approach because the current system is not delivering. Do you agree that the current system is not delivering for either nature or development? Notwithstanding the flaws—I think there can be some honest disagreement on what the outcomes might be—do you welcome the fact that a new approach is being proposed, given that the current system is not delivering for either development or nature?
Richard Benwell: There is good scientific evidence that the habitats regulations are the most effective site and species protections in the world, but we definitely still need to go further. Some of those strategic solutions, particularly for landscape issues like water pollution, air pollution and water availability, can be improved.
You are right. There are loads of places where we could go further. We would love to see things like building regulations for biodiversity in the Bill, to help get nature built into the fabric of development as we go. To suggest that the habitats regulations are not working is wrong, but their implementation can definitely be improved and more use can be made of this kind of strategic approach if it is done well.
Olly Glover
Q
We have had a lot of discussion about what Natural England’s chief executive said earlier. In her testimony, she was very clear that she feels that the provisions in the Bill do not have the effect of reducing current levels of environmental protection. What do you feel about that? Linked to that, do you feel that the Bill strikes the right balance between agriculture, environmental protection, housing and all the other things on which the planning system is here to deliver?
Mike Seddon: Thank you for the question and for inviting us. I will give you a perspective from a land manager. Forestry England is the largest land manager in England, and we are responsible for the public forest. I am not an expert on the development Bill, but from our perspective, the idea that environmental delivery plans can secure an improvement is correct, and it is particularly appealing if they can do that at a strategic scale. Anything that starts to join up nature across the country, which provisions of the Bill will enable us to do, would be a good thing.
Lee Pitcher
Q
We are in a bad place, and there is a lot to be done, but that is with the existing stuff that precedes this measure. That is the position we are in, so I cannot understand why a change will not better facilitate an improvement in nature as well as planning. That leads to growth, which can then put money back into the system to improve it further.
Richard Benwell: It is because the proposed change will weaken that level of protection and make unsustainable—
Lee Pitcher
Q
Richard Benwell: Yes, but it could make it better if you do it well. At the moment, it is worse because it allows developers to short-circuit the mitigation hierarchy and go straight to damage. It is worse because the level of certainty of environmental benefits is lower than currently required by the law. It is worse because it allows damage up front in return for promises of remediation up to 10 years down the line. And it is worse in terms of the scientific evidence that will be needed to apply to new sites or species. But the kind of approach that the Government are talking about could work if some of those problems were fixed.
It is worth saying that if you really wanted a planning Bill to turn around the problems you have described, this might help, but it is far more important to make sure that you meet the global commitment to allocating 30% of the land and sea for nature, that you turn to thinking about how to manage our land and sea better for farmers and fishers and you pay them properly for nature benefits, and that you turn to thinking about how we build nature into development.
Far more things could be in this Bill if the objective were to save nature. At the moment, the trade-off that we are being asked to make—weakening tried-and-tested, strong, effective environmental laws in return for a sliver of hope that the benefits might outweigh the harm—does not warrant the changes that are being made. But—I keep returning to this—it could, if part 3 of the Bill is improved during its parliamentary passage, and that is what we would really like to work with you to do.
The Chair
Order. That brings us almost within seconds of the allotted time. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
James Stevens and Kate Henderson gave evidence.
Paul Holmes
Q
It should come as no surprise that I want to ask about new towns. Mr Stevens, the Minister and the Secretary of State have been less than forthcoming about whether they think that new towns should be included within the housing targets across the UK. No answers have come forward. Do you think that new towns should be included, and should they contribute to local authorities’ housing targets?
James Stevens: I think that the Government are still thinking through the best way to deal with that. There are provisions in the Bill related to the definition of development management companies and such. As I said, I think the Government are still working it through.
On the work of the new towns commission and the identification of new towns, it is the HBF’s view that they should probably not contribute to local authority targets, but be treated as a contingency—a pool to ensure that the housing requirements under the mandatory standard method, which is a major step forward, can be achieved in the event that you get under-bounded cities unable to meet their needs in full. Even if the provisions relating to spatial development strategies come forward, it is still possible that some of them might not be successful in meeting the entirety of the standard method.
I think it is probably realistic and would be sensible, as the new Labour Administration did with eco-towns, that they should contribute to filling a national shortfall rather than contributing to local authority targets. That would be my recommendation. We have asked the Government, but as far as I understand, they have not reached a view on that yet.
Gideon Amos
Q
Kate Henderson: First, it is a pleasure to be before the Committee; thank you for inviting the National Housing Federation to give evidence. Just to be clear, I want to declare up front that I am a member of the Government’s new towns taskforce, working to advise Government on a new generation of new towns, so I will not be commenting on—
Paul Holmes
Forgive me; I should have asked you, Mrs Henderson.
Kate Henderson: No problem. I will not be commenting specifically on what is coming forward from that piece of work.
From a National Housing Association perspective, on the principle of new towns, it is worth recognising just how acute housing need is in this country. Right now, we have 160,000 children who are homeless. We have 310,000 children who had to share a bed with a family member last night. The need is acute and spread right across the country. The need for social housing is huge. The Government have set out a very ambitious target of a million and a half homes across the course of this Parliament. We think that about a third of those need to be affordable and social housing. Research that we have commissioned shows that we need around 90,000 social rented homes every year. That is not just in this Parliament but over the course of a decade, to meet the backlog of need.
We are a long way off that target, but an important part of it is to have reform, not just of the planning mechanisms and targets within the planning system—and the standard method is an important part of that—but of the resources within the social housing sector, local government and delivery partners to crank up the delivery. That is an important part of the piece, but we are also very much looking forward to the spending review to get a long-term housing strategy in place that also has measures to inject stability, certainty and confidence back into the social housing sector to crank up delivery.
James Stevens: I absolutely agree with Kate that it is very important that we do what we can to support affordable housing delivery. The Government’s proposals around spatial development strategies, which would allow those strategies to define policies on affordable housing, would be very beneficial. On the work looking at the section 106 model—which is a current barrier—as Kate said, the Government probably need to invest to ensure that the long-term rent settlement provides more assurance for housing associations in that regard. That is a major obstacle to housing delivery at the moment. In London, for example, that is resulting in a major shortfall in supply.
The spatial development strategies should be quite useful mechanisms, so long as they are not too prescriptive. The problem we have with London, as an example, is that it had a very prescriptive affordable housing policy, which did not really last through the economic cycles that we are experiencing at the moment. You need something that is looser fitting and that constituent local authorities can adapt to their own local circumstances.
Gideon Amos
Q
James Stevens: We think that affordable housing, as part of section 106, is probably one of the most important planning obligations, and our members generally support that, because they know how to build houses. Capturing an element of development gain is a real feeding frenzy, particularly among every public agency. They are all attempting to finance their policy objectives off the back of capturing an element of the developed land value. That can result in very difficult competing claims over viability. I have looked at viability plans supporting lots of spatial strategies and local plans up and down the country, and very often large elements of a local authority area are unviable because they just cannot afford the cumulative claims upon that development value. Greater scrutiny at the examination level, and perhaps a stronger steer from the Government that affordable housing and public contributions to public transport are the foremost claims upon development value, would be a major step forward.
Savills has identified that the viability system—section 106 and the community infrastructure levy—is fairly successful. It is pretty successful at capturing the majority of development value that is out there. The Government could go further by being very clear that these are the requirements in local plans, they are not negotiable and schemes are expected to be policy compliant, but that would need to be underpinned by a more rigorous system of assessing viability of the local plan stage. That would provide the Government with the certainty.
Rachel Taylor
Q
James Stevens: On the first element of that question, we really dispute the notion that house builders just bank land and are not interested in building out. Craig Bennett of the Wildlife Trusts cited a figure on Radio 4, I think, of 1.4 million homes that have granted permission but that have not been built out. We strongly contest that. A lot of those things are not counted as a completion until they are actually completed. A lot of those schemes have to work through very complicated discharge conditions. A lot of those permissions can just be outline planning permissions, and not the detailed planning permissions that you need to be an implementable consent. A lot of those figures are just poor figures that do not reflect the true numbers that have actually been built out.
Lastly on that, this accusation of land banking has often been levelled at the house building industry over the last 20 years. Consistently, independent studies, including one by the Competition and Markets Authority last year, have given us a clean bill of health on that. There is an issue about absorption rates—the ability of a local market to absorb certain sales—but house builders do not make their money from sitting on land. That costs them money. We make money from the sale of homes.
The issue of social housing—I will allow Kate to come in shortly—is very important. The problem is that we have a severe housing crisis. As Kate said, we have many thousands of children in temporary accommodation. Local authorities had to spend something like £2.3 billion last year on temporary accommodation; local authorities would go bankrupt there. Therefore, the tendency is to try to maximise social housing provision—social rented housing. We can understand why local authorities want to do that. However, to follow up on the point I made to Gideon Amos, the problem is that if local authority policies are too prescriptive on the tenure split, that can make it very difficult for house builders to contract with registered providers, to provide registered providers with the type of tenure mix that they need. We need to be a bit more realistic and flexible about that.
The key issue is to get houses built—to focus upon the quantity—in order to alleviate the affordability problems that make people so dependent upon social housing in the first place. But absolutely, social rented housing is very important. We are not trying to say that we do not want to build it.
Kate Henderson: Social housing is needed in every part of the country. What is really important is that we have objectively assessed needs and that those needs are then incorporated in local plans, and that we deliver mixed, sustainable communities that reflect the needs of those areas.
I will just dispute a little bit the point about the London situation and the London plan. London is the only part of the country where we have a strategic development strategy. The reason that we have a crash of supply in London is not because of strategic planning. It is because of a building safety crisis, hugely high inflation, huge land prices, an absolute crisis in temporary accommodation, and huge pressures that have happened across the social housing sector over the last 15 years in terms of cuts and caps to our income.
To get out of the situation in London and in the rest of the country, we need a comprehensive planning system that is based on objectively assessed need; a long-term housing strategy that looks at our existing homes as well as new homes; a rent settlement, including convergence, and funding that addresses building safety as well as new supply. Those are all things that the Government are looking at, which is welcome.
As for bringing forward those spatial development strategies in the rest of the country, it is really important that they have a focus on social and affordable housing, and that that should be mandated within them. The percentages will need to reflect the context of the areas and the need in those areas, so there will need to be a degree of flexibility in accordance with place, but it is vital that that is mandated as part of the remit of those strategies. We welcome their introduction.
Olly Glover
Q
James Stevens: I have been involved in commenting on, I think, all the last four iterations of the London plan, so I can see that it is a successful model, in that it does a lot of the heavy lifting for local authorities in terms of identifying broad locations of growth, but in particular setting out the housing requirement for all the constituent local authorities. Once that strategic plan is adopted, it becomes part of the legal development plan, and it means that whatever stage the local authority is at with developing its plan, at least the policies, including the policies for the number and distribution of housing set out in that spatial plan, become part of the development plan, so it does assist the Government in ensuring that their new mandatory standard method is embedded within the planning system as quickly as possible.
I have been involved also in all the spatial strategies produced by the mayoral combined authorities to a greater or lesser extent over the last six years. I think the Government’s measures to reform the governance so that with spatial development strategies, the Mayor only needs majority support rather than unanimity is a very important step forward.
Kate Henderson: Returning to a system of strategic spatial planning is really welcome. Trying to work out our housing need based on 300-plus local authorities does not get us up to the sum total of actually doing things comprehensively. In terms of addressing the housing crisis, economic growth and opportunity, nature recovery, landscapes, our utility provision and how we get to work, we need to work on a larger than local scale. The ability to co-ordinate all that infrastructure at a spatial scale where authorities are working together makes a lot of sense.
What is going to be a challenge is how we do this in a comprehensive way when there are huge capacity pressures on local authorities. There are some welcome measures in the Bill around ringfencing planning fees to give some additional capacity there and we support that, but how do you do the strategic planning function, in getting local authorities to have local plans in place and getting strategic plans in place at the same time, while also recognising that we are having local government reorganisation in the forthcoming English devolution Bill?
We would really like the long-term housing strategy, which is due to come forward this summer, to be the overarching framework for at least the next decade for how we transform the housing offer to people in this country. There is a question here about boosting capacity in the system. There is also about where levels of primacy are going to sit when it comes to decision making. There are lots of different things coming forward, so we need to be really clear, if there is a spatial development strategy coming forward and local plans coming forward, about how they will interact, how they will be democratically consulted on and agreed, and where the primacy of decision making is. That is what we expect more detail on in the secondary legislation and consultations to come.
James Stevens: There is a risk, though, that the prospect of a spatial development strategy will slow down local plan making. That is something we are quite anxious about. That is what we saw in Greater Manchester. The promise of a spatial strategy for Greater Manchester meant that for about 10 years, I think nine of the 10 constituent local authorities did not bother producing a local plan, so the Government need to be very clear. It is set out in the explanatory notes to the Bill, but the Government need to be very clear that local plan production must not stop under any circumstance.
Nesil Caliskan
Q
May I ask you about land value? I am a London Member of Parliament and an ex-council leader, and land value is by far the most cited reason—by local authorities or the private sector—for development not coming through the pipeline in the last couple of years. To what extent do you think the challenges around infrastructure are impacting land value, and so holding up development? Do you think that the Bill goes far enough to tackle the length of time and the current cost of developing infrastructure that could contribute to land value going up and ultimately deliver homes?
James Stevens: All infrastructure is critical, but by “infrastructure” are you referring to really critical infrastructure, such as utilities, energy and water?
Nesil Caliskan
Q
James Stevens: London’s public transport network is probably the densest anywhere in the country. I do not necessarily see transport infrastructure as the No. 1 barrier to housing delivery in London, but you probably have local experience of that. I live on the Old Kent Road. It has been promised the Bakerloo line extension for a couple of decades, but that has not stopped increasing investment in that “growth zone”, as it is defined by the Mayor of London.
Nesil Caliskan
Q
James Stevens: That is why the devolution White Paper would give the mayors enhanced powers to do things such as bus franchising, drawing in investment, taking over trains, and increasing passenger numbers. Development of public transport infrastructure is really critical, and the lack of it is holding back the growth of many of our major cities in the north. I go up to Sheffield, which is a city region that is underperforming against its potential because it does not have the public transport infrastructure.
Kate Henderson: We know that infrastructure provision, whether of new reservoirs, or of capacity on our roads or rail is the key to unlocking a lot of strategic sites. The Bill’s larger infrastructure regime, its speeding-up of processes and the ambitious target for 150 decisions on major infrastructure are all welcome, but we must look at the long-term housing strategy alongside our transport and industrial strategies, which are coming forward, and be able to co-ordinate them all.
You asked whether land value is a barrier. Let me touch on the clauses about compulsory purchase, particularly clause 91, about hope value. We strongly support the clause, which specifically provides for hope value to be disregarded for affordable and social housing where that is in the public interest. We want that to be embedded across the planning system, not only because of the children in temporary accommodation but for the ability to create fantastic, inclusive places that meet the needs of people throughout their lives, and of people on different incomes.
We should be clear that the act of granting planning permission is a public good. This issue is about fair and reasonable land prices, so we should compensate at a fair and reasonable level, ensure that the public can capture the uplift after planning permission has been granted, and ensure that that leads to more viable developments with a higher proportion of social and affordable housing.
I put on the record that we support the CPO powers. CPOs are rarely used, but stronger CPO powers for public authorities are a good thing to encourage land to come forward. Of course, to do that effectively we need legal expertise, capacity, and risk appetite in the local authority. That is a challenge, but it is welcome that the Bill gives the tools to do that. Some capacity building is needed in local government. I commend the Government for bringing forward the measures on hope value, because that is really important in how we meet the housing crisis.
The Chair
Order. We have come to the end of this session. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the panel for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Matthew Pennycook MP and Michael Shanks MP gave evidence.
The Chair
This session will run until 5.50 pm. The Ministers have been participating actively in the proceedings, but could you both formally introduce yourselves for the record, please?
Matthew Pennycook: I am Matthew Pennycook MP. I am the Minister of State for Housing and Planning.
Michael Shanks: I am Michael Shanks, the Minister for Energy.
Paul Holmes
Q
However, Minister Pennycook, I would like to ask you about a sustained line of questioning that I have taken today. You also participated in the questioning of other witnesses about Natural England, and I think that you and I have a differing opinion—perhaps we do not. Let us see whether we do; I will not do you a disservice. There has been a consistent response from interested stakeholders about the ability and the resourcing of Natural England. You outlined to the witness after the chief executive of Natural England whether that will mean a deterioration or an improvement of environmental factors.
I was quite concerned by the chief executive’s representations to the Committee this afternoon, not because of her capability—it is not a slight on her leading of her organisation at all—but because of the language that came back when asked whether her organisation will be able to cope with that. The language was, “we should”, “it might”, “we are not sure yet” and “we need to go through consultations with Government and the Treasury over funding in the spending review”. Some of the reasons outlined by the chief executive were around system changes and improvements that are needed, as well as investment in computer systems and, in the short term, a shortfall in some income because of the lack of certainty from Government. That is not a criticism—that is the natural spending review period. I get that.
Can you outline why you do not share the view of many stakeholders: that Natural England’s resourcing needs to be substantially increased, and that the Government need to invest a huge amount to try to get Natural England to a position where it will be able to take on the responsibilities that you are outlining?
The Chair
Order. Before the Minister answers, let me say that a significant number of Members have indicated that they wish to ask a question. We have very limited time—until 5.50 pm. Obviously, there is some scope for the Opposition spokesperson, but I ask that future questions be short and that answers be as concise as possible.
Matthew Pennycook: I will take heed and try to be as concise as possible. I would say three things. First, we recognise that we need to ensure that the system is equipped to deliver. You will have heard from the chief executive of Natural England how closely we are working with it on these reforms and ensuring they are operational in short order after Royal Assent. We have already secured £14 million to support the nature restoration fund. As the chief executive made clear, in some instances it may be necessary to provide up-front funding. We are looking at opportunities to do so, to kick off action in advance of need, with costs recovered as development comes forward.
The important thing in the long term is that, once fully established, the nature restoration fund will run on a full cost recovery basis, and we think that is a sustainable way for Natural England to deliver EDPs in the necessary places across England.
Paul Holmes
Q
Matthew Pennycook: I fully appreciate and have no issue with you trying, shadow Minister, but I am not going to make any comment on the ongoing spending review negotiations.
Luke Murphy
Q
Also, to what degree are the Government listening to nature organisations, some of which we heard from earlier, and their suggestions on strengthening the Bill? Lastly, Richard Benwell specifically raised clause 64 and the viability test. Do you share his concern that subjecting the levy to the viability test could mean that the amount of funds that come from it are not sufficient to at the very least mitigate if not improve? How can we ensure that is not the case, even if it is subject to the viability test?
The Chair
Can I remind you again to keep questions as short as possible? It is entirely up to you, but I am just advising so that as many Members get in as possible.
Matthew Pennycook: I will take both questions in turn. The first is really important, and I am glad to have the chance to say very clearly again—as I did to Mr Benwell—that we do not accept as a Government that development has to come at the expense of nature. We have put a huge amount of effort into engaging with Mr Benwell’s organisation and many others, as well as other Government Departments, to ensure that the clauses allow us to deliver that win-win for development and the environment.
We are confident that the Bill will not undermine or reduce environmental protections, which is why we confirmed that to be the case under section 20 of the previous Government’s Environment Act 2021. As you heard from the chief exec of Natural England, our reforms are very much built around delivering overall positive outcomes for protected sites and species.
Specifically on the viability point, there are existing environmental obligations that developers have to pay to address. Moving to a more strategic scale and large geographies where we can get those better outcomes will allow us to drive down costs through strategic action through those economies of scale. We think that the approach will be beneficial overall, but viability has to be a consideration in the levy fee that we will eventually set.
Gideon Amos
Q
Michael Shanks: That is a really important question. Probably the single most important part of us being able to achieve our clean power mission will be the necessary grid upgrades, many of which should have been decades before. We now need to build out the grid, so we are looking at a range of options. I think that connections reform is important for making sure that we are only building the grid that we absolutely need to build. The bill discounts and the community benefits that go with that are all around trying to improve acceptability, but we will look at a range of other issues as well, including around permitted development rights.
What we are really clear on is that we have a clear indication of the projects necessary to hit clean power by 2030. We know where those need to be built and what the barriers are to doing that, and we want to move forward with those as quickly as possible. I think that the community acceptability point is key because, unlike some of the other parts of our electricity system, pylons and substations are probably the ones that communities have the biggest challenge with, particularly because they are going through multiple communities in the course of a line. We have evidenced that the bill-discount scheme will improve that acceptability to help build those much faster. Of course, that is the only way that we will achieve clean power—by getting the power to where it is needed most.
Amanda Martin
Q
Michael Shanks: It is a really good question. To Mr Amos’s question, I said that network was probably the single most important thing, but connections reform is probably the single most important lever in clearing out what is now 756 GW in a queue to connect, which is frankly an absurd amount. This is therefore really a fundamental shift to move from “first applied, first in the queue” to what is strategically important: is a project actually ready to be connected? As has been discussed, we have so many of these zombie projects that take up a space in the queue for years on end.
We have also been clear about prioritising what is strategically important to our energy mix, particularly on some of the questions around storage, to make sure we actually have the right capacity. Connecting is really important, so we want to bring that queue down as quickly as possible. That frees up the connections process for new generation to join far faster, but the other important side of it is that, for the projects in the queue on the demand side, it frees up capacity for those to connect much more quickly as well.
The estimates at the moment are probably conservative, based on how quickly the growth of AI, datacentres and things are taking hold, but the estimate is that, by 2050, the demand for electricity in this country will have doubled. This step—clearing out the queue now—is therefore really important, but so is putting in place a process that makes sure that the queue does not fill back up after we have done this particular clear-out. The Bill therefore details the process that will be taken, but also the role that the Government will have in setting strategic priorities for queue management for future connections.
The first stage of that will be the clean power action plan, but it will allow us in the future to look at some other aspects of the economy to ensure that we are prioritising the projects that get through. We have resisted the approach of prioritising demand projects, because obviously how you prioritise those becomes much more subjective, but if we clear out a lot of the 756 GW now, we can connect projects and get the economy growing as a result.
Amanda Martin
Q
Matthew Pennycook: There are a variety of ways in which the Bill will help SMEs. It is probably worth my saying, because we have had a variety of questions on issues that are not directly within the scope of the Bill—the new towns taskforce and programme, and build-out rates where the Government have taken action and are exploring what further steps we can take—that this is not the totality of the interventions that we are introducing to support SMEs.
However, to go back to Mr Murphy’s question, a good example would be the nature restoration fund. We know that nutrient neutrality and diffuse constraints of that kind are particularly affecting SME house builders in those sensitive river catchments, so there are a number of ways in which the provisions in the Bill will directly benefit small and medium house builders.
Olly Glover
Q
Matthew Pennycook: To correct you on a point made there, I think the figure of 18,000 that you referenced is solely what we think could be delivered through the £2 billion we secured recently and announced as a down payment on the future grant funding through the successor programme to the affordable homes programme. It is not 18,000 affordable homes as social out of 1.5 million—that would be completely unacceptable. We are trying to, through all of our reforms, deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation.
Olly Glover
Accepted.
Matthew Pennycook: In terms of the top-up, we have already allocated £800 million to the affordable homes programme since coming into office. We have also pulled forward £2 billion as a down payment. A significant proportion of the homes coming through those funding routes are social rented homes—almost half, but I am happy to provide the Committee with the specific figure. So we are getting a huge uplift coming through, and the successor grant programme will give particular priority to social rented homes coming through.
Where I think spatial development strategies can add to what we see coming through is that these will not be big local plans—let us be very clear. They need to be pretty high-level documents that make decisions about where housing growth and infrastructure provision is best sited and delivered on a sub-regional basis. That will allow groups of local authorities to take a far more sophisticated approach to, for example, bringing forward large-scale new communities in strategic locations that allow them to meet housing targets in a more sophisticated way. Through other measures that we are introducing—the CPO measures in the Bill are a good example—we will capture more land-value uplift and deliver more social and affordable homes.
Ellie Chowns
Q
Given that commitment from the Government, given Richard Benwell’s observation that there are risks that could be addressed through amendments and given Marian Spain’s comments—that the Bill needs robust safeguards and that drafting amendments may make it more robust—I return to the question that Mr Murphy asked. Can you confirm that you retain an open mind and that you may consider tabling further Government amendments in response to the concerns raised, so that the Bill does what you are saying it does on the tin?
Matthew Pennycook: I appreciate the question. To reiterate—and this is where I slightly disagree with Mr Benwell and others—we are very clear that the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protections, in terms of existing environmental law. We are very clear about that, and confident in the safeguards that exist in the Bill.
I am happy to look at any amendment, and we will in the normal course of the Bill Committee; we will debate each of them in turn and I will keep an open mind about any that we think is feasible, workable, aligns with the objectives of the Bill and delivers what we want to see—absolutely. We will debate all of those in due course. As you rightly made clear, we tabled a package of Government amendments yesterday.
To bring it back to the specific point, some of those amendments on removing the statutory requirement for pre-applications consultation in relation to national significant infrastructure projects were tabled partly because we were getting feedback through the working paper, and also because there were a number of calls on Second Reading for us to specifically look at that area of reform. As you would expect in the normal course of the Bill, we will respond to challenge, criticism, scrutiny and any amendments, which we will debate in due course.
The Chair
If there are no more questions, I thank all our witnesses across the day for their evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)
Tuesday 29th April 2025
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 April 2025 - (29 Apr 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Members should email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. However, it is very hot this morning, so if you would like to remove your jackets, you are allowed to do so.
Today we begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the clauses and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates; decisions on each amendment and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill are taken when we come to the relevant clause.
The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak to all or any of the amendments in that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, I shall again call the Member who moved the lead amendment. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw it or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendments in a group to a vote, they will need to let me know in advance.
Clause 1
National policy statements: review
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(3A) After subsection (2), insert—
‘(2A) Any review of a national policy statement in relation to a nationally significant infrastructure project must include consideration of whether the project complies with the Land Use Framework.’”
This amendment would require national policy statements to be in accordance with the proposed Land Use Framework.
Gideon Amos
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise to move amendment 32, which stands in my name.
We are pleased that the Government have kept their manifesto commitment to publish the long-awaited consultation on the land use framework—something the Liberal Democrats had long called for. The consultation states:
“Optimising how we use England’s land will be essential to delivering the Government’s Growth mission and the Clean Energy Superpower mission”.
It rightly recognises that a
“strategic approach to land use strategy and planning”
is needed if we are
“to avoid siloed…decision-making and…unintended consequences or unanticipated costs.”
It says that that will also inform decisions
“to guarantee our long-term food security...support development...achieve our targets on nature and climate…and support economic growth.”
Those are good objectives. However, the Secretary of State has repeatedly emphasised that the land use framework is not about telling anyone how to use land; instead, it is about providing the principles, data and tools to empower decision makers. It is right that the land use framework should not become prescriptive, but there is a real chance that it will become an expensive waste of time if it is not bolted into the planning system. To succeed, we need an efficient legal link to planning and spending decisions; otherwise, the land use framework will likely only sit on a shelf.
Part 1 of the Bill rightly recognises the need for more efficient ways to keep national policy statements up to date. In the past, NPSs have fallen behind Government policy, which has led to delay. For example, as Justice Holgate noted in the Drax development consent order challenge, the energy NPS designated in 2011 left important questions about greenhouse gas emissions unanswered because it did not reflect Parliament’s net zero decisions.
To avoid that kind of disconnect and delay, NPSs should have a direct link to the land use framework, as proposed in the amendment. The amendment would help to ensure that the land use framework has a dynamic link to major infrastructure decisions, without becoming too prescriptive. That would help to protect the environment and agriculture by guiding projects away from the most damaging options early in the process. It would also help development by improving certainty up front, reducing the challenge of judicial review were the relationship between NPSs and the land use framework left to the courts to determine.
The land use framework must be aligned with national policy objectives to inform the policies needed to deliver those objectives. Failing to consider the land use framework when reviewing national policy statements would also perpetuate siloed decision making. It would leave the land use framework as toothless and without the necessary weight, undermining public confidence in land use decisions. The amendment would not bind decision makers or prescribe specific land uses but would meet the Government’s stated objective of better informing decisions and supporting the delivery of a shared vision for English land use that balances the need for housing, energy, infrastructure and food security with our statutory climate and nature targets.
In his remarks when he launched the land use framework, the Environment Secretary said that the framework
“will work hand in hand with”
the Government’s
“housing and energy plans…creating a coherent set of policies that work together, rather than against each other.”
Ensuring that national policy statements in these areas consider the land use framework is therefore essential to realising the Government’s objectives of joined-up decision making.
The House of Lords Land Use in England Committee highlighted the issue in its report, which found that the “overarching theme” from witnesses to the Committee was the “lack of integration” between nationally significant infrastructure projects, both
“with other NSIPs (including other projects within same policy area), and with the wider planning system.”
It recommended:
“Energy and other large-scale infrastructure projects should be incorporated into a land use framework.”
An obvious and effective way to do that would be to ensure that any review of the national policy statement complied with the land use framework. Without that, and without the amendment and the institutional and legal levers to create change on the ground, a land use framework would likely just be another strategy on the shelf.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Before I speak to clause 1 stand part and respond to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I put on the record my thanks to the large number of witnesses who gave up their time last week to give evidence to the Committee and inform our deliberations.
Sustained economic growth is the only route to delivering the improved prosperity that our country needs and the high living standards that working people deserve; that is why it is this Government’s No. 1 mission. The failure to build enough critical infrastructure, from electricity networks and clean energy sources to public transport links and water supplies, has constrained economic growth and undermined our energy security. That is why the Government’s plan for change commits us to fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament.
While nationally significant infrastructure project applications are already being processed 50 days quicker on average than in the last Parliament, achieving that milestone will require the planning regime for NSIPs to fire on all cylinders—yet we know that the system as it stands is too slow and that its performance has deteriorated sharply in recent years. The Government are determined to improve it and to deliver a faster and more consenting process for critical infrastructure that will drive down costs for industry, bill payers and taxpayers.
Key to an effective NSIP regime is ensuring that national policy statements are fit for purpose. To be clear, those statements are the primary policy framework within which the examining authority makes its recommendations to Ministers on individual development consent order applications and against which the relevant Secretary of State is required to determine an application. However, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington just noted, despite their importance many national policy statements are outdated, with some having not been refreshed for over a decade.
Clause 1 addresses that problem by establishing, on enactment, a new requirement for every national policy statement to be subjected to a full review and updated at least every five years. NPSs can be reviewed at any point within that five-year timeframe, at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Additionally, any statement that has currently not been updated for over five years must be brought up to date within two years of the clause’s enactment.
Having taken on board the views of consenting Departments, a wide range of industry stakeholders and the recommendations of the National Infrastructure Commission, we believe that a five-year timeframe strikes the right balance between ensuring that statements are kept up to date, while avoiding rapid change and the consequential uncertainty for the infrastructure sectors that would be caused by a more rapid review timeframe.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The Minister may come to this later, but he will also be aware that clause 1 will make provisions for the Secretary of State to update an NPS later than required when there are exceptional circumstances, including laying a statement to Parliament. We will discuss in relation to later clauses our concern about transparency and engagement with the House. Will he outline how the Secretary of State will be able to consult the House, once she has laid that statement, to help to form her view and the Government’s view going forward?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for his question, and I look forward to what I know will be constructive debates over the days and weeks to come. He makes a fair point, which I am just coming to, in relation to the clause also providing for the ability to delay a mandatory update when there are exceptional circumstances that the relevant Secretary of State considers make the delay unavoidable.
I stress to the hon. Gentleman that those circumstances must be exceptional. We have in mind an extremely high bar: for example, if Parliament was suspended and could not sit. He will know that in instances where a national policy statement, for example, does not need to undergo a material change, a rapid update can take place on that basis. It does not have to go through consultation or the necessary parliamentary scrutiny requirements. The vision is that this particular part of the clause will be used with an exceptionally high bar, in very limited circumstances. If he wishes, I am happy to provide the Committee with further examples, but I think they will be extremely limited.
In such circumstances, as the shadow Minister said, the Secretary of State must, before the five-year deadline expires, lay a statement before Parliament explaining the reasons for the sought-after extension and when they expect to update the national policy statement, with the delay lasting only as long as the exceptional circumstances exist.
In summary, the changes give Ministers the power to ensure that national policy statements are kept up to date so that they can effectively support the delivery of the critical infrastructure that our country needs and the economic growth that its provision will deliver. I commend the clause to the Committee.
I turn to amendment 32, which, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington set out, seeks to insert a requirement for the land use framework—on which the Government consulted between January and April this year—to be complied with whenever a national policy statement is reviewed. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary because the Secretary of State is already obliged to take into account all relevant material considerations when reviewing national policy statements as a matter of law, under sections 104 and 105 of the Planning Act 2008.
If a future Secretary of State considers the final land use framework to be relevant in the circumstances of the specific national policy statement being reviewed, it must therefore be taken into account. The Secretary of State will, in those circumstances, give the land use framework the weight that they consider appropriate in their planning judgment, but their assessment of relevance cannot and should not be prejudged by writing such a requirement on to the face of the Bill.
The majority of national policy statements are not site or project-specific. For national policy statements that do identify locations as suitable or potentially suitable for a particular development, those locations will already have been the subject of strategic level environmental assessments and appraisals for inclusion in the national policy statement.
When deciding whether to grant development consent for a nationally significant infrastructure project, sections 104 and 105 of the 2008 Act require the Secretary of State to have regard to any matter that they think “both important and relevant” to the decision of whether to grant consent. Once published, the land use framework could be given such weight as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, where they consider it “both important and relevant” to the particular consenting decision that is in front of them.
For those reasons, the Government cannot accept amendment 32, which seeks to introduce an unnecessary layer of regulatory complexity, undermining our ambitions to streamline the NSIP planning system.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I agree very much with the Minister’s point about not introducing excessive complexity. A key issue, though, that this element of the Bill highlights is where there are complex interactions—with legal obligations that are placed on local authorities, for example. I think of my experience with Heathrow airport, where air quality duties are an absolute obligation on the local authority. Parliament can decide to derogate from that, but that does not remove the possibility of the local authority being judicially reviewed, having failed to oppose the Government’s position on a national planning policy statement.
When there are such obligations on other affected public bodies but the decision has been taken from them and is being made instead by Parliament, how will the Government ensure that those public bodies will not find themselves held liable and find that the whole process is effectively derailed—because although parliamentary decisions cannot be judicially reviewed, the involvement of that public body in decisions can be?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point but, if I have understood him, it is a slightly different issue from the one we are considering. I will give him some extra clarity about the land use framework and any other material consideration that would need to be assessed. When looking at a national policy statement, the Secretary of State will have to have regard to such material considerations, be they the land use framework or any others, for the decision to be legally sound.
The reason we cannot accept the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is that it is not necessary to specifically require that, as it would effectively repeat public law decision-making principles on the face of the Bill that would have to be taken into account anyway. For that reason, we cannot accept the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, so I hope he will withdraw it. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. In our view, the land use framework is a really important document about the sustainability of the development of land in the UK, and simply referring to it as one of a number of documents that must be taken into account does not guarantee that it will be delivered on in the really important national policy statement framework. Our intention is that it should be a requirement that national policy statements are in accordance with the land use framework for those reasons; it should not simply be a background document.
I am bleary-eyed this morning, but I have spotted that there are more Members on the Government side than on the Opposition side, so we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
National policy statements: parliamentary requirements
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 2, page 3, line 34, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a response to a resolution made by either House or recommendations made by a committee of either House in relation to amendments to national policy statements. The requirement to do so is otherwise removed by 2(a).
Gideon Amos
The justification for the proposal in clause 2 to remove parliamentary requirements for scrutiny and the approval of amendments to national policy statements is that they reflect legislative changes. In our view, that justification is faulty in three respects.
First, it is claimed that since Parliament will have considered the changes, it does not need to scrutinise the resulting amendments to NPSs. However, it is far from certain that national policy statement amendments will reflect new or amended legislation. Let me give an example. In its 2023 review, the Transport Committee was very critical of the draft national networks national policy statement, and said that new planning policies for major road and rail schemes need clarifying against net zero laws. However, the Department for Transport not only failed to accept any of the MPs’ recommendations but put a climate test from the outdated 2015 policy back into the NPS it designated in 2024. Given that the reason for updating the NPS was to update the climate test, that completely compounded the original justification for carrying out the review. There is therefore no certainty that legal decisions will be reflected if my amendment is not accepted.
Secondly, the explanatory notes say that the change will “preserve parliamentary oversight” for amendments to NPSs, but in fact the purpose of the clause is to take away parliamentary oversight of changes to NPSs. It will mean that the Government are no longer required to respond to recommendations of the Select Committee or other MPs. As the Transport Action Network said,
“If we are serious about front-loading, in other words deciding key policies in advance rather than in individual infrastructure decisions, the Planning Act 2008’s failure to enable effective scrutiny of NPSs requires addressing, rather than being made worse.”
Thirdly, although it is suggested that the removal of parliamentary scrutiny is limited, subsection (3)(d) makes it clear than any change of Government policy can be effected by changing an NPS without the oversight of Parliament. The clause—and particularly subsection (3)(d)—destroys the distinction between national policy that has been debated and voted on in Parliament and the rest of Government policy. There is a clear distinction, which is really important, in the NPS regime.
In the case some time ago of Dinsdale Developments Ltd v. Secretary of State for the Environment in 1986, the court accepted an after-dinner speech from the Secretary of State as Government policy. Although I doubt that the Minister speaking over dinner in his family home would be captured and changed into a national policy statement, there is scope for speeches made by Ministers and Secretaries of State to become Government policy. They can be wafted into the national policy statement with no opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise or vote on it, which would undermine the strength of national policy statements.
The Chair
Before I call the shadow Minister, I remind Committee members to indicate if they want to speak. If you want only to intervene, you must keep your interventions short, so make a decision on whether you want to intervene or make a speech.
Paul Holmes
I will adhere to your guidance and orders on this Committee, Mrs Hobhouse. I intend to speak to clause 2 first, and then I will address amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. We welcome the premise of parliamentary scrutiny of the national policy statements, but we understand that although the usual steps for publishing and consulting on material changes—21 days under the legislation—still apply, the Secretary of State is no longer required to respond to feedback from Parliament or its Committees during that process.
That is a step back on the democratic checks and balances that the House has under current legislation. We are concerned about whether the Secretary of State will have increased power to make decisions without that scrutiny. All Ministers, including the two sitting opposite me, try to make good decisions and do their best by the country, but it is unacceptable that the legislation includes a retrograde step whereby Parliament is unable to feed back on changes proposed by the Secretary of State. We see that as a retrograde step for scrutiny.
We have seen in legislation for other Departments a centralising move into the hands of officials and Ministers. What is the benefit of this provision in the Bill? What is the benefit of taking away a very simple and usual step of Parliament being able to give its views on the Secretary of State’s movements and proposals? It does not make a tangible difference to the process. It just seems to be a power grab—that may be unfair on the Minister—or at least a movement of power away from the ability of Parliament to have traditional checks and balances.
Matthew Pennycook
In the interest of focusing the debate on the actual changes that we are making in the clause, when a national policy statement has been reviewed and is to be updated, and involves material changes, all the assessments and consultation that need to take place, including laying the NPS before the House of Commons, will remain in place. We are talking about a specific set of categories of reflective, small changes that, as I will make clear in my remarks later, have already been debated by Parliament in their own terms.
Paul Holmes
I understand that, but the fact of the matter is that the Secretary of State will no longer be required, under the Bill, to respond to feedback from Parliament. That is what the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is trying to sort out with his amendment. We very much support that amendment, because it would require the Secretary of State to provide a response to the House on amendments to national policy statements.
I have no disagreement on the provision of NPSs and what we discussed in the debate on the last clause. What tangible difference does it make to the Bill if Parliament is taken note of by being able to respond, and the Secretary of State is required to respond to that feedback? The Select Committee has a right to issue its views. Why is the Secretary of State no longer required to respond to that feedback from Parliament? To us, it seems slightly undemocratic to remove transparency and the ability of elected Members of this House, of all parties, to be able to scrutinise the movements of the Secretary of State and Ministers in national policy statements. Perhaps the Minister can explain in his comments what tangible difference it makes to his life or that of his Department that the Secretary of State no longer has to respond to feedback from elected Members of this House.
As I said, we agree with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. It would encourage greater accountability as part of the process outlined in the Bill and would enhance parliamentary scrutiny over crucial development policies that the Secretary of State has oversight of.
David Simmonds
I rise in support of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister to press the Government on this point. I think the key issue for all of us is what remedy is available where there are concerns about the impact of a decision taken using these new provisions.
In the evidence sessions, there was much mockery of a so-called fish disco at a new nuclear power station. However, the local constituency MP, the local authority or fishing and wildlife organisations would be very concerned about the impact of that development on wildlife, particularly at a location with significant numbers of protected species, some of which are unique in Europe. When the detail of a project emerges and an issue of that nature needs to be addressed, and there is feedback from Parliament, if we have inserted provisions that allow the Secretary of State to say, “I am going to ignore that now,” we lose the opportunity to ensure appropriate remedies and measures to address the impact of that detail, either in planning terms or on the local environment.
I recall a judicial review brought by the local authority where I served as a councillor in respect of a scheme that had been agreed with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State had written to the local authority and said, “This is what it is going to be. This is the process that is going to be followed.” That Secretary of State was then replaced with another, who said, “I am not going to follow it. Although my predecessor wrote to you last year to tell you this is how it was going to be, I am not going to do it.” The local authority said that was clearly unsatisfactory, because of the impact at community level.
The test that was required to be met for a judicial review to succeed was that we had to be able to demonstrate that the Minister was—what the judge said has always stuck in my mind—“out of her mind” when she told Parliament at the Dispatch Box what she was going to do, on the basis that parliamentary sovereignty was so great. If Parliament had approved the Minister’s actions, regardless of whether they were a flagrant breach of an agreement previously entered into with another part of the public sector, provided they had said that at the Dispatch Box and unless we could prove that the Minister had actually been out of their mind at that point, the decision would stand and would not be subject to judicial review. It could not even be considered, because parliamentary sovereignty has such a high test.
I think the shadow Minister is right to raise the need to get this right. We are all talking about the importance of getting infrastructure and major developments through, and we can understand the desire to drive that forward, but we would not wish to find ourselves in a situation where a key point of detail, which has a significant community impact but which emerges only once some of those detailed elements of a major project are in the public domain, cannot be taken account of and is irrelevant or disregarded in the planning process. It is absolutely critical that we have that level of safeguard to ensure that constituents are assured that the concerns that they might perfectly reasonably have will be properly addressed.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I draw your attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I concur with my colleagues. I have concerns about removing the response from Ministers to Parliament. We are told that constituents and residents will be kept at the heart of such decisions—they will have some say in the national planning policy framework through consultation on national infrastructure projects when they are in their area. Indeed, I asked the Prime Minister a question on the topic at PMQs. I was not convinced by his answer.
How can the Government, on the one hand, say that we will keep local people at the heart of those decisions and allow local people to have a say on them, while on the other, in this part of the Bill, remove parliamentary scrutiny? That will fill the British people with dread, that they will not have such a say in some of those infrastructure projects in their area.
Matthew Pennycook
May I correct the hon. Gentleman? Local people in any part of the country affected by a development consent order will still be able to have their say on it. Nothing in the clause affects that arrangement.
Lewis Cocking
My point is, if we remove parliamentary scrutiny, the British people out there watching this will think, “Well, hang on a minute, the Government are saying on the one hand that we will still have a say and feed into that process, but on the other they are removing parliamentary scrutiny from the process, so how do we weigh that up?” When the Bill has been through the full process to Third Reading, how can we and the British people trust that they will still have a say over national infrastructure projects in their area if parliamentary scrutiny is being removed? That is taking with one hand and giving with the other, and it could be perceived that people will not have a say; they might not believe the Government saying that they will have a say. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me be clear. I appreciate the concerns that hon. Members have expressed. I hope that I can provide some reassurance, but I am more than happy to have further exchanges on this point, which is an important one.
The clause introduces a new streamlined procedure for making material policy amendments to national policy statements, where the proposed amendments fall into four categories of changes to be made since the NPPS was last reviewed: reflecting legislative changes or revocations that have already come into force; relevant court decisions that have already been issued; Government policy that has already been published; and changes to other documents referred to in the NPPS.
A good example is our recent changes to the national planning policy framework—consulted on publicly and subject to a significant amount of scrutiny in the House. If a relevant NPPS had to be updated to reflect some of those policy changes, which have already been subject to consultation and scrutiny on their own terms, as I said, that would be a good example of where this reflective procedure might be useful.
The primary aim of the clause is to expedite the Parliamentary process for updating national policy statements. By doing so, it ensures that amendments that have already undergone public and parliamentary scrutiny can be integrated more swiftly into the relevant NPPS. In enabling reflective amendments to be made, the new procedure will support the Government’s growth mission by ensuring that NPPSs are current and relevant, increasing certainty for developers and investors, and streamlining decision making for nationally significant infrastructure projects.
Hon. Members should be assured that, where applicable, the statutory and regulatory prerequisites of an appraisal of sustainability and habitats regulation assessment will continue to apply to amendments that fall within this definition, as will the existing publication and consultation requirements for material changes to a national policy statement. The clause does, however—this is the point of debate that we have just had—disapply the requirements for the Secretary of State to respond to resolutions made by Parliament or its Committees. We believe that change is necessary to enable reflective changes to be made to NPSs in a more timely and proportionate manner.
Matthew Pennycook
I will give way in one second, if the hon. Member will allow me, because I think this is some useful context for some of the discussions that have taken place over recent months.
The Government are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and the relevant Select Committee Clerks for engaging with me and my officials on the implications of the new procedure. We have agreed on certain guarantees to ensure that there will still be adequate parliamentary scrutiny when the procedure is used.
As such, I am happy to restate today that, when the Government intend to use the reflective amendment route to update a national policy statement, we will write to the relevant Select Committee at the start of the consultation period. We would hope in all instances that the Select Committee responds in a prompt and timely manner, allowing us to take on board its comments. Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the Committee during that period, in so far as that is practical.
The process retains scope for Parliament to raise matters with the Government in the usual fashion. Should a Select Committee publish a report within the relevant timeframes of the public consultation period—in a sense, that is one of the challenges we are trying to get at here: not all select Committees will respond in the relevant period, therefore elongating the process by which the reflective amendment needs to take place—the Government will obviously take those views into account before the updated statement is laid before the House in the usual manner.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister for reminding us that we are talking about a specific amendment to a specific clause about a specific thing. But the issue that is at stake here was communicated by his complaint that parliamentary process might slow things down. Surely, the whole point of Parliament is to make our laws. I am worried by the implication that Government see Parliament as a hindrance to getting things done, rather than as a crucial part of scrutiny and checks and balances. If the Minister has concerns about timescales, it is perfectly achievable to address those by setting timeframes. But the removal of the clause that requires the Government to pay attention to the views of cross-party Committees scrutinising particular statements is concerning.
Matthew Pennycook
I say gently to the hon. Lady that she has ignored everything I have said. Every one of the changes that will be able to be made through this process will have already been subject to relevant consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. There is the example of changes to the national planning policy framework, which underwent a huge amount of parliamentary scrutiny through a Select Committee and a statement on the Floor of the House. It is not particularly problematic that we should be able to quickly, in a timely manner—with Select Committee input if it is able to respond in the necessary timeframe—make that change to a national policy statement to ensure that it is up to date and effective.
It is worth considering what the current arrangements require. Currently, the consultation, publicity and parliamentary scrutiny appeal that the Government must follow when updating an NPS, even for a minor change of the kind I have spoken about, is exactly the same as designating an entirely new NPS. There is no ability at the moment for timely and often minor reflective updates that will only reflect policy changes that have already been made subject to scrutiny, and court decisions that have been issued—there is not process for that. We think the system would work far better in most cases if there were.
Although it is a matter for the House, we would hope that in nearly every instance the relevant Select Committee would be able to respond in time, and that those views would be taken into account to help the NPS be updated in a more proportionate and effective manner.
Paul Holmes
I apologise for interrupting the Minister mid-flow, but if the utopian vision that he has outlined is the case—if a Select Committee comes to them within the right amount of time they will listen to its views, but the timescales are currently too long—and the Minister genuinely wanted to allow parliamentary scrutiny and responses to be taken into account by his Department, he would have come to the Committee today outlining a number of steps contained in the legislation setting standard response times for Select Committees and the processes of this House, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said.
The Minister could have clearly outlined in the legislation an aspiration for the amount of time that he would want the changes to be worked through with Parliament. I understand that there are Standing Orders of the House, but I remind the Minister that the Leader of the House is currently a Minister under his Government, and he could have got a workaround instead of taking out the scrutiny powers of the House of Commons.
Matthew Pennycook
I simply disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a matter for the House rather than the Government. On their own terms, we think the changes made through the clause are proportionate and will ensure that the system is more effective. Again, I make it clear that we are talking about reflective amendments to national policy statements in the four specific categories I have given.
Matthew Pennycook
I will give way one last time, and then I will make some progress.
Lewis Cocking
If we are talking about small, minor changes, surely the consultation period does not need to be that long—it will not take Select Committees long to produce a report to feed into the process if these are only minor changes. I do not see the need for change that the Minister is setting out.
Matthew Pennycook
All I would say is that if the hon. Gentleman looked at the history of the response times on some of these matters he would see that in not every instance is there a timely response. It can delay the process quite significantly. We appreciate the concerns, but the procedure cannot and will not be used to bypass due parliamentary scrutiny.
Any court decision change being reflected in the NPS will have been scrutinised by the public and Parliament on its own terms. We are adjusting the parliamentary scrutiny requirements to update an NPS, so that it is more proportionate and enables those documents to be updated more quickly. The process retains scope for Parliament to raise matters with the Government. The Secretary of State is required to lay a statement in Parliament announcing that a review of the NPS is taking place. The Government will write to the relevant Select Committee at the start of the consultation period, and Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the relevant Select Committee during the consultation period, so far as is practical. Finally, the NPS as amended will still be laid in Parliament for 21 days and can be prayed against.
I turn to amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington; we have covered many of the issues it raises. In seeking to remove clause 2(3)(a), it is a wrecking amendment, in our view. It would fatally and fundamentally undermine the introduction of a new streamlined procedure for updating national policy statements by requiring the Government to respond to a Select Committee inquiry before being able to lay a national policy statement before Parliament. We will therefore resist it. As I have set out, the new procedure introduced by clause 2 will help to unlock growth in our country by enabling policy to be updated more easily, providing certainty for applicants using the NSIP regime and for decision makers. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, and I commend clause 2 to the Committee.
Gideon Amos
I thank the hon. Members who have spoken. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for reminding me of the discussion about Hinkley, which is 13 miles from my home and is where a lot of my constituents work. In the evidence sessions, much was made of the fish disco. If memory serves, it is an AFD—not a political party in Germany, but an acoustic fish deterrent—which would cost a fair amount, but would stop about 3 million fish being killed every year in the 7-metre diameter cooling tunnels that suck seawater into Hinkley. Many of my constituents are concerned about species loss, habitat loss and the effect on the natural environment.
David Simmonds
Sucking fish into a nuclear reactor—what could possibly go wrong? That seems a good example of how, when the details of a project are analysed, there is a requirement for such measures. However, we have also looked at the issue of battery storage in connection with improving grid capacity, and the point has been made that ongoing appraisals of the nature of battery storage ensure that local authorities granting planning consent have fulfilled all their relevant environmental and health and safety duties when doing so.
It seems to me that, if a parliamentary Select Committee had looked at and taken into consideration such projects, it would be valuable for the Secretary of State to be required to respond, rather than being able to set that aside and having to seek to unpick the whole decision later as a result of judicial reviews brought because of the failure of a local authority to carry out its statutory obligations.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman raises another example of a failing that could have been addressed by parliamentary scrutiny.
Hon. Members may be wondering why I am referring to the acoustic fish deterrent, but the fact is that such concerns do matter to people, and people do care about species loss and habitat loss. A simple change in Government policy—for example, a ministerial speech changing Government guidance—could provide a pretext or a basis for a change to a national policy statement without any parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, if the NPS changed, EDF would be allowed to get rid of its acoustic fish deterrent, and there would be no further scrutiny on that basis, but that is not a good way to make policy.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people are also very concerned about the anaemic economic growth in the United Kingdom over the past 14 years, as well as the housing and energy crises, and that the Bill seeks to strike a balance between all these competing considerations? At the moment, we do not have a balance—the balance is against development—and we desperately need developments such as Hinkley that create brilliant, well-paid jobs, including for many young people in south-west England.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman is right: many of my constituents appreciate the opportunities that the Hinkley development provides them. Perhaps he is right that the decision should be wafted into a quick policy statement and then whacked into the NPS, so EDF can get rid of its fish deterrent for the sake of economic growth and the jobs that he is talking about—but surely Parliament should have some say on these crucial questions of balance between economic objectives and objectives around the natural environment.
Matthew Pennycook
I am struggling to follow what the hon. Gentleman’s specific concern is. He keeps throwing out the after-dinner speech example; that would not meet the threshold for a reflective amendment through this route. If the Government have made a policy change that has been subject to consultation and scrutiny in this House—
Matthew Pennycook
Well, it would have to have been subject to consultation and scrutiny in this House in order to meet the criteria. We think that it is therefore reasonable to take it through in this manner. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is suggesting that there will be a complete absence of parliamentary scrutiny, and in that way is misleading the Committee regarding the effect of the clause.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to be able to get back to the clause. Clause 2(3)(d) of the Bill is clear that any published Government policy can be the basis for a change through this expedited route, which does not involve parliamentary scrutiny. As I explained earlier, court cases have held that a speech can be admitted as Government policy. There is another danger with this approach. It may be said that there will be only occasional changes. Were the clause restricted to where there have been legal judgments or thorough parliamentary debate, those of us on this side of the Committee would be more relaxed about the changes, but it is not; it covers all published Government policy.
One of the other dangers, besides quick changes in Government policy that would help particular projects, is a potential cumulative danger. There could be numerous changes to national policy statements through this minor amendments route, and anyone who thinks that that is unrealistic needs only to look at the cavernous website of the national planning practice guidance, which is voluminous, ever expanding and always changing. One of my concerns is that this process, through gradual attrition and minor changes, will degrade the importance of a national policy statement as a single statement that has been voted on in Parliament, rather than a mass of amendments over many years, on an ever expanding website of guidance.
If the Minister suggests that there is a very high test, clause 2(3)(d) says that the only test is that it is “published Government policy”. That is not a very high test for what can go through this expedited process.
David Simmonds
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is another risk? Ministers may set out that, in order for a particular project to be expedited, it needs to meet a series of tests. I think again of airport expansion; numerous Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box that a whole set of different tests on air quality and finance would need to be met before it could be approved. If we effectively set aside elements of parliamentary feedback, then Ministers, having announced that such tests would need to be met, could, in effect, retrospectively set aside that requirement in order to enable major infrastructure projects to go ahead, without having satisfied the kind of environmental and community concerns that the hon. Gentleman describes?
Gideon Amos
The hon. Member accurately highlights the point that I was trying to make in relation to the acoustic fish deterrent, where particular changes could be made through this new route to facilitate projects—changes that would not have had proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Minister may say that the provision would apply only to proper Government policy—real Government policy—such as the national planning policy framework, which I fully accept has had parliamentary scrutiny, but look at case law, such as Mead Realisations Ltd v. the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. In the Court of Appeal last year, Sir Keith Lindblom said that
“the legal status of the government’s planning policies in the NPPF and its guidance in the PPG is basically the same. No legal distinction exists between them...Their status is equivalent in the sense that both of them are statements of national policy”.
Clearly, Ministers and Secretaries of State can make a range of policy changes that could feature in, and become changes to, national policy statements. Through a cumulative process, an NPS could become degraded by a morass of detailed changes, and no longer have the strength and integrity that it requires. Crucially, it will not have benefited from parliamentary scrutiny. We intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman has already made it clear that he will press the amendment, but let me take one last opportunity to reassure Members on this point. We have to be clear what the current requirements entail: they do not require the Government to agree with a Select Committee report, if it is issued in a timely manner; they just require the Secretary of State to respond to resolutions made by Parliament or its Committees. Those resolutions can ultimately be set aside if the Government disagree.
As I said, we are not trying to remove wholesale parliamentary scrutiny or the ability of the public to engage and consult. All the changes that will come down this route, when it is appropriate and necessary to use, will have been scrutinised by Parliament and, in many cases, by public consultation on their own terms. However, we think that the removal of an aspect of parliamentary scrutiny is justified by the nature of changes that can be better reflected in policy within a national policy statement. We have had extensive engagement with the Chair of the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), and the relevant Select Committee Clerks on what guarantees we can provide, while removing this requirement, to ensure that there is still adequate parliamentary scrutiny when the procedure is used.
Finally, I want to bring home to Members what we think the change will allow. We estimate that, in many cases, the requirement to respond to resolutions, particularly in cases where a Select Committee’s response is not timely, adds at least three to six months to the process of updating a national policy statement. Given that we are talking about minor changes that are already policy and court decisions, we think that this is a necessary and proportionate means of ensuring that policy statements are up to date and that investors have confidence in the policy framework being applied. We therefore think that we can streamline the process, and will resist the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matthew Pennycook
The Planning Act 2008 provides a uniform approach to consenting, covering a wide range of sectors and types of development. However, this may not always be proportionate for specific developments. Clause 3 provides a new power for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to disapply the requirement for development consent for specified developments that would otherwise fall under the NSIP regime. The clause contains several conditions governing when a direction may or may not be given by the Secretary of State, such as when a request for direction is needed, who may submit such a request, and what such a request may contain.
The Secretary of State may give a direction only if they consider it appropriate for an alternative consenting regime to apply to a specific development. This would mean that a development consent order is no longer required and that the development in question could instead be considered by an alternative appropriate consenting authority, bringing greater flexibility to the system of planning consent by ensuring that the appropriate regime is used, based on the specific circumstances at hand rather than on strict statutory definitions and thresholds. This will help to reduce burdens on applicants that may otherwise be disproportionate, and to develop a more streamlined and responsive decision-making process.
Let me make it clear to hon. Members what the current arrangements provide for. Section 35 of the Planning Act allows the Secretary of State to bring into the NSIP regime specified developments that do not come within the statutory meaning of a nationally significant infrastructure project. Clause 3 will provide similar flexibility but in the other direction, enabling more proportionate and efficient consenting processes. I can provide several examples of where such flexibility may be beneficial. A railway development may be within the scope of the Planning Act, but its impacts and benefits may be more local, and it may not require the compulsory acquisition of land. It might be more appropriate for such cases to be considered under the Transport and Works Act 1992 regime.
Similarly, other large developments often include multiple elements that need to be considered under different consenting regimes, leading to disproportionate work and costs in preparing multiple applications. For example, an access road that is secondary to the main development may require consent under the NSIP regime, while other elements of the development, such as housing, may fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regime. Clause 3 will allow for a direction to be provided by the Secretary of State to enable the applicant to include the access road in the planning application under the Town and Country Planning Act route.
There have also been cases where it has been argued that a development close to exiting statutory thresholds could be more appropriately considered through other, more proportionate regimes. We have all heard the examples—I have heard them in many debates secured by hon. Members—and they were highlighted again in our planning reform working paper. There are many examples of solar developments that have been deliberately kept just below the Planning Act threshold of 50 MW to avoid coming within the NSIP regime. We committed to increasing the statutory threshold for solar developments to 100 MW in December 2024, but as the technology continues to improve, similar issues may occur in the future, and other examples could emerge in other fields.
The current arrangement has resulted in the clustering of developments just below the NSIP threshold and less energy being generated overall, undermining our work to strengthen this country’s energy security. The clause provides far more flexibility at local level so that, even under the new arrangements, an applicant who wants to bring forward a 120 MW solar application need not be deterred by the nature of the present NSIP system being slow and uncertain, which we are taking steps to address. They will be able to divide their application into, say, four different applications within the TCPA regime if they have a constructive and pro-development council that they feel they can work with. That would be a faster route to getting a decision on their application, as the clause allows them to apply to the Secretary of State to make a redirection into an alternative consenting regime.
David Simmonds
How does the Minister propose that this measure will address boundary issues? It is not uncommon for a significant construction project to be located in one local authority while the access road, as he described, is in another local authority. Particularly where a section 106 benefit is derived from a development that is taking place, the consenting authority will undertake those negotiations, so clearly it will be necessary to have taken that into account. Can he indicate how such an approach will be built in, so that everyone has an assurance that that will be fully dealt with?
Matthew Pennycook
It will be for the Secretary of State to consider applicants’ requests when they are made. They will issue their policy on redirection decisions, and issue guidance for clarity about precisely how the process will operate in certain circumstances. The access road example that I gave the hon. Gentleman is a good one. In that type of scenario, there is a very strong case for an access road application not to go through the full NSIP regime, particularly if the applicant in question is dealing with a local authority that is well skilled and well resourced, and that they feel is able to better deal with the application in a more timely fashion. They can apply to the Secretary of State to make such a redirection, but we will issue guidance on specifically how the power could be used.
David Simmonds
May I press the Minister a little further on that? I am thinking of the Southall gasworks site, a very large housing development on a former gasworks site in London. The only possible access route to facilitate the development involved constructing a bridge from the London borough of Hillingdon, where none of that development took place, into the borough of Ealing.
Clearly, one of the issues there is that the large scale of housing being delivered is of benefit to Ealing, since it goes against its housing target. The section 106 yield also goes to Ealing as it is the consenting planning authority. However, the loss is that an access road has to be driven through a nature reserve and leisure facility in the neighbouring local authority.
I am just keen to understand how the clause will be used. When the decisions sit with two separate local authorities in normal due process, one of which has a lot more at stake and the other a lot more to lose, how will the Secretary of State be able to balance them so that local residents—constituents—can be assured that their concerns are taken into account?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I want to be very clear about the circumstances in which this measure can be used. As he will appreciate, I will not comment on a specific application, for reasons he will well understand, but, in such a scenario, I struggle to see how that application could feasibly come within the NSIP regime process at all. It sounds like a straight-down-the-line application that would be made by the applicant, across two local authorities, through the Town and Country Planning Act regime.
What the clause seeks to do is ensure that, in cases where, due to the nature of the development, the only route to go down is the NSIP regime via a development consent order, an applicant can apply to have that application determined in a different consenting order if it will lead to a faster, more proportionate and more effective decision-making process. As I say, it will therefore be for the Secretary of State to consider the unique circumstances and impacts of any specific development so that the consenting of certain developments can be undertaken by whatever body the applicant appealing to the Secretary of State says is the more appropriate route. In most instances, I would assume that that would be the local planning authority, but I gave the example of the Transport and Works Acts regime for roads.
We are trying to get at the type of examples where developments need limited consents or may not need compulsory acquisition—in a sense, when the one-stop-shop nature of the NSIP regime may not be the most proportionate means to take that through. The redirection under the clause will not be appropriate for all developments, and, for a direction to be given, the Secretary of State must consider that it is appropriate for an alternative consenting regime to apply rather than the Planning Act.
Lewis Cocking
I thank the Minister for giving way. Has his Department done any analysis of how many requests the Government are likely to get under the clause, and how many applications will want to change how they are determined?
Matthew Pennycook
I think the thrust of the hon. Member’s question was about a numerical analysis. No, we cannot account for the behavioural change that would come if this clause is enacted. What we do know, from significant engagement with stakeholders in the infrastructure sector, is that lots of applicants would make use of the redirection route and are eager to do so.
The examples I have heard from particular major economic infrastructure providers are where, as I say, they have a constructive and healthy working relationship with a local authority that they are confident is resourced and able to take the decision to approve or reject an application in a timely manner and they do not want to have to take it through the NSIP regime, which is currently their only route.
As I said, section 35 already allows the Secretary of State to pull applications from other regimes into the NSIP regime. This will work the other way, and just provides a necessary flexibility. The point of clause 3, though, is to ensure that any given applicant can make a case to the Secretary of State to go into the regime that they feel is the most appropriate and proportionate for the application in question.
Lewis Cocking
I thank the Minister for giving way again. I just want to press him a little more. He is saying that people can choose to go through the Town and Country Planning Act regime, but we were always told by this Government that that is a long, arduous process that developments take a really long time to go through. Why are they suggesting that they might want to put more development through that process if, as they are saying, it is not working?
Matthew Pennycook
The Government are agnostic on which route a developer will wish to go down. As I say, developers will have to apply to the Secretary of State and make a case that, in the specific circumstances in which they are operating, there should be an alternative consenting route. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are making significant efforts to speed up and streamline the town and country planning regime. From previous debates, I know that he takes issue with some of that, but if he has had a conversion, I would very much welcome it.
Paul Holmes
The Opposition generally support what the Minister said. We want to speed up of these applications and give people a better choice in securing the developments that we require. However, we have some concerns and questions, which I hope the Minister will take in the spirit in which they are intended; I am looking to support the clause, not looking to make hay or create issues for him—would you believe it?
The introduction of the idea that the Secretary of State may disapply the requirement for development consent raises some concerns about the potential diminishing of that planning process and the vesting of too much power in Government Ministers. The Minister will understand that the Opposition are concerned about the wording of the provision with regard to when the Secretary of State can use this power. That probably needs to be strengthened, or at least there needs to be a strengthening of the relevant frameworks and parameters.
Two possible cases in which the powers could be used have been outlined, and the Minister helpfully outlined some examples, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. We will not press the clause to a vote, but I would be grateful if the Minister could write to the Committee about whether he and his officials would consider strengthening the parameters relating to where the power could be used. I hope that he does not think that too unreasonable.
Proposed new section 35D provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the timetable for deciding requests and about the provision of information to the Secretary of State. This may be my naivety or it may be that I have not read the right paragraph—I am perfectly willing to accept that I am not perfect, as many of my colleagues will say—but why are those provisions not on the face of the Bill? As the Committee continues this process over the next few weeks, will the Minister try to bring some clarity on that new section?
We do not disagree with the clause. We have some concerns about transparency, but generally we welcome the Minister’s aspirations to speed up these decisions and speed up the process that he has outlined.
Gideon Amos
Without wanting to shock the Minister too much, I rise to support the clause. The Liberal Democrats want measures that will help to facilitate net zero and other developments, and the clause will provide an opportunity for many decisions to go into the Town and Country Planning Act regime, which is local, is accountable and involves local planning committees. That shows that this does not necessarily need to be a slower process; it could at times be a quicker process with more local involvement. I have been involved in NSIP projects that could have gone through that process but in fact came through the Planning Act 2008 regime. Direction under the proposed new section could be very helpful in ensuring more local processing of planning applications.
Matthew Pennycook
I am slightly taken aback by the supportive comment from the hon. Gentleman, but I very much welcome it.
Before I make my main point, it may be helpful if I give hon. Members another example of the types of alternative consenting routes that may be considered more appropriate. We spoke about the Town and Country Planning Act and the Transport and Works Act regimes. Offshore generating stations are another good example. If they are wholly offshore, responsibility for electricity consent functions under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 may be more appropriately transferred to the Marine Management Organisation under section 12 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009—again, rather than the NSIP regime. We will provide further detail, through guidance, about all the regimes that it will be considered appropriate to use in relation to this power.
I gave hon. Members assurances on the fact that we will work across Government to prepare and publish policy that will provide clarity about the Secretary of State’s considerations when determining requests for redirection of a project. As I said, we will also issue guidance that makes the process clear. However, I am more than happy, in response to the shadow Minister’s point, to write to the Committee to set out in more detail how we think this process will work. That will include responding to his specific point on proposed new section 35D—
David Simmonds
It would be helpful if, when the Minister produces that response, he could also set out for the Committee how the processes in place will ensure consistency of decision making. As he described, some local authorities may be more pro in a particular area, or less so. There is a need to ensure transparency that a given nature of development and a given scale will be dealt with in a consistent manner.
Can the Minister tell us whether any consideration has been given to any time constraints? I am just mindful of the fact that one issue that certainly occurs in local authorities and potentially in central Government is that if the end of a Parliament, a general election, is coming up, there is a risk of developers thinking, “At this point, I’m more likely to get the Minister to sign things off if I go down this route or that route,” regardless of the merits, on a planning basis, of the individual projects that are being put forward. Can we be assured that that will be properly addressed so that we do not see development being constrained by an imminent election or, indeed, advanced without due process because of an imminent election?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that entirely reasonable question. It would certainly be our intention, in preparing and publishing policy, to provide clarity. As I said on the Secretary of State’s considerations when determining requests for redirection of a project, we would hope that guidance absolutely provides certainty and clarity. It will not help the Government’s objectives through the Bill if applicants and investors are not clear about how this process works.
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s other point, about clarification of the timelines for how the process could be used, I recognise the concern, but I again remind him that it will be for the Secretary of State to make a decision only on whether an alternative consenting regime can be used. It will be through the normal processes of whatever consenting regime is used, if such a redirection is allowed, that a decision will be made on the material considerations at play in any given application; it will not be for the Secretary of State to decide. This is merely a power to allow, as I said, an applicant to redirect an application into an alternative consenting regime from the NSIP planning process through the Planning Act 2008. On that basis—
David Simmonds
May I press the Minister a little more on that point? I understand and thank him for the clarity that he has brought. As he set out, one purpose of the change is to ensure greater certainty for investors and applicants about the process. We are all very aware that planning issues can often become quite significant local political issues as well.
How will the regime avoid a situation where, with an election in the not-too-distant future, there is a political trade-off that involves a Government, a Minister or a candidate saying, “If we win the election, we are going to push it down this route” in order to try to produce outcome A, versus “We think we should push it down an alternative route” in order to produce a different outcome through the planning process? How can we make sure that it is sufficiently insulated from that political turmoil to ensure certainty?
The Chair
Order. I remind the Committee that we need to get through quite a lot of stuff. The Minister has already said that he will write to the Committee, so I urge Members to press on. I know that these are very important matters, but the Minister has already said that he is going to write.
Matthew Pennycook
Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse. Those of us on the Government Benches will certainly take that stricture into account and limit the length of our contributions. On the specific point, I must say, in all candour, that I struggle to foresee how the dynamics that the hon. Gentleman has just outlined will operate. It is not for the Government to make a judgment on any particular application that a developer may wish to make. It is not the Government’s position to take a view on which consenting regime would be most appropriate, other than on which will produce the most timely and proportionate determination of an application. It will be for the applicant to decide in writing to the Secretary of State, and to make a request to use an alternative consenting regime.
All the Secretary of State will do is decide whether the circumstances at play are such that there is a good case for an alternative to the NSIP regime to be used in a given scenario. As I say, we will set out in policy and guidance more detail about the regimes to which we think this alternative can apply and how we foresee the redirection power being used. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Applications for development consent: consultation
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 4, page 8, line 21, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment is consequential on NC44.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 58.
Clause stand part.
Government motion to transfer clause 4.
Clause 5 stand part.
Government amendments 60 to 67.
Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.
Government new clause 44—Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements.
Government new clause 45—Applications for development consent: changes related to section (Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements).
Matthew Pennycook
As hon. Members will be aware, last week the Government announced that we will reform the pre-application stage for nationally significant infrastructure projects to remove the statutory requirement for applicants to consult. Although the Government are committed to consultation and the value that early and constructive engagement plays in developing high-quality infrastructure schemes, feedback on Second Reading and since the Bill’s introduction has shown that the status quo is not working. Evidence indicates that the statutory requirements, which are unique to the NSIP regime and not found in any other planning consenting regime, are now creating perverse incentives.
Rather than driving better outcomes and improving infrastructure applications, statutory pre-application procedures have become a tick-box exercise that encourages risk aversion and gold plating. The result is that communities suffer from consultation fatigue and confusion, with them having to cope with longer, ever-more technical and less accessible documentation. The arrangement also actively disincentivises improvements to applications, even if they are in the local community’s interests, because applicants worry that any change will require further repeat consultation and added delay to the process.
As the Deputy Prime Minister and I set out on Second Reading, we would not hesitate to act boldly if a compelling case for change was made, to ensure that the NSIP regime is firing on all cylinders to deliver on our ambition for building the homes and infrastructure needed to grow our economy.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Does the Minister, like me, recall the evidence we heard last week from the chair of the National Infrastructure Commission? A report written by the organisation in 2023 said that one of the reasons for the extravagant delays to nationally significant infrastructure projects was “disproportionate consultation”. My constituents are acutely aware of that issue because they have had to wait more than 15 years for the lower Thames crossing to be consented, partly as a result of the very disproportionate consultation that Sir John Armitt referred to. Does the Minister agree that the clauses and amendments he is proposing will provide a significant change to the speed at which NSIPs take place, which will benefit those who are currently suffering as a result of the lack of infrastructure in their area?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I completely agree with him. The system was set up with very specific objectives in mind. It was created initially without a role for Ministers. That was addressed by the Localism Act 2011, but the statutory pre-consultation requirements were kept in place on the basis that they were helping to improve applications prior to submission. However, according to lots of the evidence we have received in response to our working paper on the subject, the feedback from external stakeholders and the calls on Second Reading for us to look again at this specific area, the statutory requirements are now driving perverse and often bad outcomes, including for the communities affected by them.
Last week, I made a written ministerial statement explaining the changes that the Government intend to make. We are tabling a clean package of amendments to implement these reforms through the Bill. The amendments fall into three broad categories.
First, new clause 44 will remove the relevant sections of the Planning Act to give this change effect. That includes removing the sections that require applicants to consult local authorities, landowners, statutory consultees and local communities before submitting applications for development consent. It will also remove from the Act definitions for those groups.
Gideon Amos
This set of amendments is, at first sight, very sweeping and broad, as it will remove large sections of the Planning Act 2008. However, we have some sympathy with the Government. Provisions were put into the Act to proscribe dangerous commissioners who might make decisions without proper scrutiny. Given that the decisions reverted to the Secretary of State in 2011, it seems that a number of them may not be needed.
None the less, it is important to ensure that consultation is meaningful and of high quality. In place of the Planning Act provisions, we want a consultation test on the face of the Bill; if the machinery of the Committee so allows, we would like to table an amendment along those lines. If there is no test at all for meaningful consultation in NSIPs, these amendments would simply remove a great number of requirements for consultation without putting anything in their place. We should be moving from a set of sections in the Act that are about the mechanics of consultation to a qualitative test: consultation should be meaningful, and people should have had the opportunity to be consulted.
We would like to see the key principles in the guidance on the face of the Bill. That is the spirit in which we will respond to the amendments. We hope to be able to bring forward proposals for the Committee to consider.
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, as I should have said earlier. There are three reasons why I, too, have concerns about new clauses 44 and 45 and the removal of the requirement for pre-application consultation.
First, pre-application consultation is often a very useful process, as a way of highlighting and addressing issues between developers and other stakeholders before we get to the formal, structured, legalistic processes. There was a case in Suffolk in which engagement between the Wildlife Trust and National Grid resulted in the trust’s concerns being addressed in such a way that they did not have to be raised in a more legalistic way later in the process. Pre-application consultation is useful and productive for all parties. It is not for developers to decide whether pre-application consultation will be useful in a particular case, but there should be a statutory requirement for key stakeholders, such as local authorities, to be consulted in that way.
My second concern is that the replacement guidance requirements set out in new clause 45 do not provide sufficient clarity for developers, communities and other stakeholders, or for the Planning Inspectorate, on what pre-application engagement is required specifically, because the wording is too vague to provide sufficient clarity. “Have regard to” is a relatively weak duty, while
“what the Secretary of State considers to be best practice in terms of the steps they might take”
is very vague language. It would be open to interpretation and potentially to contestation, which could be unhelpful to speeding up the process in the way we seek.
My third concern, notwithstanding individual examples of processes that might have been held up, is that generally speaking pre-application consultation and public engagement is not the main constraint on the rapid processing of such applications. I understand that research conducted by Cavendish in 2024 looked at DCO consent times from 2011 to 2023. It found that for the first 70 projects going through the DCO process up until 2017, the response time was pretty reasonable. What changed in 2017? It was not the pre-application consultation requirements, which remained the same throughout the process.
Political chaos is what caused the change. Cavendish’s report identifies that it was political turmoil and manoeuvring that caused delays to happen once projects reached the Secretary of State’s desk—I see my Conservative colleague, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, nodding. Who was in government at that time? We had the turnover of Prime Ministers, Ministers and so forth. Bearing all that in mind—the fact that pre-application consultation is a very useful way of deconflicting issues of contestation, the fact that the replacement guidance is so vague as to be unhelpful and itself probably subject to test, and the fact that this is the wrong solution to the problem of delays—I am concerned.
John Grady
I am grateful. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse.
Is the hon. Member disagreeing with the evidence that we heard from Catherine Howard, one of the most eminent planning lawyers in the United Kingdom? Catherine Howard said:
“We cannot magic up more comms consultants, lawyers, environmental impact assessment consultants and planning consultants in that period, so we desperately need a way to apply those professionals most efficiently in a really focused way across all the projects we need.”
She then went on to talk about the pre-app process, which has gone up from 14 months to 27 months:
“I suspect it is even longer now…The pre-app is always something I feel I have to apologise for and explain, and give the best story about how quick it might be”.––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 24 April 2025; c. 67, Q86.]
She explained that investors welcome this change. The pre-application process, in the mind of investors who want to invest in clean energy projects that lower carbon emissions and other critical infrastructure, is a very material source of delays, according to that witness.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I would observe that generally speaking the way oral evidence sessions work is that the Government decide who they want to come and give evidence to support the arguments that they wish to put forward in Committee, so I am not all that surprised that we might have heard that evidence. I am not discounting what the witness said, but I am suggesting that there are other ways to look at it. A blanket removal of the pre-app consultation process with stakeholders who have a huge stake in applications, such as local authorities, is an excessively blanket position to take.
Gideon Amos
Would the hon. Member support a test in the Bill of the quality of the consultation carried out, in place of the mechanistic requirements in the previous Act? They do not actually exist in the Town and Country Planning Act, for example, and normal planning processes.
Ellie Chowns
Indeed, and I noted the hon. Gentleman’s comments about bringing forward a proposal about meaningful consultation. I would very much welcome looking at that. I think that would help to address the concerns being raised here.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I note the hon. Member’s comments about how the Government arrange the witness sessions, but surely she would not dispute the point about the increasing delays in the pre-application process from 14 months to 27 months. That is a serious issue. The Fens reservoir spent more than 1,000 days in pre-application. The National Grid’s application for Bramford to Twinstead spent 717 days in pre-application for just an overhead line and underground cables covering less than 30 km. Hinkley Point C spent three years in pre-app. Sizewell C spent seven and a half years in pre-app. The hon. Member cannot possibly be suggesting that pre-application is not an issue.
Ellie Chowns
I addressed those points in my comments. I am not disputing the fact that there are individual cases in which huge amounts of time have been spent. In response to the comments from the hon. Member for Glasgow East, I am not dismissing the evidence from the witness he referred to, but I have offered evidence from a report that looked at the whole spectrum of applications from 2011 onwards, which says that the representation of nature and community in pre-application requirements is not the underlying causal problem.
These issues are really complex. There is always a tendency to pick a particular example where the situation has clearly been problematic. I am not disputing the fact that some change may be needed. My argument is that it seems excessive to bring in a blanket policy and shift the pendulum too far away from the opportunity to use the pre-application consultation process to resolve issues that might clog up the process later on, because the requirement for meaningful consultation has been removed. Planning applications will always be contested, but these measures take it too far and sweep aside the rights of communities and organisations representing nature to have their voices heard, as well as the opportunity to resolve conflicts before they reach a legalistic stage.
Jim Dickson
Is the hon. Member aware that Cavendish, the organisation that produced the report, is a company that undertakes consultations? It might just be in its interest to make the case that consultation is not at fault for the delays. Does she agree that the five separate consultations over 15 years that were required—or not required, in my view—for the lower Thames crossing were excessive?
Ellie Chowns
I am aware that Cavendish is a consultancy company. It is perfectly reasonable to make that observation. Most people—I mean, pretty much anyone—who will ever give evidence or produce a report will have some sort of interest. We are not saying that anyone who works in the planning system in any way cannot have a viewpoint that is objective, evidence-based and so forth. There are clear examples of processes that have got stuck. I am concerned not only about unsticking the planning process, but about the proposal to let the pendulum swing too far away from the opportunity to have meaningful pre-application consultation that could be more effective than waiting until things bang up against each other further on in the process.
Ellie Chowns
I am happy to take as many interventions as hon. Members want to make, but I am concerned about the timing, Mrs Hobhouse.
Ellie Chowns
If Members feel that they have additional things to raise, they should feel free to speak.
Nesil Caliskan
I was rising to make my speech, Mrs Hobhouse, not to intervene; I apologise. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.
A crucial component of the ability to deliver homes across the country will be to deliver transport and other infrastructure projects. The measures in the Bill go some way towards speeding up the statutory processes of consultation in the delivery of infrastructure projects. As I outlined in my speech on Second Reading, the pre-consultation period for infrastructure projects is a major cause of delay for infrastructure being delivered. To echo the Minister’s remarks, the status quo in this country is simply not working to speed up the process.
As matters stand, applicants operate in what I describe as a hyper-risk-averse context. Delays caused to pre-application contribute not only to the length of time that it takes for infrastructure to be delivered, but to the cost. Other Members rightly identified the lower Thames crossing, which impacts my constituency; 2,000 pages and £800 million spent are figures that have served absolutely no one, and certainly not the taxpayer.
Lewis Cocking
Does the hon. Lady not agree that getting rid of the pre-planning application consultation completely will disenfranchise residents and constituents from engaging with the process? Sometimes that process can solve some of the issues down the line. I understand that it takes too long—I agree with and have strong sympathy for her points—but should we not be able to speed it up while allowing that engagement to take place?
Nesil Caliskan
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I do not think that the change would prevent applicants from continuing to engage with residents and elected Members. All it would do is avoid putting additional onus on a process that is costing the taxpayer a huge amount of money.
I will go further. Having spoken to members of our community, I have heard over and over again that there is consultation fatigue with the endless stream of negotiations. Before we even get to a statutory consultation period, we have had many years of something that has been proposed with no statutory framework. This proposal has the good intention of a material change that will shorten the consultation period.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way as she makes an interesting and good speech based on her expertise in local government. I pay tribute to her for that. She outlined how there can be delays in pre-application. Does she not accept that that very length of time shows that there are issues to be resolved? Does she understand why some people are concerned that the proposals to remove that pre-application process place the onus on applicants to conduct the consultation, and without any safeguards? Potentially, residents and residents groups, constituents and local organisations, such as wildlife trusts will go without their genuine concerns being met by a system that now puts an onus on the people who want planning applications to go ahead.
Nesil Caliskan
I do not accept that, because the statutory consultation period will still be in place and thresholds will still have to be met. The reality is that, as things stand, the pre-consultation period has become a beast in itself, which I do not believe is serving our communities. Years and years of endless consultations, including pre-consultations and pre-application consultations, is not true engagement with communities. That part of the process has become a period in which the applicants just try to derisk their approach to crucial infrastructure in this country, which will see land unlocked so that homes can be built.
Ellie Chowns
I do not think that anybody wants “years and years” of contest, but is it impossible to retain the requirement for a degree of pre-application consultation—perhaps within a shorter timescale or with a more tightly drawn set of consultees—so that issues can be dealt with informally and in advance, to prevent more problems arising further down the line? To sweep everything away seems excessive.
Nesil Caliskan
Manifestly, we do not want years of delay before the delivery of infrastructure, but the truth is that that is exactly what is happening in this country. There are years and years of delay, in part because of the pre-application consultation period.
There is nothing preventing applicants and local authorities, or communities and organisations, from working pre-application on the sort of engagement that the hon. Member is referring to, but including it in the proposals in this way would heighten the legal risk for applicants, making them very resistant to submitting their application formally before going through every single possible step. As hon. Members have highlighted, there is a very long list of examples where the status quo has created a huge burden, made the processes incredibly long and cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money. I think I recall the Minister saying that the proposed amendment would save up to about 12 months and £1 billion, which could be the difference between an infrastructure project being viable or not being viable. Infrastructure projects being viable will mean the land value will increase, and the potential for land to be unlocked and millions of homes to be built across the country will be realised.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I am intervening on a different but still very much related point. What is also really important for me is that we remain attractive as a country to foreign investors and others who are looking to invest here, including in the infrastructure that enables our country to grow and creates jobs. It is important that investors want to come and invest here. The longer the process or the greater the burden, the less likely they are to invest here, and we will lose out to other places across the globe. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to tackle that issue?
Nesil Caliskan
I am so glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend, because that was precisely the point I was going to make and he has made it incredibly well. If we are serious about building homes across the country and about seeing the growth that investment in infrastructure, not least in transport infrastructure, will deliver, we absolutely have to give industry certainty. We have to be able to say to the public, “This will happen with speed.” The amendment seeks to deliver that and it is absolutely in line with the aspiration to speed up the planning process in this country, which at the moment is holding back investment, and to unlock land for development and infrastructure investment.
David Simmonds
I have a lot of sympathy with the comments made by the hon. Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme and for North Herefordshire. I appreciate that the clause was tabled quite late, and the evidence that we heard last week was mixed. The National Infrastructure Commission gave us its views on the impact of pre-application consultation, and local authority representatives who are responsible for that section of the planning system’s decision making said that they have quite significant concerns.
The Opposition have sympathy with what the Government are trying to achieve, but it seems to me that, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington outlined, we need to look at alternatives. It may be that a regime of deemed consent is a mechanism we could use to speed up elements of the process, or perhaps altering how we set out the requirements of pre-app consultation.
I know that you have extensive experience in local government, Mrs Hobhouse, and you will be aware that, as a matter of law, Parliament has set numerous obligations on local authorities in respect of the quasi-judicial process that they follow in planning, and numerous other obligations in respect of what they do for their communities. The pre-application process is a means drawing out, before a major application is made, how the impacts may play out.
I can draw a good recent example from personal experience. The Chancellor, at the Dispatch Box, said that Heathrow expansion, and airport expansion more generally, would be enabled because sustainable aviation fuel would reduce emissions. It is true that sustainable aviation fuel mandates reduce the overall lifetime emissions from a given quantity of aviation fuel, but they do not reduce the level of pollution at the tailpipe of the aircraft at all. So when we look at Heathrow airport, it does not matter whether the fuel burned there is sustainable aviation fuel or conventional aviation fuel; emissions within the locality, which are what give rise to the legal obligations on the local authority regarding air quality, remain the same. It is not a solution. When a developer proposes to create a solar farm, a battery storage area or a nuclear power station—or any kind of major infrastructure—the pre-application process gives the local authority an opportunity to begin to understand which of its legal obligations may be engaged by the application.
I am conscious of the experience that the hon. Member for Barking described, illustrating the need to streamline the process as much as possible, but clearly, as several hon. Members have said, the major risk of that is that a developer comes along and sets out an ambition for a development, and residents are consulted and their response is, “In general—in principle—that sounds okay, but what will the impact on us be? Do we understand that from what the developer is putting forward?”
Luke Murphy
It is useful to reflect on what Cavendish Consulting said in responding to these proposals:
“Removing a lot of the tick box requirements of a statutory consultation opens up an opportunity to be a lot more strategic and insight led in the pre-application communications, moving away from the security of ‘this is how we’ve done it before to get accepted’ to ‘what does this project and this community need’.”
The changes being proposed could be much more beneficial in removing the tick-box exercise and focusing on what communities need.
David Simmonds
I understand the point the hon. Member makes, but part of me thinks, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?” For a business whose profits come from expediting the grant of planning consent as much as possible, removing potential obstacles to that is important.
However, as has been outlined in many of the examples that we have debated, there can be crucial points of detail that either would make all the difference to the level of consent and support in the local community for a project, or would engage other legal obligations that Parliament has placed on the local authorities, either to carry out an impact assessment—an evaluation of what that will mean—or, in some cases, to engage with that process to oppose the development taking place, because it contradicts other legal obligations placed on the authority by Parliament in respect of environment, health or whatever it may be. Clearly, we need to ensure that there is a functional process.
Lewis Cocking
Does my hon. Friend agree that removing the pre-planning application consultation entirely places too much trust in developers? Sometimes developers build absolute rubbish. I do not want them to spend too much money on something that does not have some sort of community support, or support from Government agencies. The Bill could jeopardise that, if we remove the consultation completely.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend puts it probably more bluntly than I have, but he is absolutely spot on. I know he has an enormous amount of experience in local government negotiating around exactly these kinds of points.
Matthew Pennycook
I want to tease out a point here, because one of the reasons the Government are confident that the change will lead to beneficial outcomes is that high-quality engagement and consultation routinely takes place in other planning regimes that do not have statutory pre-application requirements. Why do Opposition Members think that their removal, which will equalise all planning consent regimes so that statutory pre-application requirements are not at play, is damaging in this instance? In the TCPA and the types of residential application they are talking about, bad engagement happens, but high-quality consultation and engagement happen too, and residents and other stakeholders get their say post-submission.
David Simmonds
I think that most of us who have been on a planning committee, as the Minister has, probably recognise that, if anything, to satisfy the concerns of our constituents we should be going further with the consultation on small applications, rather than reducing it in larger ways. We are debating developments that will have an enormous community impact, and there are often important points of detail that influence the level of consent.
We have had multiple debates in this and the previous Parliament about the loss of high-quality agricultural land to solar farms, for example. It is quite likely that a community, if it fully understands exactly how a developer will mitigate that impact, will come around to supporting such a development; but if the community is simply faced with, “Here is the planning application. We have made it already. Take it or leave it,” there is a risk from not allowing the opportunity for the level of consent to be built up. That will in turn encourage, and in the case of local authorities’ statutory obligations, force, the exploration of other legal routes of objection to prevent the application proceeding.
While I understand what the Minister is saying, like the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, we will use the opportunity given by the provisions being tabled relatively late in the day to explore alternative methods by which concerns can be addressed. It seems to us fundamental that if a major application is made, those who are affected by it should have the opportunity in advance to learn what it means for them, their community and their home, and should not simply be told that the planning application has been made.
There is a world of difference between a planning application that means, “Your house is going to be demolished in order for something to proceed,” and a planning application that indicates a much less significant impact. It is those kinds of issues that need to be teased out; that is what the pre-application discussions and consultations are there for. We encourage the Government to think about a different, more nuanced way to address fully the concerns that have been expressed cross-party, although in slightly different ways.
Paul Holmes
The Minister will be pleased to know that I will not be making a very long speech. I will briefly comment on some of the clauses before the Committee, and elaborate on some of the genuine points that Members on both sides of the Committee have made. I am grateful that the Minister tabled these new clauses, albeit quite late in the day, to give us some clarity, but they actually do not give any clarity on the proposals for the removal of the consultation, particularly new clauses 44 and 45.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and others, I too have chaired a planning committee. I genuinely believe that pre-applications can be very useful. If a community or organisations in a geographic locality have genuine concerns, the pre-application stage can make the passage of planning applications and planning permissions smoother by unblocking some of those concerns, and deliver a better planning application or infrastructure project. A number of colleagues, including the Minister and the hon. Member for Basingstoke, said that this and the length of time the stage takes is a block. I agree with them, but does not mean that it needs to be removed entirely. It means that we should work to ensure that the pre-application stage is better and more efficient.
I am concerned that, if we go down this road and remove pre-application requirements, we will have worse applications and store up longer term blockages when genuine concerns are not met. The Minister outlined the money and time saved, but we will see both start to creep up again or other issues arise. The hon. Member for Basingstoke gave examples of problems. I understand he is an expert in his field but I say to him strongly that solutions can be found. The solution is not necessarily to eradicate completely a provision that is designed to mitigate overwhelming grassroot concerns.
I apologise to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for thinking she was a Liberal Democrat Member. She is a Green, which is absolutely fine—I would never wish being a Liberal Democrat on anyone. [Laughter.] No offence to the Liberal Democrats, but it is rare for me to agree with either party. I am grateful for her speech, as she is clearly an expert. It was genuine and heartfelt, and came at the problem with an attitude shared by me and my colleagues.
As I said to the hon. Member for Basingstoke and the Minister, we all accept that the processes are too long, but we do not believe we are in a position where people want to do bad. My concern, shared by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, is that if we go down the proposed route, applicants and developers will end up having overarching power over local people who want to raise concerns. In my view we are giving developers too much power and the pendulum is swinging too far that way. The Minister’s view is that developers genuinely want to make a difference 100% of the time. There is a difference in approach, so I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for her speech.
I ask the Minister to look again at this matter and produce a guidance regime. [Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position that there will be guidance. We believe that that needs to be strengthened in the Bill. Completely removing the pre-application consultation stages, as the Minster outlined, is a retrograde step; it will put too much power in the hands of developers, and will silence those who are not nimbys but who genuinely want to achieve the best solutions for their local communities. These measures go too far and need to be looked at again. I shall be grateful if the Minister comes back to the Committee and the House having reconsidered them.
Ordered That the debate be now adjourned.— (Gen Kitchen.)
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 29th April 2025
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 April 2025 - (29 Apr 2025)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Government amendment 58.
Clause stand part.
Government motion to transfer clause 4.
Clause 5 stand part.
Government amendments 60 to 67.
Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.
Government new clause 44—Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements.
Government new clause 45—Applications for development consent: changes related to section (Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements).
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. In the last sitting, we discussed the various clauses and Government amendments in this group, and I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for their considered engagement with them. The proposed changes we are considering are, without question, a significant evolution of the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime, and it is entirely right and proper that they are subject to intensive scrutiny.
As the Committee is aware, I set out the Government’s position on this matter in considerable detail in my written ministerial statement from 23 April. I therefore intend to focus my remarks on providing useful further points of clarification about the rationale for the proposed reforms and how we see the system operating once they have been made.
In her remarks, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire conceded that the NSIP process can take a long time, but she implied that the problem was merely confined to individual applications. The Government disagree. From our perspective, the problem that these and other changes in this chapter are intended to remedy are systemic. The status quo is not working, and all too often it is burdensome to applicants and consultees alike.
We know that the performance of the NSIP regime as a whole has deteriorated sharply over recent years. We know that pre-application periods have, on average, nearly doubled since 2013, increasing from over 14 months to nearly 28 months in 2021. As much as Labour Members welcome any and every reminder of the chaos unleashed under recent Conservative Administrations, I do not believe that the deterioration we are discussing can be attributed to the uncertainty that the post-2016 period engendered.
The evidence clearly points to the fact that inefficiencies in the NSIP system, both structural and cultural, are driving delays and high costs. We heard examples this morning of the fact that the documentation underpinning consents has been getting longer, and in too many instances now runs to tens of thousands of pages. Part of the reason is that the statutory and prescriptive nature of the pre-application requirements—I again remind the Committee that they are absent from other planning regimes, including those used for applications for new housing—are driving perverse outcomes.
It is precisely because the requirements are statutory that applicants fear that falling short of them will see their project rejected further down the line, or leave them exposed to judicial review. As we have discussed, the result is that projects are slowed down as developers undertake ever more rounds of consultation and produce greater amounts of documentation to ensure that the requirements are met. Sensible improvements are deterred because applicants worry that they will require further rounds of consultation to insulate them from challenge.
In short, as I argued in the previous sitting, the dynamics of the system are actively encouraging risk aversion and gold-plating and are compelling applicants to go above and beyond what may be required in law, rather than merely ensuring that an application is acceptable in planning terms. Because the root of the problem is the statutory nature of the requirements, it is worth noting that the same behavioural incentives would be in play if we reinserted into the Bill precise statutory criteria for what constitutes effective consultation, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington suggested we should.
In his contribution, the shadow Minister argued that we should focus on improving rather than removing the statutory requirements in question. However, he overlooked the fact that the NSIP action plan, published by the previous Government in February 2023, contained a range of reforms designed to drive more effective and proportionate approaches to consultation and engagement, including new cost-recoverable pre-application services for applicants at the Planning Inspectorate, and revised and strengthened pre-application guidance.
While those steps were welcome, and this Government are seeking to embed new services and cost-recovery mechanisms, the feedback we have received from a wide range of stakeholders suggests that they will not deliver the necessary step change needed to tackle risk aversion and gold-plating. It is the dynamic that has arisen as a result of the very existence of the statutory pre-application requirements in question that is hampering their nominal purpose of producing better outcomes, and the present arrangements are driving up costs not only for developers, but for the bill payers and taxpayers we all represent.
The Government are in complete agreement with the hon. Member for North Herefordshire that early, meaningful and constructive engagement with those affected, including local authorities, statutory consultees, landowners and local communities, often leads to better schemes, greater local benefits and improved mitigation. We still want and expect the NSIP regime to function on the basis of a front-loaded approach in which development proposals are thoroughly scoped and refined prior to being submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. As part of that process, we still want and expect high-quality, early, meaningful and constructive engagement to take place and for positive changes to be made to applications. However, we want and expect it to take place without the downsides that the current statutory requirements are causing.
Removing the statutory requirements in question does not signify that pre-submission consultation and high-quality engagement is no longer important. Statutory guidance that the Government will be required to produce will encourage such pre-application engagement and consultation, but with applicants given the flexibility to carry it out in the way that they consider best for their proposed development, in accordance with that guidance.
Equally as importantly, the system will still reward high-quality engagement and consultation. The Planning Inspectorate will continue to assess whether applications are suitable to proceed to examination. We expect guidance to emphasise that without adequate engagement and consultation, applications are unlikely to be able to do so. Guidance and advice from the Planning Inspectorate will be aimed at helping applicants demonstrate that they are of a satisfactory standard in terms of meeting that process.
Ultimately, all communities will still be able to have their voices heard, whether that is through objecting outright to applications or providing evidence of adverse impacts through the post-submission examination process, which all applications obviously still need to go through.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I do not demur from much of what the Minister says about the provisions. To go back to his remarks about the delays not being caused solely by the chaos under the previous Government, is it not a fact that during the last few years of the Conservative Government, the delays at the decision stage, which is meant to be three months, rocketed?
The regime, which began as one in which every section of it respected the deadlines, became one in which every section respected the deadlines with the exception of the Secretary of State. The intention of those drafting the Planning Act 2008 was that, in such circumstances, a report to Parliament by the Secretary of State when delaying the decision would serve as a disincentive on the Secretary of State for doing so. That clearly has not happened. Will the Minister reflect on whether any other measures could be taken to eliminate the delays caused by Secretaries of State making decisions on NSIPs in future?
Matthew Pennycook
It is certainly the case that it is not only in the pre-submission phase where slippages in timeframes have occurred. The hon. Member makes a valid point about the fact that we have seen a pattern in some Departments of Secretaries of State not making timely decisions. This Government have sought to improve upon the past performance. We are already doing so, but I am open to ideas on how we might tighten the process. The Government are giving further thought to the general matter of how consents are taken through Departments.
To conclude, the changes proposed will make a significant contribution to speeding up and streamlining the consenting process for critical infrastructure, and we are convinced that in many cases they will produce better outcomes than the status quo. I therefore urge the Committee to support them.
Amendment 57 agreed to.
Amendment made: 58, in clause 4, page 8, line 32, leave out subsection (3).—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment is consequential on NC44.
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered,
That clause 4 be transferred to the end of line 32 on page 12. —(Matthew Pennycook.)
Clause 5 disagreed to.
Clause 6
Applications for development consent: acceptance stage
Amendments made: 60, in clause 6, page 10, line 4, leave out “follows” and insert
“set out in subsections (2) to (13)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 68.
Amendment 61, in clause 6, page 10, line 25, after “Secretary of State” insert “and others”.
This amendment is consequential on subsection (5)(d) of NC45.
Amendment 62, in clause 6, page 11, line 4, leave out from “satisfying” to “and” in line 6 and insert
“section 48 (duty to publicise),”.
This amendment is consequential on NC44.
Amendment 63, in clause 6, page 11, leave out lines 12 to 14.
This amendment is consequential on NC44.
Amendment 64, in clause 6, page 11, line 16, leave out “50” and insert “50(1)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 63.
Amendment 65, in clause 6, page 11, leave out lines 17 to 20.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 63.
Amendment 66, in clause 6, page 11, line 21, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
“(9) Omit subsection (5).”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 64.
Amendment 67, in clause 6, page 12, line 32, at end insert—
“(14) In consequence of the amendments in subsections (7)(c) and (10), omit section 137(3) and (4) of the Localism Act 2011.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This technical amendment omits provisions of the Localism Act 2011 that are no longer required (because of changes made by clause 6 of the Bill).
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Planning Act 2008: legal challenges
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 8 streamlines the judicial review process for nationally significant infrastructure projects. The changes apply to legal challenges against decisions on development consent orders and national policy statements. At the moment, individuals wanting to bring challenges against nationally significant infrastructure projects, such as nuclear plants, railway lines, wind farms and other projects, have up to three attempts to try to obtain permission from the courts. As noted by Lord Banner’s independent review last year into the delays caused by these legal challenges, each attempt extends the duration of a claim by several weeks, and in some cases, by several months.
The clause will remove the paper permission stage, meaning that applications for judicial review will go straight to an oral hearing in the High Court. The clause will also remove the right to appeal for cases that are deemed totally without merit at the oral hearing, which becomes the only attempt for these cases. The Government are committed to maintaining access to justice, which is why the right of appeal will remain for cases that are refused permission at the oral hearing, but that are not deemed totally without merit. The changes are a necessary means of preventing meritless claims from holding up development by exhausting the appeals process and of ensuring that legitimate legal challenges are heard promptly. I commend the clause to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Twigg. We touched on the issue of remedy earlier today. A local authority, for example, may have a statutory obligation placed on it by a piece of legislation, which means that it has an obligation to take an interest in a particular development, including potentially judicially reviewing that application, if the impact runs contrary to its other statutory obligations.
We are well aware of issues relating to air quality, but there are also organisations such as ClientEarth, which many of us will have heard of. Essentially, their stock in trade is to look for opportunities to address broader issues around, for example, climate change and environmental impact by using what, in some cases, are arguably loopholes, but in many cases, are essentially contradictions in legislation.
The Minister talked earlier about a shift from having statutory pre-application processes to having guidance that would need to be followed. Clearly, one of the issues is that guidance can be challenged, and bodies that have a responsibility to follow the guidance can be challenged as to whether they have fulfilled their obligation to the letter.
Opposition Members certainly have concerns about the implications of removing the right to judicial review. We share the view that we need to ensure that those processes—those applications—are not frivolous and that they are not being used simply because the cost of responding to judicial review, and the delay that is involved, is a tool to create delay, impose costs and therefore deter development, which we all agree should take place. Conversely, however, we do not wish to see a situation where a public body or a local resident—a constituent—who has a genuine right to be heard and a genuine concern arising out of law is constrained from bringing the matter forward and seeking a remedy.
We also do not want a situation where, for example, a decision by Government, which is then taken through this process and restricted from judicial review, results in a third party, such as a local authority or NHS body, being judicially reviewed for its failure to stop that from proceeding—for its failure to bring a judicial review under other responsibilities that it has. I would be grateful if the Minister could address that.
Statutory consultees already have many legal obligations and duties relating to issues such as water quality, air quality and nature. They are obliged to go to the utmost of their powers to fulfil those obligations. Clearly, they may well be held in default if a development proceeds by virtue of the fact that they have not had the opportunity to appropriately challenge it in law. It would be helpful if the Minister set out how that will be fully addressed.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reasonable questions. If I have understood him, he makes a separate point about the statutory consultee system. As he will know—I refer him to my relevant written ministerial statement—we are seeking to reform that system in a number of ways.
On clause 8 specifically, the changes will not affect the ability to challenge the lawfulness of Government decisions in court. They are simply designed to reduce delays. We are not preventing anyone from challenging our planning decisions. Obviously, Government do not control how many of those challenges are made. We are tightening up the process so that if a challenge is judged to be meritless by the court—not by Government—it cannot be dragged on for years through numerous further appeals.
Only cases deemed totally without merit in the oral permission hearing in the High Court will be prevented from appealing to the Court of Appeal. Other cases will continue to be able to appeal the refusal of permission to the Court of Appeal. That will ensure that there is no possibility of meritless claims holding up nationally significant infrastructure projects, while maintaining access to justice in line with our domestic and international obligations.
I hope that the hon. Member is reassured that we are not removing wholesale the ability to mount judicial review challenges. Some have called for us to go further, but we think the proposals strike the right balance between addressing the removal of the paper permission stage and dealing with the issue of meritless claims. On that basis, I hope that he is reassured and may even feel inclined to support the measure.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Notwith-standing the comments from my fellow shadow Minister, who made an excellent contribution, can I press the Minister on one question? My hon. Friend outlined the Opposition’s concern over removing wholesale—we are not saying that the Minister is doing this—the checks and balances relating to somebody being able to challenge a decision that they deem has not been taken in the right way.
However, it would be remiss of us as a party not to acknowledge that there are cases where JR is used vexatiously. To use an example from my constituency, I waited for 12 years to get a 300-foot extension to Southampton airport’s runway. It took three judicial reviews before we finally got that through. There was unmitigated support from the local authority and me as the Member of Parliament at the time, and it was taken to JR for what I would say were very dubious reasons, just to try to delay the project.
I understand why the Minister is bringing in the measures, notwithstanding some of the concerns that my hon. Friend mentioned about the balance. However, I am reassured by what the Minister said about not removing the ability to challenge and tightening the process around what can be accepted as being without merit.
I have one question for the Minister, which he may not be able to answer today—I would not necessarily expect him to—but perhaps he could write to me about it. Following Lord Banner’s work, which was a thoughtful examination of how legal challenges could be streamlined, has the Minister made any assessments, through officials or the Department, of how much time or cost on average the changes to clause 8 might mean for the system overall? I am not expecting him to get his abacus out and look at that now, but I wonder whether he could outline to the Committee, through an impact assessment, the effect of some of the changes.
We will not push this clause to a Division. We understand the principled reason why the Minister is bringing it forward, even if we have some concern about the detail of the measure.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. This clause and the other clauses in this chapter are good news for Scotland, because we in Scotland depend on projects in England to proceed. Many projects are cross-border and need consent in both countries. That is important for jobs, particularly jobs for young people.
I have had the misfortune to be involved in infrastructure projects for many years. From time to time judicial reviews without any merit are brought solely to delay and frustrate projects. It is right and proper that the law is changed to make it clear that, once the High Court has made a decision, following argument—because the right to an oral hearing is retained—further appeals are prevented. Such appeals can lead to significant delays, depending on the business of the Court of the Appeal, which has many pressing priorities.
Some mention was made of costs. I will briefly describe the cost to developers, because the Labour party is a pro-business, pro-environment party. If someone has a development that is subject to a judicial review, they have planned their contracting strategy, and what it will cost to build the development, and their financing. If there is an indeterminate delay, and a series of additional delays of unpredictable length—as a lawyer, I could never tell people how long litigation would take—they are then exposed to significant fluctuations in the financial and commodities markets. There are therefore real costs, so I naturally support clause 8. The clause, along with the rest of the package of reforms to the development consent order regime, will create the opportunity for significant additional employment in Scotland, jobs for our young people, and great net zero and housing projects.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, for his constructive tone on this clause—and others; I do not mean to confine his constructive attitude to just this clause. I welcome his praise for Lord Banner’s review, which I agree was thoughtful and insightful. As part of that review Lord Banner made it clear that although the duration differs between different applications, each attempt to apply for a judicial review currently extends the duration of a claim by, on average, several weeks, and in some cases by several months. In large numbers of cases, time is added by legal challenges that are unsuccessful. The changes made by the Bill aim to strike the right balance between improving efficiency and ensuring access to justice.
To be clear, this clause does remove the paper permission stage, but only makes changes by removing the right to appeal for cases that are deemed “totally without merit”. Other cases will retain that right of appeal if they are deemed to be with merit and able to be considered. We think these changes will make a difference to the time that projects take to work their way through the system, and we will work with the judiciary to advance a number of other changes to the process for NSIP judicial reviews, such as introducing target timescales for cases that we think will have a beneficial impact. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Clause 9
Connections to electricity network: licence and other modifications
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 9, page 14, line 6, after “distribution system” insert
“(and such an improvement may include changing the order in which connections are made)”.
This amendment clarifies that the purpose for which the power under clause 9(1) may be exercised may include the making of changes to the order of the queue for connections to a transmission or distribution system.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 37 to 40.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 10 and 11 stand part.
New clause 19—Increasing grid capacity—
The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a plan to—
(a) reduce the cost of, and time taken to make, connections to the transmission or distribution system;
(b) permit local energy grids.
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a plan to reduce the time and financial cost of connections to the electricity grid and to allow local energy grids.
Michael Shanks
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Twigg. We thought a change in the tone of the Committee for a few clauses would be helpful, before we return to the other Minister.
Amendment 36 clarifies that a modification made under clause 9 may include changes to the order of the queue for connections, which works towards the broader aim of improving the management of connections to the transmission and distribution systems. The purpose of all this work is to reorder the connections queue. That is essential to deal with the extreme level of oversubscription in the queue, and enable a move from the “first come, first served” proposition that we have at the moment to a “first ready and needed, first connected” approach. The amendment is essential to fulfil the intent of the clauses, which is to provide the means to implement connections reform should the current Ofgem and industry-led process face delays or be unable to realise its benefits in full.
Amendment 37 clarifies that the power of the Secretary of State to direct Ofgem to modify a licence or agreement may be exercised only for the purpose of improving the management of connections to the transmission or distribution system, which places an additional safeguard on the use of that power. Amendment 38 clarifies that the Secretary of State or Ofgem may modify an agreement under the powers in clause 9 even where the effect of the modification might amount to a repudiation of the agreement, which provides consistency with the existing wording in clause 12. It is also essential to fulfil the intent of the clauses. Finally, amendments 39 and 40, which are purely consequential on amendment 38, move the definition of “qualifying distribution agreement” within clause 9.
I turn to clause 9 more broadly. As many Members will know, the current first come, first served electricity grid connections regime is causing considerable and unacceptable delays. It is blocking clean power projects from connecting to the grid, and blocking demand projects that are critical to our economic growth as a country. The National Energy System Operator—NESO—and Ofgem are reforming the electricity grid connections process to a strategically aligned first ready, first connected system. The reformed process will require projects to meet readiness, technological and locational criteria to progress.
The reform requires complex amendments to codes and licences. Clause 9 therefore enables the Secretary of State or Ofgem to support the existing connections reforms by directly amending electricity licences, and associated documents or agreements, should that prove necessary. It is intended to be used should the existing processes enacting connections reforms face significant delays, including alignment with strategic energy plans. The Government or Ofgem will then be able to expedite a set of changes outside the standard process to ensure that our clean power mission is delivered at pace. The clause is focused on improving the management of connections to the transmission or distribution system, and follows precedent in being time-limited to three years after commencement of the power on Royal Assent. Similar powers have been taken in the past, including in section 84 of the Energy Act 2008, but they were also time-limited and are therefore no longer in force.
Clause 10 details the scope of the power in clause 9, which enables the Secretary of State or Ofgem to make amendments to electricity licences and associated documents or agreements. The clause first defines the power to modify in clause 9, which includes the ability to amend, add to or remove provisions, and to add or release parties from agreements. It will enable the Secretary of State or Ofgem to support Ofgem and NESO’s existing connections reforms by directly amending electricity licences, and associated documents or agreements, should that prove necessary.
The clause further details how the Secretary of State or Ofgem can exercise the power, which includes allowing for general or specific modifications, incidental changes and provisions that do not necessarily relate to the activities authorised by the licence. It ensures that modifications to standard licence conditions are reflected in future licences, and specifies the conditions under which licences can be revoked. Finally, it allows agreements to include conditions that must be met before the taking of specific steps, or provision about the procedure for varying the agreement. Similar scope and procedure have been outlined previously in legislation, including in the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022.
Clause 11 details the procedure around the provision in clause 9 to enable the Secretary of State or Ofgem to make amendments to electricity licences and associated documents. It aligns with the precedent established in section 8 of the 2022 Act, which detailed the procedure to modify a generation licence of a relevant licensee nuclear company. The clause obligates the Secretary of State or Ofgem—I am not sure how many more times I will say that in this speech—to consult a list of specified persons, such as the holder of any relevant licences, NESO and any other appropriate individuals, before making modifications. Details of those modifications must be made public as soon as reasonably practicable to ensure transparency with wider stakeholders. However, the Secretary of State or Ofgem can exclude from the publication any information that could harm commercial interests.
I will respond on new clause 19 after it has been spoken to.
John Grady
I rise simply to add my support to this provision. There is an extensive requirement to develop the electricity generation industry in Scotland and England, and this will give rise to great long-term jobs and apprenticeships for young people, as well as move us on to cheaper, secure, lower-carbon energy.
Such queues have been a long-standing issue in the electricity industry, as any developer will tell you, and half the time it is absolutely impossible to know when their project will be connected. That is no basis on which to attract the significant investment we need in our industry in this country, because developers can go to other jurisdictions and get much quicker connections.
This reform has been carefully put together by the ministerial team and Ofgem. The Minister for Energy has addressed the issue, and the reform is to be applauded. It may seem a rather arid and dry topic, but ultimately the reform is of significant benefit to industry in the United Kingdom.
Paul Holmes
What I have to say about these clauses will not be arduous, partly because I am not a shadow Energy Minister—as many Members will be pleased to note, including me—and my focus will be on the planning amendments. This is, however, a very important part of the Bill.
The Minister said he keeps mentioning “Ofgem and the Secretary of State”, but if he would like us to helpfully have a word with the Prime Minister to recommend that he becomes the Secretary of State, we are more than happy to do so. The Opposition believe that even he, as the Under-Secretary, could not do as much damage to our energy system networks and future growth as the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband). [Interruption.] It is a policy disagreement.
This is a policy disagreement because, looking at the proposals in these clauses, we are very concerned. We obviously agree that the grid needs to be ready to connect to, because of the demands being placed on the system, and that is the policy of this Government and of the last. However, the focus of the current Secretary of State in really going down the route of the net zero agenda at what we would describe as a very fast speed, sometimes cutting off his nose to spite his face such as by cutting back on some of the energy systems we currently have, has put overwhelming demand on the energy grid.
The Government’s proposed decarbonising of the grid by 2030 will add at least £25 billion per year to the cost of the electricity system. The brunt of this increase will be felt by the people out there, who will see their household energy bill shoot up by over £900. Professor Gordon Hughes, the leading energy system expert, has found that these plans will increase power generation costs, grid balancing and capacity levels, thereby passing on those costs to our constituents.
The costs of balancing the grid alone are set to rise by £4 billion. Despite that, the Government have scrapped the full system cost review commissioned by the last Government. The current Administration are steaming ahead without a clear understanding of the impact on the energy bills of hard-working people—the energy bills they promised to freeze—on their families and on the industry’s competitiveness. Decarbonising the grid requires transparency on costs, not just soundbites about renewables, which I believe is what we have seen.
The Government have also watered down the proposed community benefits of new energy infrastructure, which they lauded before the press a couple of weeks ago, to just £750 per person.
Paul Holmes
From a sedentary position, the Minister says, “Just”, under his breath. It was not me who went to the BBC and leaked a report saying that the Government were going to give more money than they are now proposing; that has been reduced by his amendment, so, yes—“just”.
Furthermore, the Government have abandoned a number of reforms, including a review of the presumption in favour of overhead lines, stronger protection for prime agricultural land against large solar developments, and enhanced safety measures for battery storage facilities. Expanding and improving the electricity system is necessary, but it must be done in a way that balances affordability, reliability and community concerns. We are concerned that the clauses in the Bill remove this transparency and add costs, but will not deliver the streamlined or more rapid benefits to the system that the Minister outlined.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I rise to speak to new clause 19. First, the Liberal Democrat members of this Committee support a lot of what the Government are proposing in this part of the Bill. Creating electricity grids of the future is a critical route to decarbonising and has the potential to reduce consumer bills.
It is much to the UK’s credit that we are making good progress in efforts to decarbonise our electricity generation. Wind and solar in particular account for a growing share of our power generation. However, the transition from one-way transmission of electricity from a small number of very large power stations to a more distributed and multi-directional movement of power creates some challenges. We are going to need major upgrades of our electricity grid to accommodate the growing number of solar installations, as an example, more of which my hon. Friends and I would like to see on new and existing buildings. Making further progress will help our national energy security and reduce consumer bills at a time when energy inflation and the cost of living are still significant problems.
There are examples where cost and/or process have acted as barriers to the ability to feed surplus solar energy into the grid, or to the commissioning of new clean and renewable electricity production. Local energy grids have the potential to benefit communities and use the energy much closer to its source of generation. Therefore our proposed new clause would go further than the Government in the current Bill. It requires the Secretary of State to, within three months of the passing of this Bill, lay before Parliament a plan for how the Government will facilitate the creation of local energy grids and deal with the cost and time of grid connections. I hope the Minister and hon. Members on the Government Benches will embrace this amendment as a way to help continue our country’s journey towards becoming a clean, renewable energy superpower.
Michael Shanks
I will first respond to a few points in the debate generally. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East—across the Clyde from my constituency—made the absolutely right point that sums up what this connections reform process is all about: the absence of reforming the queue is driving away investment. Reform is critical for investment in our generation capacity and for how we connect demand projects that will be so important for unlocking economic growth. With more than 750 gigawatts currently in the queue to connect in the UK, the truth is there is no scope for that to happen without some radical reform of the queue. The Conservative party, when in government, recognised that that was a challenge and had already set about some reforms to make that happen.
We think we need to go even further. The shadow Minister, in a ray of honesty, said he was glad he was not the shadow Energy Minister. Based on the script on net zero, I think we are all fortunate that he is not the shadow Energy Minister, frankly, but it is the same script we are hearing from everyone at the moment.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. Might it not be that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley is embarrassed by his party on net zero? After all, on 17 January he said:
“I will conclude—many will be pleased to hear—by reaffirming the Conservative party’s strong commitment to the UK’s target of reaching net zero by 2050”—[Official Report, 17 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 650.]—
only for that to be scrapped by his leader exactly two months later.
Michael Shanks
There is always a quote, as they say, and my hon. Friend is always there with the quotes at his fingertips, which is helpful. The truth is that the only way we are going to bring down bills and deliver energy security is the sprint to clean power. This is a crucial element of that, and of how we unlock investment—predominantly private investment—over the next few years as we build that clean power system. Even if we were not doing that, the grid is essential. It is an essential part of how we deliver electricity to homes, businesses and industry and it is critical that we upgrade it anyway.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Minister talks about energy security and bringing down bills, and of course we need to have more renewables online to do that, but we also need to issue new oil and gas licences so that we can produce more energy at home. That would help with what he is suggesting.
Michael Shanks
We are straying far from new clause 19, which I am keen to return to, but the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong on that point. Gas traded on the international market is exactly why all our constituents pay more on their energy bills. The answer is to get off gas as the marginal price setter, not to have even more of it.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington made a helpful speech, although I will resist his new clause. We are in agreement about the issue of connection delays and the first come, first served process not working, and it is important that we reform that. We are of the view that our proposals do that, and the National Energy System Operator has worked with Ofgem and is of the view they are sufficient to do that.
The question of local power and local grids is an interesting approach that we are looking at. We take seriously the role of community-owned power—it is in the Great British Energy Bill, recognising our commitment to it—but we do not see it in itself as a barrier to what we are trying to do here. The infrastructure, including for local networks, that incorporates generation and demand is already permitted under the existing system. It can be constructed and operated by distribution network operators, by independent network operators or by a private wire under a statutory licence exemption provision.
We agree about the importance of community energy and are looking at a range of things, in particular at how communities might to sell power locally. They are all important points, and all this is how we will unlock the social and economic benefits of the clean power transition. For the reasons I have outlined, and because we think it is already entirely possible, we will resist new clause 19.
Gideon Amos
People in Taunton and Wellington are four-square behind new clause 19, but it was my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage who spoke to it.
Michael Shanks
I betray my lack of English geography. I am sorry, but I assume that the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for Didcot and Wantage are both in complete agreement with new clause 19. In any event, I thank them, but disagree with them both, instead of just one of them. I commend Government amendments 36 to 40 and clauses 9 to 11 to the Committee.
Amendment 36 agreed to.
Amendments made: 37, in clause 9, page 14, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may exercise the power under subsection (3) only for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2).”
The amendment makes it clear that the power of the Secretary of State to direct the GEMA to modify a licence or agreement may only be exercised for the purpose of improving the purpose of managing connections to the transmission or distribution system.
Amendment 38, in clause 9, page 14, line 15, at end insert—
“(5A) A relevant authority may under subsection (1) modify an agreement mentioned in subsection (1)(e) or a qualifying distribution agreement even if the effect of the modification might amount to a repudiation of the agreement.”
This amendment ensures consistency with clause 12(8) in clarifying that modifications made to a particular connection or distribution agreement under clause 9(1) may be made even if the effect of the modification might amount to the repudiation of that agreement.
Amendment 39, in clause 9, page 14, line 16, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment, together with amendment 40 moves the definition of “qualifying distribution agreement” into subsection (7); this change is consequential on amendment 38.
Amendment 40, in clause 9, page 14, line 27, at end insert—
“‘qualifying distribution agreement’ means—
(a) the terms subject to which a connection is made by an electricity distributor in pursuance of section 16(1) of the Electricity Act 1989, or
(b) a special connection agreement as defined by section 22(1) of that Act;”.—(Michael Shanks.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 39.
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Directions to modify connection agreements
Michael Shanks
I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 12, page 16, line 8, leave out subsection (1).
The effect of this amendment is that a relevant authority may give a direction under clause 12 without first having exercised its powers under clause 9(1) to modify an electricity licence or an electricity industry code.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 42 to 47.
Clause stand part.
Michael Shanks
Government amendment 41 will allow the Secretary of State or Ofgem to direct the NESO or a distribution network operator to amend an agreement under the clause without the need to have previously modified licences, codes and associated documents under clause 9. Without the amendment, the Secretary of State would not be able to use the power to direct the National Energy System Operator or a DNO had not the modification powers in clause 9 —to make changes to licences, codes and associated documents—also been exercised. The amendment will mean that the directive power in clause 12 is no longer contingent on the use of the powers in clause 9.
An example of where the amendment would be needed is if an Ofgem and NESO-led process to amend licences and codes under the framework is successful, meaning that the powers in clause 9 do not need to be used, but the NESO or DNO has not accordingly amended its agreements with customers connecting to the electricity network. The directive powers could be used to ensure that the implementation of connections reform is successful.
David Simmonds
I have a couple of questions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley has set out, we are broadly supportive of the direction of travel around energy in the Bill.
One of the things we are all conscious of with the move to renewables being the main source of power in the grid—something that the UK has achieved faster than most other countries, with a bigger drop compared with the 1990 baseline than any other developed economy —is that it makes the grid more complex. Unlike oil, gas and nuclear, which can be delivered in an entirely predictable manner, renewables are generally much less predictable. There are times when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, and we cannot therefore put that element into the grid. We need to find alternative methods so we need to be able to shift greater amounts of power around to meet the growing energy needs.
As the Minister has outlined, the regime that is envisaged will, for a limited period of time, give greater powers to the Government to determine who gets connected and in which order. First, will the Minister set out how he and the Government intend to feed back to Parliament what we learn from that process, to inform the future shape of our energy grid?
Secondly, what recourse will there be for those at a certain point in the queue who anticipate that their development, whatever it may be, will be served by a particular project and connected at a particular point, if the Government decide otherwise because the reordering of the queue is, in the Minister’s view, necessary? We all understand why that may happen, but if someone is about to invest in a major new carbon capture and storage facility—the sort of major infrastructure project that the Bill is designed to support—and they expect it to be powered by a wind farm but are then told they have been moved much further down the queue than they expected, that will affect the delivery of that project. It would be helpful to understand the process whereby those affected by the reordering of the queue are able to challenge the decision, if necessary, and certainly to engage with the Government, or with constituency MPs, who may seek to advocate for them, so that the reordering can be revisited if necessary.
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those helpful questions. He rightly set out the fact that the grid is already considerably more complex than it was 20 or 30 years ago, and it will become more complex, which is partly why the reform of connections is so important.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the process of prioritising projects will mean that some will be deprioritised. We have looked at the projects that already have a connection date, and in many cases they will proceed. Viable generation projects above the capacity ranges outlined in the clean power action plan—the first strategic document that will be used to guide projects—might still be able to connect if there is capacity in that particular bit of the DNO after the prioritised projects have been assessed. If there is no space in the pre-2030 queue, they will be offered dates in the 2031-35 process.
We have been clear throughout that the process has not been arbitrary or theoretical. Ofgem and NESO have gone through individual applications that are currently in the process to make sure not only that they fit with the requirements of the clean power action plan but that projects are not unnecessarily disadvantaged. Some projects will go ahead even though they are not in the strategic plan, because where they already are in the grid will make it possible for them to go ahead.
The question of transparency is really important. I will come back to the Committee with details on how we might make the information public, but throughout the process Ofgem and NESO have made public as much information as possible about how they have gone about things, and there was a full public consultation as well. The point about how individual MPs can see whether projects in their constituency are affected is well made and I will take that away and reflect on it.
The critical fact, as the previous Government rightly recognised, is that 750-plus GW is simply unmanageable. Really good projects are sitting with dates long into the future but cannot connect because of what are often phantom projects that are never going to come to fruition and are holding up spaces in the queue. For all the reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlined in terms of the importance of energy security, and the importance of prioritising the queue, we think that the Government amendments and the clause are essential.
Amendment 41 agreed to.
Amendments made: 42, in clause 12, page 16, line 17, leave out
“as mentioned in subsection (1)(c)”
and insert
“in accordance with the conditions of an electricity licence”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 41.
Amendment 43, in clause 12, page 16, line 22, after “distribution system” insert
“(and such an improvement may include changing the order in which connections are made)”.
This amendment clarifies that the purpose for which a direction may be given under clause 12 may include the making of changes to the order of the queue for connections to a transmission or distribution system.
Amendment 44, in clause 12, page 16, line 23, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
“( ) A direction under subsection (2) must describe the kinds of modification to be made by the person to whom it is given.”
This amendment inserts a new subsection which would mean that a direction made by the Secretary of State or the GEMA to the ISOP or an electricity distributor to modify an agreement must describe the kinds of modification required.
Amendment 45, in clause 12, page 16, line 38, at end insert—
“(7A) Before giving a direction under subsection (2), the relevant authority must consult—
(a) the person to whom it proposes to give the direction, and
(b) such other persons as the relevant authority considers appropriate.
(7B) Subsection (7A) may be satisfied by consultation carried out before the passing of this Act (as well as by consultation carried out after that time).
(7C) A relevant authority must publish details of any direction it gives under subsection (2) as soon as reasonably practicable after the direction is given.
(7D) A relevant authority may exclude from publication under subsection (7C) any information the publication of which would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person.”
This amendment requires a relevant authority to carry out consultation before giving a direction under clause 12. It also requires a relevant authority to publish any direction it gives under the clause.
Amendment 46, in clause 12, page 16, line 41, at end insert—
“(8A) The power to give a direction under subsection (2) may not be exercised after the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.”
This amendment ensures that the power to give a direction under clause 12 is time-limited in the same way as the power to make modifications to licences and other documents under clause 9.
Amendment 47, in clause 12, page 17, line 10, at end insert—
“(11) In Schedule 6A to the Electricity Act 1989 (provisions imposing obligations enforceable as relevant requirements)—
(a) in paragraph 4A (electricity system operator), after sub-paragraph (c) insert—
‘(d) section 12(8) of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (duty to comply with direction under section 12 of that Act).’;
(b) in paragraph 5 (distribution licence holders), after sub-paragraph (g) insert—
‘(h) section 12(8) of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (duty to comply with direction under section 12 of that Act).’”—(Michael Shanks.)
This amendment amends Schedule 6A to the Electricity Act 1989 in order to provide for enforcement of the duty to comply with a direction given under clause 12.
Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Managing connections to the network: strategic plans etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michael Shanks
Clause 13 will require NESO and the DNOs to have regard to strategic plans designated by the Secretary of State when they carry out functions related to connections. The Secretary of State will designate one or more strategic plans, with the current intention that this will include the clean power 2030 action plan in the first instance and the strategic spatial energy plan going forward. There is precedent in imposing a duty on a body to have regard to a strategic document—for example, the designated strategy and policy statement under section 165 of the Energy Act 2023, which outlines the Government’s strategic priorities, policy outcomes, and the roles and responsibilities of those involved in implementing energy policy.
Let me turn to the detail of the objects set out in the clause. It amends part 5 of the Energy Act 2023 to include a duty for NESO to have regard to designated strategic plans. It also amends the Electricity Act 1989 to place a duty on DNOs to have regard to any designated strategic plan, and adds a further exception to the duty on DNOs to connect in cases where it would not be in accordance with the designated strategic plans. The clause will support the implementation of ongoing connections reforms led by NESO and Ofgem, and will provide guidance and support for NESO and DNOs in making decisions on issuing new connection offers. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
The Minister has been clear in outlining how the clause relates to the previous clauses, and how he wants to overwhelmingly reform the electricity system. I do not see the clause as particularly controversial; it moves on from what he has previously described. Despite my previous speech—I have nothing against the Minister—the Opposition obviously want to be constructive where we possibly can be. The clause is simple and enables the process to carry on, and we will not contest it.
Gideon Amos
I endorse the clause on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, given that it lays out plans rather than an unplanned approach. Provided that interested parties have an opportunity to scrutinise those plans and be involved in them, we also support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Consents for generating stations and overhead lines: applications
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 14, page 18, line 36, after “application.” insert—
“(4) Any fees received by the Scottish Ministers under sub-paragraph (2)(d) may only be used to fund—
(a) consumer benefits packages, or
(b) local planning authorities.”
This amendment would ensure that fees collected by Scottish Ministers through applications can only be used for connected purposes, namely for consumer benefits or to support local authority planning departments.
The amendment was tabled in the name of the shadow Scotland Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). The Opposition absolutely understand the provisions of clause 14, and we broadly agree with it, but we think it could be strengthened to allow added scrutiny and consultation among those who will be most affected by some of the changes in the Bill, including members of the public and interested parties who will be affected by applications that go forward.
I have had a number of interactions with the Minister for Housing and Planning in Delegated Legislation Committees and on the Floor of the House about the Government’s moves towards planning fee reform. I know we are currently scrutinising the Minister from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but we support planning fee reform and the Government’s move to ringfence fees within local authorities. Amendment 80 seeks to do something along those lines with regard to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Scottish Ministers.
Michael Shanks
Normally, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine is my sparring partner in both the Scotland and energy spaces, so it is nice that he has made an appearance in this debate, but I disagree with his amendment. The main reason is that it concerns a devolved competence. This is a UK Government Bill and it is right, given that the resource of local planning decisions and planning authorities is devolved to Scottish Ministers, that they make the decision on how they resource statutory consultees and local planning authorities.
On the point about community benefits, the Scottish Government already have an established process. The 10-year onshore wind ban in England was not in place in Scotland, and the process of good practice for community benefits for onshore wind, for example, is already quite well developed. Processes are in place. Over the past 12 months, developers have offered more than £30 million in community benefits.
We are, of course, exploring all options and the Bill includes bill discounts for network infrastructure—we will come to that shortly—but we are open to much more on community benefits generally, because we agree that if communities are hosting nationally important infrastructure, they should benefit, as the hon. Member for Hamble Valley rightly said. However, for the reasons I have outlined—this is a devolved competence and not a matter for me as a UK Government Minister—we hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Paul Holmes
I completely understand where the Minister is coming from. He does not want to tread on the toes of devolved Administrations. I thought he might be more encouraged to do so, considering that the Scottish Government are run by the Scottish National party, which is not doing a very good job at the moment. However, I also understand that he may not want to give them any more money to screw up the job that they are doing.
Paul Holmes
Good—we have some consensus across the Committee. However, the Minister should not be fearful about giving those Ministers greater powers in this respect. We are trying to enable a greater amount of money to be devolved to the local authorities that are going to be directly responsible for ensuring community benefits from community infrastructure for the people who elect them. The Minister has said throughout our discussions that it is important to be transparent and to be able to resource some of the radical reform he is making. He should not be fearful—
Michael Shanks
I do not disagree with a single thing that the hon. Gentleman has just said, but it is not for me to dictate to the Scottish Government. They are democratically elected, and as much as I may disagree with much of what they do, they are none the less the Government of Scotland, and if they want to ringfence funding for a particular part of the process, they should be able to do so. In particular, diverting any funding away from the more speedy processing of planning applications would not be in the interests of the projects we want taken forwards. It is not that I disagree with him, but this is a devolved competence.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for that, and I agree with him that it is a devolved competence—that is a fact—but he could be giving Scottish Ministers and constituents in Scotland a present by allowing the Government to make those decisions.
It is not just that the Government could be taking money from Scottish Ministers and giving it to local authorities under proposed new subsection (4)(a), but there is scope in the amendment for Scottish Ministers—the devolved Ministers—to be given the power to allocate consumer benefits packages where they think fit. That is strengthening the hand of devolved Ministers, not taking anything away from them. [Interruption.] The Minister says, “It doesn’t stop them.” No, but this would strengthen their hand. I think that giving devolved Ministers the power to give consumer benefits packages to Scottish people who are affected by infrastructure is a good thing.
I am not the intellectual powerhouse of the House of Commons, but even I can calculate that we would not win if we pushed this to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 14, page 18, line 36, at end insert—
“Consultation requirements (Scotland)
1B (1) Where an application is made to the Scottish Ministers for consent under section 36 or 37, the Scottish Ministers must provide for the holding of a public consultation.
(2) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision about the holding of consultations.
(3) Regulations may include—
(a) the length of consultation periods in urban and rural areas;
(b) requirements on applicants to publish the projected local economic benefits and other specified information in advance of a consultation;
(c) requirements on applicants to respond to or demonstrate consideration of submissions to consultations.”
The amendment stands in the name of my hon. Friend for—
Paul Holmes
The amendment stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross). Just as the Minister is not an expert on the south coast, I am not an expert on Scottish constituencies, particularly as they all changed their names at the last boundary review.
This simple amendment would introduce additional consultation requirements. It is in a similar vein to amendment 81, which, with your permission, Mr Twigg, I intend to move later. It would enable community and public consultations when an application goes forward. As I said in the last debate, I do not think it is unreasonable that, when an application is put forward, members of the public should have a public consultation to hear about the perceived benefits and to challenge the organisations trying to bring forward infrastructure projects. We must also accept that consultations can take effect in a number of ways, based on whether the infrastructure is being built in rural or urban areas.
This is a simple amendment that seeks to make sure that, when an application goes forward, Scottish Ministers have the powers that the Minister has outlined to ensure there is a public consultation, so that the people on the ground who are genuinely affected by such infrastructure projects have a say and see the transparency that we hope the Bill will put in place.
Michael Shanks
Amendment 84, tabled by the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), concerns public consultations under sections 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989. It is worth making it clear that the planning systems of Scotland and of England and Wales are very different, and the starting points are very different.
The 1989 Act—which we will come to shortly, in relation to the necessary updates to consents more widely—provides for the process of notification and objection at the application stage. This is very different from aspects of the planning regulations in England and Wales, in that there are already opportunities for consultations, but clause 14 creates a further power to make regulations to set out such matters relating to applications for consent, including a pre-application consultation requirement. That requirement will be set out in regulations rather than in primary legislation, but its purpose is to ensure that the application is proportionate, adaptable and future-proofed.
As much as I politically disagree with the incumbent Scottish Government, we have been working together incredibly effectively, since we came into government, on some key aspects. The reforms of the 1989 Act are a good example. To take the earlier point about the changing energy system, that Act was legislation for a different time, and the planning system in Scotland has not kept pace with the reforms in the rest of the United Kingdom. The reforms that we are proposing give Scottish Ministers a framework to introduce regulations to allow for a pre-application consultation process, and to give both communities and statutory consultees meaningful opportunities to influence applications and have a voice early in the process. For that reason, I see much of amendment 84 as replicating provisions already in the Bills, so I hope the hon. Member for Hamble Valley will withdraw it.
Paul Holmes
I thought the Minister would recommend that I withdraw the amendment. I will put on the record that I am delighted that the Minister believes in pre-application consultation, because in one breath this morning—
Paul Holmes
The Minister has had his say. All I am saying, politely, is that in a different provision of the Bill, the Government have completely removed pre-application consultation for nationally significant projects, yet the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero believes in them. He does not want to accept our amendment to ensure transparent public consultation because pre-application consultation is strong enough already, and the public will be able to have their concerns looked at. The Minister says that they are different systems, but the principles are exactly the same. Ministers cannot rely on that argument for this amendment but not accept the same argument for amendments considered by the Committee earlier. However, as a realist, I know that this will not go very far. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 14, page 19, line 9, leave out from “application,” to end of line 12 and insert—
“(b) consider the objection and the reporter’s final report,
(c) hold a public hearing, and
(d) allow a period of one month to elapse
before determining whether to give their consent.”
This amendment would require the Scottish Ministers to hold a public hearing and allow one month to elapse before determining whether to give consent to an application for new generating stations or overhead lines under sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989.
The amendment is in the name of the shadow Scottish Secretary and acting shadow Energy Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, who I know the Minister would be delighted to hear from—[Interruption.] I heard the “boo”. Amendment 81 is similar to amendment 84 but more specific. I suspect that the Minister will come back with the same argument, so I will take only a short time on this. The amendment would require Scottish Ministers to hold a public hearing, and allow one month to elapse before determining whether to give consent to an application for new generating stations or overhead lines under sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989.
Put simply, that would allow local residents the right to provide feedback on proposed infrastructure. I am sure that hon. Members from both sides of the House will agree that it is right that people can have their voices listened to by Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Government. The amendment would create one mechanism to ensure fairness in the planning system, by allowing not only the pre-application consultation but people to generally give feedback and a say, as they currently can in the English planning system. If the Minister is not minded to accept the amendment, I would be grateful if he wrote to me and the shadow Scottish Secretary, or acting shadow Energy Secretary.
Paul Holmes
Both—that is the world we are in, unfortunately. I would be grateful if the Minister could see if there is an opportunity for a meeting between himself and that shadow Minister on how we can strengthen the grassroots-level consultation that is important to the system. I look forward to the Minister’s response. If we could secure some unofficial channels on how we can strengthen this clause when we get to further stages, I would be grateful. I will not push the amendment, but I would like the Minister to respond to those concerns.
Michael Shanks
I thank the shadow Minister for the way he is discussing these topics. I appreciate that they are from a planning system alien to the one with which he is, I am sure, very familiar—I am tempted to say that the shadow Energy Secretary could join him on the Bench, but he is not here.
I understand the point that the shadow Minister is making. For hon. Members who are not familiar with the Scottish system, a public inquiry can be triggered with one objection into the planning system. The public inquiry can take years to conclude and often is not reflective of actual community sentiment on a particular project. This system does not exist in any form anywhere else in the UK. The purpose of these consenting reforms is to deliver significant efficiencies in the consenting process, and to make decisions faster—not necessarily to make positive decisions faster, just to make decisions faster. Introducing another element that feels like the element that we are removing takes away from that.
As I have said previously, there are still significant opportunities for communities to participate in the process. One of the key aspects that we are introducing is the right of a reporter, who is an experienced specialist in planning and consenting, to consider representations about whether there should be a public hearing on a particular process. That reporter will then make the decision about whether it should go forward into a hearing session or a public inquiry. That is rather than what we have at the moment, which is an automatic trigger that holds up projects for a significant length of time.
I am always happy to meet with the shadow Scottish Secretary on a range of things. I am happy to engage with him, because I appreciate that his part of Scotland has a significant amount of network infrastructure being built; but for the reasons I have outlined, this amendment goes counter to our objectives, and does not sit with the reforms we are making to the Scottish planning system, as distinct from the planning system in England and Wales.
John Grady
I will make a couple of brief remarks as a resident Scottish MP. The Minister has referenced co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments. That is to be welcomed; it reflects this Government’s determination to do right by Scotland and to work productively with the SNP Government in Holyrood.
These provisions will help to unlock significant investment in Scotland. We heard last week how SSE’s programme of projects, which these provisions help to unlock, will lead to £22 billion of investment by 2030. That is the biggest investment we have seen in the north of Scotland since the second world war. Just think what we could achieve if we had a Labour Government in Scotland as well as in England.
The Minister is right to have worked closely with the Scottish Government on reforming the provisions, which in many cases predate 1989, because the 1989 Act was a consolidation. He is right to have worked productively with the Scottish Government, putting Scotland first, because that will give rise to significant investment and jobs—jobs for our young people and high-quality jobs—as well as access for the people of Great Britain to greater volumes of fixed-price electricity that is not subject to fluctuations in wholesale markets, as we have seen over the last few years.
Paul Holmes
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 15 stand part.
New clause 53—Reforms to consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland—
“Where any reforms to the consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland are proposed, the Secretary of State must ensure that such reforms—
(a) do not reduce requirements for community engagement or public consultation;
(b) include measures to address local concerns, environmental impacts, and impacts on all key sectors including but not limited to agriculture and tourism.”
New clause 54—Annual report on consents for electricity infrastructure in Scotland—
“(1) The Secretary of State must annually lay before Parliament a report on applications for consent for electricity infrastructure in Scotland.
(2) A report under this section must include—
(a) the outcomes of each application for consent relating to an energy infrastructure project in Scotland;
(b) evidence of community consultation undertaken in relation to each application and, where applicable, how consultation has influenced the design of the infrastructure to which the application relates; and
(c) estimates of economic benefits to local communities from the relevant project.”
Michael Shanks
I will begin with a brief explanation as to why clause 14 should stand part of the Bill. I return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East made a moment ago, and one that I have made before, which is that these reforms were in the pipeline under the previous Government. They are reforms to a long-standing piece of legislation that is long due for updating.
I thank officials in my Department and in the Scottish Government for working closely and at speed, with a similar set of objectives and an open-book approach to making this work, to draft the measures in a way that works for all of us. It is a reset of the tone of how we work as two Governments.
On enabling the introduction of pre-application requirements, as the hon. Member for Hamble Valley referenced, in the Scottish legislation there are currently no steps to give the public an opportunity to engage as there are in the NSIP regime in England and Wales. This is about improving the quality and readiness of applications at the submission stage. It is important to say that this was driven by the views of Scottish Ministers, who said that they thought it was a useful process, but it will be directed in detail in regulations so that it can be updated and adapted to situations, unlike the process that we have in England and Wales at the moment, which has been held back and has added time and complexity to projects and not delivered what it was intended to do. It will give Scottish Ministers the powers to charge fees for pre-application services, enabling them to better support applicants in developing good-quality applications.
Secondly, the clause establishes a power to set time limits through regulations for key stages of the consenting process, which will support the timely determination of applications and bring down overall processing times. Thirdly, it will establish a proportionate process for responding to objections by relevant planning authorities through a reporter-led examination process. The reporter will choose the most appropriate procedure for gathering any further information they need to provide recommendations in a final report to Scottish Ministers. That may include inquiry sessions, where the reporter considers that that is the best approach to take to address particular issues. Such an approach is similar to the well-established process in which appeals in the town and country planning decisions are currently addressed.
Clause 15 enables regulations to be made that prescribe new processes to vary electricity infrastructure consents in Scotland after they have been granted. The clause addresses the current anomaly that there is no prescribed procedure for holders of overhead line consents to apply to Scottish Ministers for a variation to their consents. The current position forces consent holders to make full consent applications in order to authorise often very modest variations. The clause also allows Scottish Ministers to vary an existing generating station or overhead lines consent due to changes in environmental circumstances or technological changes. Such variations will be made with the agreement of the consent holder. Finally, the clause allows Scottish Ministers to correct any errors or omissions made in consents for generating stations or overhead lines.
I will come back to the new clauses later, but I want first to underline the importance of the consenting process. In Scotland, we generate a significant amount of electricity, and there are further projects in the pipeline, including both floating offshore wind and onshore wind. It is critical that there is an off-taker for that power in the rest of the UK, and that requires us to build significantly more network infrastructure to bring that clean power to where it is required. Although these changes to consenting relate to Scotland, they are of critical importance for the energy security of the whole United Kingdom.
Paul Holmes
I would like to move new clauses 53 and 54, but I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about them first.
Michael Shanks
The shadow Minister wants to hear more! New clause 54 is in the name of the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross)—I want the shadow Minister to say, “Gordon and Buchan”, just so I can hear his pronunciation. The clause would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report providing detail of electricity infrastructure consenting decisions made in Scotland in previous years.
As hon. Members will be aware, responsibility for the consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland is devolved to Scottish Government Ministers. The Scottish Government are accountable to the Scottish Parliament—not the UK Parliament—for the decisions that they make, for the rationale behind them and for what information they choose to provide on consenting decisions. I am aware that the Scottish Government publish all their decisions, which includes information about what public consultations have taken place and consultations with community councils, for example.
It would be inappropriate and potentially duplicative for the Secretary of State to have such an obligation, but fundamentally, to come back to the point I made earlier, there is a particular concern about putting a statutory obligation on what is a devolved power when there is a democratic link between Scottish Ministers and their democratically accountable Parliament, which is the Scottish Parliament and not this Parliament.
Paul Holmes
Thank you. I must apologise, Mr Twigg; this is the first time I have been a shadow Minister on a Bill Committee and I am a bit rusty, but I am learning very quickly.
I thank the Minister for Energy for being very gentle with me as well when discussing Scottish energy connectivity and Scottish planning. He will understand that beggars cannot be choosers on the number of MPs that we have, but being a Member for what is possibly the most southern part of the south coast that one can get bar the Isle of Wight, I am doing my best to discuss the Scottish planning system. I am grateful for the spirit in which he is responding to our new clauses and amendments. I am also grateful to his officials for their work, too.
I understand what the Minister is saying, and I know his reasons for refusing to accept previous amendments under clause 14, but these new clauses create a parallel system. He is absolutely right that Scottish Ministers are accountable to Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament, but Scottish Members of Parliament here are accountable to their constituents. The Secretary of State also has a role within this Parliament and within this UK Government. On new clause 54, the Minister is quite right to say that the Scottish Parliament already has that reporting mechanism, but I do not think that it is unreasonable that the Secretary of State should be able to do that for Scottish MPs here too; when we have questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland, we discuss UK legislation relating to Scotland.
Paul Holmes
The Minister keeps saying “reserved”. That is fine, but we have a Secretary of State for Scotland, accountable to a UK Parliament, who represents Scottish constituencies. There is a role for this Parliament to report and to scrutinise the successes of the Scottish Executive and the UK Government, with the Secretary of State having an overarching position as Secretary of State representing Scotland. Scottish Members of Parliament are entitled to the same rights and benefits as Scottish MSPs when scrutinising the Scotland Government north of the border. The Minister wanted me to pronounce “Gordon and Buchan”. I think that is right—I am not sure, but I did my best. Honestly, there are worse ones to pronounce.
Clearly, we are going to disagree on our approach to these two new clauses, but the reason for new clause 53 is exactly the same. I am surprised by the Minister’s reticence in allowing his Scottish colleagues to be able to have the same rights of scrutiny as Scottish MSPs. It is not an arduous new clause. It would not be arduous on the Government or the Scotland Office to produce those outcomes or statistics. It would not be arduous on the Scotland Office or the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to provide evidence of community consultation, particularly when we have just discussed some of the amendments that the Opposition have tabled on community consultation.
It would also not be arduous for the Scotland Office—or whatever Department would be answering—to provide estimates of economic benefits to local communities. That is exactly why many members of this Committee who represent Scottish constituencies are here in this UK Parliament: to develop policy that brings economic benefits to local communities. The Minister needs to think outside the box and allow Scottish MPs from all parties in this House to have those rights to scrutinise, to develop the economic benefits to local communities. He should not feel so constrained by the Scottish devolved Administration; he should branch out, improve and increase the power of the Scotland Office or his Department, and allow Scottish MPs to have their say in this area of legislation.
Michael Shanks
I am in danger of going into British constitutional politics 101, but the hon. Gentleman is introducing the West Lothian question.
The Chair
We have to be very careful given the subject of the amendment. I gave the shadow Minister a bit of leeway.
Michael Shanks
The shadow Minister is introducing the best example I have heard in a long time of the West Lothian question. The fundamental thing is that this is not a political question about the Scottish Government or the UK Government. There are reserved matters for which this Parliament is responsible for holding UK Government Ministers to account, and there are devolved matters that Scottish Ministers have responsibility for delivering and the Scottish Parliament is responsible for holding them to account for.
It would ride roughshod over this Parliament’s fairly consistent support of devolution in the UK for us to now suddenly say that those Scottish Ministers are also accountable to another Parliament. I think that we agree on the nature of devolution in this country, although we may strongly disagree on the actions that devolved Governments take, but we cannot support the new clauses, for the reasons I have outlined. This is not about thinking outside the box; it is about recognising the role that the devolved system plays in our constitution. For those reasons, I will resist the new clauses.
Michael Shanks
Clause 16 amends section 36D of the Electricity Act 1989, which provides for a statutory appeal to be brought by any person who is aggrieved by a decision made by Scottish Ministers—perhaps the shadow Minister. A challenge to an offshore electricity infrastructure consenting decision made under section 36 is by statutory appeal. The clause extends this, so that statutory appeal also applies to onshore electricity infrastructure consenting decisions made under section 36, decisions made under section 37 and all variation decisions.
The clause will create consistency in Scotland by making the challenge process the same for both onshore and offshore consents, and ensuring they are brought in a timely manner. A challenge will have to be brought within six weeks for onshore consents, as is already the case for offshore consents. This will bring the timescale for challenging large electricity infrastructure decisions into alignment right across Great Britain.
Clause 16 also amends the Electricity Act so that the six-week timescale for bringing a challenge commences from the publication of the decision by the Scottish Minister, instead of the date on which the decision was taken. This is a new requirement for both onshore and offshore, and is compliant with the Aarhus convention compliance committee’s recommendations relating to the timescale for challenging planning decisions. There is also a consequential amendment to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 in respect of directions relating to deemed planning permission. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
My contribution will be very short, because the Opposition agree with what the Minister said. It seems perfectly reasonable to amend section 36D of the Electricity Act 1989, which allows anybody aggrieved by the process to appeal. That is a welcome step that meets some of our challenges in other areas of the Bill—not those for which this Minister is responsible—in relation to people being intimately involved in some of these decisions. If people are not happy with what is happening in their local communities, they should be able to challenge it. I welcome the clause, and we will not press it to a vote.
Gideon Amos
We do not object to the clause either. The date of the judicial review challenge being six weeks from the issue of the decision in writing is consistent with the approach under the Town and Country Planning Act, and therefore does not reduce or change people’s right to judicial review. We are content to support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Applications for necessary wayleaves: fees
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michael Shanks
Clause 17 will confer a power on Scottish Ministers to make regulations to set and charge fees to electricity network operators for processing necessary wayleave applications that they should make in Scotland. Necessary wayleaves are statutory rights that allow electricity licence holders to install and access their overhead electricity lines and associated infrastructure on land owned by others, and in Scotland they are processed and granted by Scottish Ministers.
The objective of the change is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleave applications by the Scottish Government. It is important to act now.
Lewis Cocking
Will the Minister elaborate on why he did not support amendment 80, which we have just discussed, on planning fees going to local councils to resource planning departments? What is the difference between that and him saying to Scottish Ministers under this clause that they can charge a fee, but that it has to go to the resourcing of dealing with these applications?
Michael Shanks
Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I think that amendment 80 was about forcing Scottish Government Ministers to spend funds on community benefits and other things. This clause is saying that the Government will have the power to raise application fees if they choose to do so. Of course, they could choose not to, but under this clause they will have the power to raise them.
Lewis Cocking
It says that the Minister expects that money to be put into the system to make the system better. Why has he done that in this case when he did not support the amendment doing it?
Michael Shanks
As I think I have just outlined, that amendment did not just call for the money to make the system more efficient; it called for it to be spent in communities on community benefits. That is quite different. My argument to the shadow Minister in resisting that amendment was that we did not want to tie the hands of the Scottish Government, because we see that investing that money in making the planning system more efficient is probably the best use for it, but it is not for me to tell them that. This clause is about giving them the power to set and charge fees to electricity network operators. I suggest that the point he is making is a slightly different one, but if I have misunderstood him, perhaps he can explain.
David Simmonds
A general point arises here, which we also debated on the Renters’ Rights Bill Committee. The different systems in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England—most of the legislation we are dealing with here is for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—give rise to a risk of inconsistency. The shadow Minister spoke of the importance of community benefit. That is designed to secure community support. If there is a view that Ministers in Scotland might choose to spend such revenue on other things to the detriment of community benefit, that may also undermine consent.
I completely agree with what the Minister is saying about creating the necessary power, but will he commit to further discussions with his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government so that we can ensure—not just in this Bill, but in future legislation—that where we expect a community benefit to derive from something that we decide on, it will be a consistent benefit across the UK?
Michael Shanks
In general, I agree and disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. I understand the point he is making about consistency, but I take the view that the whole purpose of having different devolved Administrations in England, Wales and Scotland is to make different decisions. Northern Ireland is separate in the energy discussion, because it has a separate grid.
I am not sure that I would say that consistency at all costs is the right approach. We created the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly so that they could make decisions locally that affected them in a different way. We have worked with the Scottish Government on these changes to make sure that there is a package of reforms to the consent arrangements under the Energy Act that relates to the planning system in Scotland as it currently is. It is not the same starting point as the system in England and Wales, so it is important to look at them separately. Nevertheless, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.
I return to clause 17. Fees are already charged in England and Wales for processing wayleave applications. I reiterate—this comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne—that the Scottish Government do not have the power in legislation to raise those fees. That power is reserved. The clause will give them that power.
Paul Holmes
Has the Minister identified or outlined any potential total income that will come out of this measure? I know that it is not a certain process and that it is not certain how many will come forward.
Michael Shanks
No, we have not. A series of work will be necessary to come up with that figure, because the fees will be charged on a cost recovery basis. It is not a money-making exercise for the Government. That is in line with approaches in the rest of Great Britain. There will clearly be a significant number of such applications in the coming years—more than in previous years, probably—but the detail will be worked out with the Scottish Government. We do not know in advance exactly how many wayleave applications there might be, so we cannot give an exact figure.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for his answer. He will forgive me for intervening again; it will mean that I speak less later. In outline, has he started any engagement with Scottish Ministers to find out whether the intention of the clause will be borne out in reality? If the costs are being recovered on a cost recovery basis, has he secured the necessary assurances from Ministers that the money collected will be used to process the decisions more rapidly, and that it will not be spent in other devolved Scottish areas?
Michael Shanks
I am sorry to come back to this point, but the Government do not bind the hands of devolved Governments in any spending area. When this Parliament—[Interruption.] No, I did not say that. I said that the Bill gives them the power to do that, which they do not currently have.
Michael Shanks
No, I will carry on answering this point, if that is okay.
We are very enthusiastic about clause 17—who would have thought it? To be clear about this point—I feel as if I am the only Scottish MP on this Committee, but I am not—when this Government increase spending in a particular area, that results in a budget transfer to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Irish Executive, which they can spend on whatever they see as their local priorities. An increase in NHS spending in England does not lead to the exact same in Scotland. We will not bind the hands of every single decision that is made in this case. This is about conferring a power on Scottish Government Ministers to set and charge fees to electricity network operators for necessary wayleave applications in Scotland.
John Grady
I thank the Minister, although he must feel awfully lonely as the Front-Bench Scotsman. As the Member for Rutherglen just on the other side of the Clyde from me, does he agree that the charging of fees for necessary wayleaves is a rather odd way to relitigate the referendum that took place in 1999, and a rather odd way to relitigate the questions of devolution? I know that the Conservative party has some trouble, from time to time, in accepting the devolution settlement. We seem to have moved from the West Lothian question to the Hamble Valley question. It is remarkably confusing.
Michael Shanks
No, I will respond to that point, if I may. I respect the view of the Conservative party and the argument that Conservative Members are making. I completely understand it, but I am trying to make the point gently that this is not about our directing specific decisions that will be made by Scottish Ministers. It is about how—in this case, as it is across wayleave applications in England and Wales as well—fees will be charged on a cost recovery basis in line with UK and Scottish Government policy on managing public money.
Lewis Cocking
Let me try a third time. According to the explanatory notes laid out by the Government:
“The objective of this change is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleaves applications by the Scottish government.”
The Minister is therefore directing the Scottish Government to spend the money that they get in through this process on that planning process. How is that different from amendment 80 which we discussed earlier and the Government said they will not accept?
Michael Shanks
I am trying to find the exact wording. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman. I think I have outlined to him three times now why it is different. I do not have amendment 80 in front of me at this precise moment, but it had two parts to it, one of which was about community benefits. It was directing the Scottish Government to take funds and direct them to a specific purpose. This Parliament does not do that in any other aspects of devolved policy, because it is devolved to the Scottish Parliament to make those decisions. I think that I have made that point clear, but if not, I will write to the Committee and make it even clearer. [Interruption.] I am grateful. I now have amendment 80 in front of me. It mentions
“consumer benefits packages, or…local planning authorities”.
Neither of those things is in the gift of the UK Government to direct the Scottish Government to do. Consumer benefits packages are ill-defined, if nothing else, but local planning authorities are democratically elected in their own right, and the Scottish Government make budget decisions to local government, separate from any budget decisions that the UK Government make to the Scottish Government. The two are not comparable in any way. In any event, the Committee has already voted down that amendment.
Paul Holmes
I do not intend to speak for long. I am grateful to the Minister for repeatedly taking interventions, but I think he is in a slight pickle on this one. On a number of occasions he has said, quite rightly—I understand that he has deeply held views, and I promise that I am not going to go back to the West Lothian question, or the Hamble Valley question—
Paul Holmes
I will confine myself to clause 17. The Minister has often said that he does not want to direct Scottish Government Ministers on a devolved issue. That is perfectly reasonable. When I last intervened on him, I did not ask him to dictate to Scottish Government Ministers; I asked whether he had sought an assurance from them—
Paul Holmes
It is not the same thing. I asked him, in his role as a UK Government Minister, to seek an assurance from Scottish Government Ministers that the retrospective collection of funds under the new power would be used to increase capacity and improve the processing of this proposal. He was not rude to me, but he said, “That’s not my job as a UK Government Minister. It’s up to them as Scottish Government Ministers.” His own explanatory notes say:
“The objective of this change is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleaves applications by the Scottish government.”
When I asked the Minister whether he had sought an assurance from Scottish Government Ministers, I was not asking him to instruct them. I asked him whether he had any information on the total amount of money that would be brought in, which I accept could vary. I perfectly understood and respected that answer, but in his second answer he said that he could not seek such an assurance because he does not want to direct Scottish Government Ministers or take power away from them. Given the objective set out in the explanatory notes, how can we have confidence—
Michael Shanks
There is no contradiction here at all. We are confusing two different things. My ability to say that the Scottish Government could raise x amount of money and must spend it on y is different from what we have clearly outlined—the hon. Gentleman has just repeated it—which is that at the moment Scottish Government Ministers do not have the power to raise fees for wayleaves, as is the case in England and Wales. Those are two very different things.
I have said clearly, I think six or seven times now, that at the moment Scottish Government Ministers have no power to charge for the processing of wayleave applications. The clause will give them the power to do so. Of course, I would hope that those funds will be spent on the planning system, or whatever it might be, but I am not going to bind their hands and evaluate the success or otherwise of that in this Committee. The two issues are quite separate.
Paul Holmes
We are dancing on the head of a pin here. I know that the Minister has no power to do that and does not want to have such a power, but how can he, as a UK Government Minister, commend a clause whose objective the explanatory notes explicitly say
“is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleaves applications by the Scottish government”
while claiming that he does not have the power to ensure that it happens?
I am not trying to be difficult. The Minister is doing a very good job of outlining the clauses, but he has said several times in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne—not just in relation to amendment 81, which was not accepted, but in relation to the clause—that he does not have the power to direct Scottish Government Ministers. All I am asking is why he set out the objective of the change in his approved explanatory notes if he cannot make it happen.
I am not asking the Minister to strengthen the legislation; I asked whether he has sought reassurances from Scottish Government Ministers that that is what they will do with the extra income from the measures. He answered that he did not want to force them. That was not the question. All I am asking—he is welcome to intervene on me—is whether he has had a conversation with Scottish Government Ministers about whether they will use this income for the purposes that his legislation has set out.
Michael Shanks
I have not had the conversation. I am happy to have it, but the tone will not be, “Here are my expectations of you as a democratically elected Member of the Scottish Parliament accountable to a Parliament I do not sit in.”
I do not know how familiar the shadow Minister is with the devolution legislation in the United Kingdom, but I gently say that this Parliament gives the devolved Administrations power to raise a whole series of taxes, charges, levies, fines and various other things. We give that power to those devolved assemblies; we do not then tell them exactly how to spend every single penny of that money. This is another example of that. It is a perfectly common thing in the devolution settlement.
Paul Holmes
I am not trying to be difficult with the Minister at all—I know it seems that I am, but I am not. He said that he has not had those conversations but he now will, and that is welcome. This clause is procedural and process-driven, but within the grand scheme of the Bill it is stated clearly in black and white that the UK Government have an objective for the extra income to be generated, yet the Minister has not had that conversation with Scottish Ministers. I do not blame him for that, but he will now have those conversations going forward.
I hope that when it comes to other clauses, UK Government documents will be very clear about the aims, ambitions and outcomes of what they will do because what we have seen this afternoon has been questionable. The UK Government are setting an objective, with no way to actually achieve it.
David Simmonds
This is a small “p” political point rather than a party political point, but it undermines confidence in devolution when we hear that a devolved body—a local authority, regional government or whatever it may be—has been given a power and has not used it, or central Government have said, “We have allocated additional funds for potholes,” but the council has spent it on social care, as we have seen recently. It undermines the confidence in those central messages that what is promised will be delivered.
I urge the Minister, on behalf of my hon. Friend, to please come back to the Committee with that assurance. For those listening to this debate who expect that the funds raised will be spent on the purpose that the Minister has told the Committee they are intended for, that assurance needs to be there.
Paul Holmes
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention. I understand that I may not be the Minister’s favourite person, but I am trying to help him—I actually think what he is proposing is very good. We support any measure that allows an income stream to be spent on local people and within devolved Administrations to make processes quicker and more efficient. The other Minister on the Committee, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, knows that that is my stance historically. I support the Government reforming planning fees, for example, and ringfencing them to enable processes to be delivered more quickly, but I say again to the Minister that I hope he does what he has committed to in his interventions during the debate on this clause.
We will not push this to a vote because, as I have outlined in a very long-winded and convoluted way, we support the clause, but I hope the Minister will take a firmer line in speaking to Scottish Ministers. Before he says this again, I am not asking him to direct those Ministers; he seems to have a preoccupation with me claiming that I want him to instruct Scottish Ministers to do certain things. I am asking him, within his role and remit as a UK Government Minister legislating to give those Ministers extra powers, to use the art of politics and diplomacy to make sure that the outcomes he wants, as per the explanatory notes of his Bill, are delivered for the people affected by his changes.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 19 stand part.
Schedule 1.
Michael Shanks
Clause 18 is technical, amending section 106 of the Electricity Act 1989 to make provision for procedural requirements that apply to the new powers conferred by the provision in clauses 14, 15 and 17. All new regulation-making powers, except for the power to amend primary legislation in clause 14(4), are subject to the negative procedure. Scottish Ministers or the Secretary of State must consult each other before making regulations relating to clauses 14 and 15. The power in clause 17 is to be exercised by Scottish Ministers, and it does not require the Secretary of State to be consulted.
Clause 19 introduces schedule 1, which makes amendments to the Electricity Act 1989 consequential to the amendments made by clauses 14 to 18. It also makes some minor amendments relating to consents for electricity infrastructure in Scotland. These amendments are made to sections 36, 36B, 36C and 37 of and schedule 8 to the 1989 Act. Schedule 1 is needed to ensure the Bill’s consistency and clarity in relation to the 1989 Act. Some changes are needed to ensure that the new Scottish consenting reforms can function as intended. Some of the clarifications are needed because the 1989 Act was originally drafted prior to the Scotland Act 1998, which created the Scottish Parliament. Given the number of changes made to the 1989 Act in relation to Scotland, it is necessary to update outdated references in legislation to ensure that such references are clear and consistent.
The consequential amendments cover three main aspects. First, as clause 14 amends schedule 8 to the 1989 Act to allow the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make regulations about time limits for various parts of the consenting process, the amendments clarify how this relates to Scottish Ministers obtaining advice from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Secondly, as clause 14 amends schedule 8 to 1989 Act to allow the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make regulations about applications made to Scottish Ministers, amendments have been made so that proposed new section 1A will apply only to applications made to the Secretary of State, not to those made to Scottish Ministers.
Thirdly, there are clarifications to reflect the new processes for variations of consents and the new procedure following objection by the relevant planning authorities for consents under sections 36 and 37 of the 1989 Act. In addition, the minor amendments include those to reflect previous transfers of functions to Scottish Ministers, and some references to the water environment regulations are updated to refer to the most recent version.
As I have said, this is a very technical clause. I look forward to having slightly less debate on it, unless there are any questions.
Paul Holmes
Clauses 18 and 19 are consequential to the previous clauses, and consist of simple process amendments. The Minister will be delighted that we welcome the fact that clause 19 amends the Electricity Act 1989 to reflect earlier transfers of functions to Scottish Ministers. That is exactly as it should be, and we will not be scrutinising the various words. These amendments should go ahead, and I have no further comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 20
Environmental impact assessments for electricity works
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michael Shanks
Clause 20 creates a power for the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make limited procedural amendments to the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, which for ease of reference I will refer to as the EIA regulations.
As part of the consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland, Scottish Ministers are required to assess the likely significant environmental effects arising from a proposed EIA development. Before the UK left the European Union, Scottish Ministers and UK Government Ministers had concurrent powers, under the European Communities Act 1972, to make regulations for electricity works EIAs. However, although the EIA regulations remained in force as assimilated law after the European Communities Act was repealed, the result is that neither Government have the power to amend them.
David Simmonds
We broadly support the content of clause 20, but I have one question for the Minister. I am mindful of his comments about the process of EU retained law, and it is absolutely right that we are looking to update that. However, a lot of the new powers set out for Scottish Ministers are the kind of thing that, in England, we would expect to be the subject of a pre-application consultation. One might ask the promoter of a project to come in and discuss those exact things with the local authority, the strategic planning authority if there is one, or the mayoral authority or the combined authority, so that the application process can be streamlined as much as possible.
Earlier on, we said that we would amend legislation through the Bill to remove that process in England. Given the intention to effectively introduce a top-quality process for applications to be considered in Scotland, does the Minister agree that there is an element of contradiction in that, in the same piece of legislation, we are seeking to remove many of the equivalent processes in England?
Michael Shanks
I understand the argument, but it appears as a contradiction only if we assume that both planning systems are the same, which they are not. And they are not slightly different—they are fundamentally different. The processes are different. The timescales are different. The opportunities for public consultation are different throughout, so we are starting from a different starting point. Although I understand the hon. Member’s point, I do not think that the two are comparable.
This particular clause is even more narrow than the hon. Member recognised. It is simply about the assimilated regulations. I have been in a number of Delegated Legislation Committees where we have discussed some of the unintended consequences, as we obviously assimilated thousands of different pieces of legislation into UK law. As I say, the result was that neither the UK nor the Scottish Government currently have the power to amend these regulations, which is a ludicrous position for us to be in. This clause is narrow in scope, and I do not think it has quite the reach that the hon. Member is suggesting.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 13th May 2025
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 May 2025 - (13 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
We were discussing clause 36 and I was attempting to reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, that his concerns were unfounded. We were discussing fees charged by particular public bodies for providing services associated with Transport and Works Act 1992 orders.
As I made clear, the power is subject to delegated procedures, ensuring that it is flexible enough to account for any changes in the provision of services in the future. I reassure the shadow Minister that the power allows for the charging of fees for services only on a cost-recovery basis. The regulations will set out any required safeguards, just as there are safeguards in place in regulations that relate to the charging of fees by authorities on nationally significant infrastructure project cases, for example. Subsection (4) makes it clear that applicants will be required to have regard to guidance that will provide detail.
The shadow Minister asked me about two specific points. On appeals, there is no set appeals process for the fees charging system, other than the ultimate recourse to judicial review on the basis that the fees charged to do not comply with the forthcoming regulations or are irrational. On small businesses, I recognise that there is potential constraint as some applicants for Transport and Works Act orders may be smaller businesses, such as heritage railway operators, and it may be harder for them to absorb costs, but I reiterate my previous point that the delays in the system that we currently experience are not cost free. We feel strongly that the benefits of the change proposed by clause 36 outweigh the disadvantages of extra costs, even for smaller applicants. On that basis, I hope the shadow Minister is reassured and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Disapplication of heritage regimes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The purpose of clause 37 is to remove the need for Transport and Works Act order applicants to apply to multiple consenting authorities for separate authorisation requirements under relevant heritage regimes in England and Wales, such as listed buildings and scheduled monument consents. Instead, the clause provides for the consolidation of the application process for certain heritage authorisations, so that they can be obtained through the Transport and Works Act itself. I must make clear that it is for applicants to determine whether they want to proceed on the basis of existing arrangements, namely consulting multiple consenting authorities, or whether they want to obtain those consents through the Transport and Works Act itself, in which instance the Secretary of State for Transport would need to confirm that that could be undertaken via that route. The consents would be obtained as part of the TWA order process and the decision-making process that pertains to it.
In making this change, as with other changes that we have made in this part of the Bill, we would bring the Transport and Works Act order process in line with the Planning Act 2008, which provides a one-stop shop development consent order process for major infrastructure. To ensure proper oversight is maintained throughout the amended process, applicants will still need to consult the relevant consenting authorities before applying. I commend this clause to the Committee.
Schedule 2 amends the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as a result of the changes made by clause 37 of the Bill. As I have just set out, clause 37 enables an order under the Transport and Works Act to obtain certain consents through the Act itself, rather than requiring separate applications to each relevant consenting authority. Schedule 2 disapplies offences that would otherwise arise from proceeding without those consents or authorisations. The inclusion of this power is a prudent, practical and reasonable step to take to ensure the most efficient legal framework moving forward. I commend the schedule to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. The Opposition broadly understand the direction of travel that the Minister has set out and the principles underlying it are clearly quite sensible.
Will the Minister give us a degree of assurance, particularly about the process for determining the circumstances in which the authorities that are listed and the circumstances that are listed may be set aside? That is significant because significant infrastructure developments are often close to heritage railway buildings and historic sites where there will be a legitimate expectation from both local authorities and residents that a proper consultation will be undertaken.
We know that, in the past, the effect of that regime has been that in many cases developers, in places such as Royal Quay in my own constituency in Harefield, have chosen to put historic buildings back into use for a new purpose. For example, formerly industrial buildings connected with Victorian transport networks could be used for residential development, rather than simply demolishing and clearing the sites and losing that heritage asset in the process.
It would be helpful to understand how we will ensure, through the regime as set out, that those considerations are fully taken into account. I appreciate that we will debate the green belt later on, but there is significant interaction in the Bill between the different types of regime that apply, and we have already had much debate about the green belt and the grey belt.
I am aware that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government yesterday issued a decision with respect to a site just north of London, and the effect of her determination is that any land on a transport corridor located between, for example, a motorway and a village, even if it is currently in the green belt, will be considered to be grey belt for the purposes of developability. That will clearly have a significant impact in similar situations in locations with a significant heritage element that are close to railways, motorways and other such transport networks that would potentially, from a developer point of view, benefit from swifter development without a consultation being undertaken. However, from the perspective of local residents and the wider community concerned about heritage and land use, they are losing the opportunity to have this.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I rise to speak either against the clause or in favour of amendment 7, which is in my name. I am not sure which, but I am sure you can advise me, Ms Jardine. We have significant concerns about the clause, and I will spend a few minutes on them as it is, perhaps, more serious than it first appears. The clause would disapply the need for listed building consent, conservation area consent, scheduled ancient monument consent and notices for works on land of archaeological importance from Transport and Works Act projects.
Our heritage has benefitted from protection under criminal law since Lord Avebury in the Liberal Government brought in the Ancient Monuments Protection Act in 1882. The Act provides that anyone who damages a monument commits an offence punishable by imprisonment
“with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding one month”.
That protection, and much of the wording in that Act, has survived, and the relevant wording remains in the main and principle Acts for listed buildings: the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. My suggestion is that this is not the time to remove such strong statutory protection and criminal sanction from measures to protect ancient monuments and listed buildings.
I appreciate that the Government, in their memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, say that the approach is similar, but not as wide as the Planning Act 2008 approach, which the Minister has mentioned, and I fully understand the single consenting regime objective. It would be narrower in some ways because, in the proposed Transport and Works Act approach, it could be possible to be more selective about which measures are disapplied. However, the Planning Act 2008 approach is very different, because regulations made under it enshrine those same legal tests that go back decades—and, in some cases, centuries—so that they remain on the statute book and applicants under that Act still must comply with them.
If our country’s heritage is worthy of protection under criminal law, as the Liberal Democrats believe that it is, the same tests should surely be applied under the Transport and Works Act as under other legislation. Those are long-standing tests. In relation to listed buildings, the wording that many in the sector will know is that we must have
“special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest”.
Those words ring down the years. For scheduled ancient monuments, the requirement was to have regard to the “desirability of preserving” the scheduled monument or its setting and, in conservation areas,
“to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.”
Those are familiar words that, as I say, ring through legislation over many years. They should not be removed from the Transport and Works Act process altogether, which this clause would do. These are central principles of heritage protection that have lasted decades, if not centuries. The Government may point out that, as they say in the explanatory notes, section 12(3A) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 remains in place, which provides:
“An application for listed building consent shall, without any direction by the Secretary of State, be referred to the Secretary of State instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority in any case where the consent is required”.
Although that section is referred to, it does not apply here, because consent is not required. All the requirements for consent are disapplied by the clause in this Bill, so there would be no recourse to consent under that route.
Our recommendation is that the important statutory tests be repeated in the legislation for Transport and Works Act projects, just as they are for all other projects, including in regulations made under the Planning Act 2008.
Many heritage organisations share our concerns. The National Trust says:
“We have serious concerns regarding the scope of Clause 37 of the Bill which seeks to disapply existing heritage regimes. This clause enables Transport and Works Act 1992 orders to disapply authorisation”
for listed buildings, and so on. It continues,
“we have strong concerns about the possible disapplication of heritage regimes for transport infrastructure developments. There is a risk that this could enable harm to heritage assets without proper scrutiny and go further than the stated ambition of the Bill.”
The Heritage Alliance has stated:
“Until greater clarity and detail is forthcoming from government, we continue to have significant concerns regarding its potential to cause…unintended harm to heritage assets.”
Even the Government’s own agency, Historic England has said:
“Whilst the clause provides discretionary powers for the Secretary of State on whether to disapply the legislative provisions relating to heritage, as drafted there is a lack of clarity as to how and when this discretion would be applied. This risks resulting in uncertainty and inconsistency, which would undermine the policy intention…In addition, the disapplication of the legislative provisions for heritage does not provide any equivalent safeguards for the protection of heritage in relation to the authorisation and enforcement provisions for listed buildings and scheduled monuments, as exists at present”
in legislation. It goes on:
“The clause, as currently proposed, would therefore result in a weakening of heritage protection.”
It concludes that
“the current wording of Clause 37 may not actually deliver the policy intention of streamlining planning decisions, whilst having the unintended consequence of reducing heritage protection.”
In short, we are very concerned about the removal of such long-standing legal protections for our heritage. In our view, they must be put back on the statute book in one way or another.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate the comments from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Let me go over some of the points I have made to reinforce them, but also to respond directly to the challenges raised.
I think the principle of the one-stop-shop DCO process for major infrastructure is accepted as a beneficial aspect of the NSIP regime. We think allowing Transport and Works Act orders to take that holistic approach to all the consents required has merit. It would provide more certainty for applicants and ensure that some timelines and requirements were reduced, therefore benefiting the speed of the process. I very much recognise the concerns raised about heritage protections. The shadow Minister will forgive me for not commenting on a decision made by the Secretary of State, not least in the period when it is potentially still challengeable, but I note his concerns.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I urge him to consider regulations. That is the approach under the Planning Act 2008, which has worked and ensures that the Secretary of State for Transport will have to apply the same tests that local planning authorities’ inspectors and the Secretary of State have to apply under the 2008 Act. They have to apply their central and historical tests—ironically they are historical tests for historic parts of our heritage and should be retained. We strongly urge the Government to consider regulation in that regard. I am grateful that he has indicated he will consider that, no doubt among other options. We believe it should be statutory. On the basis of the assurance given, we will not press the matter to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. We will certainly go away and reflect, because it is broadly our intention to ensure that the Transport and Works Act is brought into line with other consenting regimes, not least the Planning Act regime and how that operates in respect of some of these protections. I commit to give him an answer by Report stage, either in terms of changes we think are necessary or reassurance that we do not think changes are necessary. One way or another, I will get him a clear answer on his, as I said, fair and reasonable challenge.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 38
Deemed consent under marine licence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 38 allows Transport and Works Act orders to include a deemed marine licence for projects in UK waters, where a separate authorisation is currently required. That removes the need for a separate application to the Marine Management Organisation, or MMO. It allows for a single process, again similar to the Planning Act 2008, which already allows deemed marine licences. Applicants will still need to consult the MMO before applying, ensuring that proper oversight remains in place.
The MMO will continue to enforce marine licence conditions under existing powers. This is another change that we believe creates efficiencies and removes duplication. As I have said, it aligns the Transport and Works Act with the Planning Act 2008 process, making it simpler and quicker for transport projects that involve marine areas. A streamlined approval process will save time and costs for applicants while maintaining important environmental safeguards. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. The Opposition wholly understand the intention behind clause 38, but I want to ask the Minister a quick question. How will enforcement responsibilities be co-ordinated to prevent confusion between the MMO and other authorities involved in Transport and Works Act orders? I accept that the core of the Bill, for good or bad, is to streamline and ensure the Government deliver their objectives quicker than at present, but can the Minister reaffirm that he is wholly assured, in line with his officials’ advice, that streamlining the process will not compromise environmental protections?
Matthew Pennycook
I can provide the hon. Gentleman with that assurance. In terms of enforcement, I assure the hon. Gentleman that if consent is granted under the Transport and Works Act, any breaches of marine licence will continue to be dealt with by the Marine Management Organisation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Authorisation of applications by local authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 39 removes the requirement that exists at present for a second local authority resolution after submitting a Transport and Works Act application, making the process faster and simpler. Currently, local authorities must achieve a majority vote from their local authority members both before and after submission of an application. Key stakeholders told us during the development of the Bill that the second resolution is unnecessarily bureaucratic and causes delays. Removing it will cut red tape and speed up transport projects. This is a simple and, I hope, uncontroversial clause, and I commend it to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We agree with the Government on clause 39. However, if local authority members need to give a majority vote on the first round, it makes the Minister’s claim that the measure will reduce bureaucracy seem a tad overstretched. We will not press the clause to a Division, but circumstances do change between the first and the second resolution. With great respect to the Minister, it is a bit of a stretch to say that simply not putting the second resolution on the agenda of a full council meeting or committee will overwhelmingly reduce bureaucracy. On that point, as well as on the slight undermining of transparency, we seek reassurance from the Minister.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that point. In no way am I implying that in a committee meeting, the process of putting hands up on another vote is itself onerous. What are onerous are the delays that can be caused by the need simply to reaffirm a vote that has already taken place. The Government think this is a simple and proportionate change to ensure that the Transport and Works Act is modernised appropriately.
As I hope the Committee saw this morning, the Transport and Works Act, which is over 30 years old, needs to be brought up to date and into line with other consenting regimes. Clause 39 deals with just another example of an element of that Act that requires addressing. All interested parties in a Transport and Works Act project will be able to make representations as they do now—the process will continue as it does now, but without the need for the second resolution.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Extension to Scotland of certain amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
This is another example of the way in which the Transport and Works Act needs to be tidied up, because there are currently unnecessary legal duplications. We want to address those, and that is what clauses 40 and 41 do. Previous regulations under the Act applied only to England and Wales. That created dual versions of certain Transport and Works Act provisions —one for England and Wales, and another for Scotland. Clause 40 removes the duplication by extending provision to Scotland so that there is only one consistent version of the text. This is a simple procedural fix. Scotland does not use the Transport and Works Act, so the change has no practical impact there. It simply ensures clearer legislation with no unnecessary duplication.
Reducing duplication makes the law clearer and easier to apply, and simpler to understand for all applicants. It also reduces complexity for legal and policy teams, making future updates faster and more efficient. This supports the Bill’s aim of simplifying and streamlining transport laws.
Clause 41 provides a power to make amendments to primary and secondary legislation that are necessary to maintain the effect of that legislation in consequence of clauses 30 to 40. The power cannot be used to implement changes in policy or make amendments for reasons unrelated to clauses 30 to 40; its purpose is simply to ensure consistency. If any changes are needed to primary legislation that already exists or is made in this parliamentary Session, the relevant regulations will need approval from both Houses. If any changes are needed to secondary legislation, the negative procedure will apply. The inclusion of this power is a prudent, practical and reasonable step to take to ensure the most efficient legal framework moving forward. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42
Fees for applications for harbour orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 42 amends the Harbours Act 1964 to enable fees for processing harbour empowerment and revision orders to be levied on the basis of hours of time deployed on any particular application, rather than on the basis of average costs. This is part of a package of measures that Government are taking to strengthen performance in the handling of harbour order applications, especially in England, after a backlog built up over recent years.
Relevant Departments, along with the Marine Management Organisation itself, are further addressing these challenges through various administrative initiatives alongside this provision. The clause applies to England, Scotland and Wales, consistent with the territorial extent and application of the original Harbours Act. The Bill does not determine the overall level of fees; there will be full consultation of ports before fees are altered by regulations.
Provisions for the new system of setting fees will come into effect two months from Royal Assent. To ensure that fees can still accompany harbour orders before regulations are made, the provision repealing the current power to determine fees will be commenced by regulations. The new fees system will take precedence over the current system upon the commencement of this clause, meaning that there is no practical need for the previous regime to be switched off for the new fees regulations to be made.
However, following discussion with the devolved Governments, a decision on the desired timing for this repeal in Scotland will be necessary. The Secretary of State would, as a routine matter, make the commencement order at a date chosen by Ministers in the devolved Government.
The clause further supports the Government’s growth and clean energy missions by improving the efficiency of harbour order processing, which will support our wider objective of improving transport consenting processes. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Installation of electric vehicle charge points
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 43 will remove the need for a section 50 street works licence when installing electric vehicle charge points on a public road, and instead allow applicants to apply for street works permits. Applying for a street works licence is costly, and it can take a long time for an application to be approved. The lengthy process of having to apply for a street works licence to install charge points on a public road is delaying the roll-out of this essential infrastructure.
The licence application process has previously been identified by installers as a significant barrier to installation. The application process and associated costs for those licences also vary greatly between highway authorities. On average, each street works licence can cost between £500 and £1,000 and take 12 weeks or longer to obtain. As a result, installing apparatus can be a lengthy and costly process, hindering the efficient roll-out of electric vehicle charge point infrastructure.
Paul Holmes
We welcome the Minister’s comments on clause 43. As we enter the world of net zero and increasing green travel, we need to have the infrastructure in place, so we support the Government’s attempts to make that easier. Whether I think electric cars are the future is not within the scope of clause 43—I declare an interest, in that I do not. I think we need to invest in other areas and that, eventually, we will see that the infrastructure simply cannot be delivered in the way that it needs to be, but that is for another day. [Interruption.] The Minister for Energy, who is doing his work in secret at the back of the Chamber, is shaking his head at me. We will have a chat in the Tea Room afterwards about how we should be investing in hydrogen instead of electric cars—but, as I say, that is outside the precepts of this clause. I will get back to the clause.
What safeguards are in place to ensure that EVCPOs meet their responsibilities, particularly when it comes to road reinstatement? I do not mean to dumb down this argument, but we have all had emails coming to our office about this: when road repair and utility companies do works, they are not often joined up. They are not often communicated to local people properly, and, when a local authority gives permission for works to be done by different utility companies, they are not often done in conjunction. An area of the road is dug up, then another organisation comes along and digs it up, and they do not put the roads back properly. Can the Minister outline whether, under current legislation, he is satisfied about that?
Companies being allowed to make these changes with reduced bureaucracy and at increased speed is welcome, but we need to make sure that local authorities use their responsibilities properly so that the consumer and the public are not put in the frustrating situation, which we have all seen before, of disruption and a lack of co-ordinated effort when utilities and other companies do works in local areas.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the Minister for speaking to this clause, and I am pleased to say that the Liberal Democrat Benches are keen to support it. I am also pleased to agree with the Conservative spokesperson on this, although I was disappointed to hear that his preferred method of transport involves hydrogen, rather than joining me on my bicycle, which I very much enjoyed riding in his constituency a couple of months ago.
It is important that we do everything we can to support the roll-out of electric vehicles, which is essential to our goals on air quality and climate change. The United Kingdom has a long way to go, with just 20% of vehicle sales last year being electric, compared with 90% in Norway. Hopefully, these measures will help us to close the gap.
I also welcome the Minister’s assurance that this will not undermine the requirements to make sure that street works are done professionally and repaired with full competence. For any Members with an interest in the subject, the Transport Committee is doing a detailed inquiry into it. Hon. Members are right to point out that that is often a major source of frustration for our constituents. I am very pleased to support this clause.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Jardine. I strongly support the clause and was really glad to see that the Electric Vehicle Association England welcomes the change. It will make it easier, cheaper and faster to install public chargers for EVs.
There is a battery assembly plant run by JLR in my constituency. We are making more components for electric vehicles, but my constituents find it really difficult to make the jump to invest in an electric vehicle, because there are just not enough electric vehicle charging points in the town centres around my constituency. Anything that makes it easier and removes the blockages will be extremely helpful.
I echo some of the points made by the Opposition spokespeople. We must make sure that the charging points are installed carefully and thoughtfully, which means taking into account the pavement requirements of pedestrians, particularly those with pushchairs or using wheelchairs. Will the Minister explain how that will be taken into account?
I definitely welcome this change, and it is a huge step forward. Particularly in more rural constituencies like mine, people need to be able to drive their electric vehicles in and out of town centres for work, and to be able to charge them.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I support giving consumers choice and making it easier to install electric car charging points. This will be a massive help for people in flats—if they want to make the switch to an EV and cannot charge their vehicle at home, the more public charging points there are, the better—but we need to think about it carefully.
My constituents are fed up with multiple utility companies digging up the roads willy-nilly—sometimes, the same stretch of road. There does not seem to be any logic behind where roadworks will be, and multiple roadworks happen at the same time.
We need to issue guidance. If utility companies, councils and other authorities are going to install loads of charging points, it needs to be done in a logical way. What work are the Government doing with all the different companies and operators in this space? We do not want to see consumers turning up to different charge points that all have different connectors. We need to make this as easy as possible for the consumer, no matter what car they drive.
I reiterate that we cannot just dig up roads willy-nilly. What discussions are the Government having with the companies in this space to make it as easy as possible for consumers to access charge points?
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a delight to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I welcome these proposals. This is a major reform that will allow the Government to speed up the delivery of vital electric vehicle infrastructure, to deliver on our climate targets and ensure that we can meet the growing demand for electric vehicles.
I share the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington in the words of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, on the future of electric vehicles. The Conservative party’s position is anti-business and anti-investment. Electric vehicles are the future, and they are going to create jobs.
Paul Holmes
I resist the temptation to say that the hon. Gentleman is picking me up on every point in this Committee. At no point did I say that I do not think we should have cleaner energy or better, cleaner and greener vehicles. I happen to think that the investment that is needed to bring the infrastructure up to scratch, alongside the emissions caused by the technology that is used in the creation of these electric cars, means that we need to diversify and find other ways to have cleaner cars.
In no way should the hon. Gentleman interpret my words as being anti-business. In fact, other areas, particularly the hydrogen sector, will deliver much more business investment in my constituency of Hamble Valley, and in his constituency of Basingstoke, through the proposals coming forward with the energy companies in the Solent.
Luke Murphy
I thank the shadow Minister for his intervention. I do not disagree. Instavolt, one of the largest public electric vehicle rapid charging network providers in my constituency of Basingstoke, fully supports these proposals.
The reason why I think the Conservative party’s position is anti-business and anti-jobs is that businesses are crying out for certainty—they want certainty about the transition, not big question marks about the future. I support the removal of the need for a street works licence under section 50, which will cut down on paperwork and costs. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth on accessibility, but I support this proposal, which will allow us to speed ahead and build a world-leading charging network.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I echo the points made by other colleagues: I absolutely support the roll-out of electric vehicles, which is more likely due to this change. To be clear, I think local authorities will welcome it. They have long been frustrated by the current framework, which means that as they seek to roll out electrical vehicle charging points they are met with a planning system that prevents them from doing so at the necessary scale. Clause 43 removes the burden from local authorities and also from individuals, who often want to purchase an electric vehicle but think twice because being able to get a charging point in the convenience of their individual home is too difficult.
Finally, the point about cost is important. When we speak to companies that manufacture vehicle charging points, they are clear that the number of installations helps them to reduce the cost per head. This measure will mean that it becomes easier to install at a faster pace, with the hope that the overall cost will be reduced. I support the measure and think it will be a crucial step in this Labour Government’s important mission to reach net zero.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the broad support on both sides of the Committee for the intended purpose of the Bill, which will mean that companies installing EV charge points can do so, as I have argued, using permits available online across England, and will no longer have to apply for costly licences, which can take several months to obtain, via a range of different local authority processes. That will speed up the installation of on-street EV charge points and help local authorities to co-ordinate works with other roadworks. I think the use of that digital platform will help local authorities to have an overview of all the installations taking place in their areas.
A number of points have been made. The hon. Member for Broxbourne raised the issue of street works and digging up roads. While I take his point, there is a difference between the installation of EV charging networks and general utilities works, and there is more that can be done to manage that process. If he will allow me, because it is a slightly separate issue, I am more than happy to set out for him in writing what the Government are doing on that particular point.
In general, however, the concerns I have heard relate to safeguards. There is a separate point about whether members of the Committee believe that the existing statutory requirements are fit for purpose or need to be reformed, but I want to make clear that this clause will ensure that the statutory requirements that are in place continue to apply to EV charge point installers. We are not losing any of the existing safeguards, including guidance and safety codes, so the inspections and reinstatements will continue to apply and installers will be obligated to keep their apparatus in working order. In addition, existing regulations already require installers to provide annual reports to the Secretary of State on the reliability of their network, and investigatory powers and sanctions are available to deal with non-compliance.
In relation specifically to pavement access, EV charge point operators will still need to comply with the safety code of practice, which sets out the requirements to ensure access while works are taking place. I can give hon. Members assurance on that point. I hope I have set out that existing statutory requirements will continue to apply, so no safeguards are lost; in moving from a street works licence to a permit, we are just ensuring that we can make it far easier for charge point operators to roll out vital infrastructure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44
Fees for planning applications etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 39—Surcharge on planning fees.
Matthew Pennycook
We turn to part 2 on planning, chapter 1 of which relates to local planning decisions. Clause 44 seeks to introduce, through regulations, the sub-delegation of planning fees to local planning authorities. It is an important change, and we feel it needs to be made. We know that a lack of capacity and resources in local planning authorities and among statutory consultees leads to delays in decision making and in the delivery of housing and economic growth.
I hope the Committee is aware of the changes that the Government are making, outside the scope of the Bill, to enhance local authority capacity and capability. The Chancellor has announced a £46 million package of investment into the planning system as a one-year settlement for 2025-26. On 27 February, the Government announced funding to support salaries and complying graduate bursaries to help with our commitment to appoint 300 new planning officers in local planning authorities. We have made changes, through regulations, to increase planning fees for householder and other applications, with a view to providing much needed additional resources for hard-pressed local planning authorities. More broadly, the Department’s established planning capacity and capability programme is delivering a wider package of support.
For local planning authorities, fees are an important contributor to resourcing requirements. Planning application fees are set nationally, and they are intended to cover the cost to a local planning authority of processing and determining a planning application. However, as things stand, the fees do not fully cover the costs of providing the service. Based on the most recent local government spending data for 2023-24, that has led to an estimated funding shortfall of £362 million per year. It means that local authorities are not adequately equipped to deliver an efficient planning service to developers and investors.
Clause 44 will tackle the problem by enabling local planning authorities to set their own planning fees and charges to cover their costs. It will do that by allowing the Secretary of State, through regulations, to sub-delegate the setting of planning fees and charges to local planning authorities. Allowing local planning authorities to set their own planning fees is the most effective way to increase resources in a manner that responds to the individual circumstances of each local authority. It will help to address capacity issues in the planning system by ensuring that planning authorities are adequately funded to deliver vital services.
We are also introducing safeguards to ensure that the fees are reasonable and directly invested in improving planning performance, and that they are not used to fund other council services. Planning fee charges will not be able to exceed the cost to local planning authorities in determining a planning application. That will prevent disproportionate or unjustifiably high fees being set. That is an important point, because one of the concerns we have had is about the ability, without the provision being in place, of local authorities that do not want to see development to set extremely high fees to deter applications. To ensure transparency, local planning authorities will also be required to consult on any fee increases and publish evidence to justify the fees that they charge. Finally, and most importantly, income received from planning fees will be ringfenced, as I have said, so that it can only be used in the determination of planning applications.
Clause 44 is another crucial step towards a more responsive and efficient planning system. I hope we can all support it. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Government new clause 39 seeks to introduce a new sustainable funding model for the statutory consultee system. Alongside local planning authorities, statutory consultees play an important role in the planning system, providing expert advice and information on significant environmental, transport, safety and heritage issues to ensure good decision making.
However, it is a concern that the statutory consultee system is not currently working effectively. The concerns expressed by local planning authorities and developers about the operation of the system are wide-ranging. They include statutory consultees failing to engage proactively, taking too long to provide advice, re-opening issues that have already been dealt with at a plan-making stage, submitting automatic holding objections that are all too often withdrawn at a late stage in the process, and frequently issuing holding responses that allow statutory deadlines to be met while seeking over-specific levels of information from developers over long timeframes. All of those concerns can cause substantial delay and uncertainty for applicants.
The Government are determined to return the statutory consultee system to meeting its goal of supporting high-quality development through the swift provision of expert relevant advice to inform decision making. In March, I set out a number of steps that we are taking to achieve this in England, including ensuring that the statutory consultee system works to support development and economic growth, limiting the instances in which statutory consultees should be consulted, changing the performance management of statutory consultees and, finally, developing a model to support sustainable funding.
The new clause will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to apply a surcharge to planning application fees. This would apply to development that is permitted by local planning authorities, and to other bodies that are able to charge planning fees under the Bill. It will be used to fund bodies, such as statutory consultees, that provide advice and ancillary support that enables good decision making.
Through regulations, we will develop detailed proposals that will establish the level at which any surcharge would be set, and the types of planning application it should be applied to. In doing so, we will be highly conscious of the need to balance the burdens that we are placing on developers with the benefits that will accrue to them through a more effective and efficient planning application system. We will consult on such proposals before any regulations are introduced.
I note that statutory consultees can already generally secure payment for voluntary pre-application work, and that will continue to be the case. A new funding mechanism for statutory consultees, alongside the sub-delegation of planning fees, as per clause 44, will allow us to address capacity and resourcing issues, and support a faster and better quality decision making process. On that basis, I urge the Committee to support the clause and the new clause.
David Simmonds
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley wants to raise some points, but I want to ask a couple of slightly technical questions.
The first relates to clause 44(6), on directions in relation to planning fees. The publication of a schedule of planning fees is part of the statutory council tax-fixing process, which every local authority is required to undertake. As we hear from our residents, that generally takes place in February and comes into effect at the start of the following financial year. If a local authority publishes its proposals, as the Minister described in respect of cost recovery, it needs to be confident that any change—in the form of a direction from the Secretary of State—will come in a timely manner that enables further consultation so that the lawful council tax fixing can occur. What provisions will be in place to ensure that any objection from the Secretary of State will come in a timely manner?
My second slightly technical question is this. My experience of planning authorities is that there is huge variation in their cost bases. That partly reflects a shortage of staff, but it also reflects different local arrangements. An authority with large numbers of householder applications may use an outsourced service to process them at a relatively low cost. However, if senior, experienced, in-house planning officers are responsible for managing all planning applications, that will significantly increase the cost. Neither of those things is illegitimate; each is a manifestation of the democratic decision making of elected politicians about what is appropriate for their community.
It would be helpful to understand what process the Secretary of State will go through in determining what a reasonable level of planning fees is. For example, will she consider the requirement for specialist input at a technical level because there is a significant amount of radon gas, which is found in certain challenging sites because of their topographical nature? Whether there is a requirement for remediation and specialist consultancy will be critical to a proper assessment of that planning application. Other local authorities may have development opportunities of a different nature. Will the Minister set out his thinking on that? That would be enormously helpful.
Rachel Taylor
When the Committee met the witnesses a week or so ago, we touched on section 106 agreements and the role of planning authority lawyers in that process. I think that the fees for processing and determining applications include the process for agreeing a section 106 agreement. Is it the Government’s intention to include costs arising from the legal department’s time and efforts in determining those applications in the ringfenced planning application fees? I am aware that there is a severe shortage of qualified and experienced property lawyers in both local authorities in my constituency, as well as a shortage of planning officers.
Gideon Amos
I rise to support the thrust of clause 44. For a very long time, we Liberal Democrats have called for local authorities to be free to set their own fees for planning applications, so we welcome the approach.
I seek a couple of clarifications from the Minister. Does clause 44 refer to planning applications and not to listed building consent? I think we all share a desire to keep listed building applications free of charge, so will the Minister let us know about that in due course? Local authorities are struggling for funding. In my own Somerset council, £2 out of every £3 of council funding is spent on care for adults and children, leaving £1 out of every £3 provided by council tax for everything else, including planning, housing, enforcement and environment, so funding is crucially needed.
Somerset council has asked for the freedom and flexibility to set its own planning fees. One challenge it faces, in common with other planning authorities and planning departments, is the market rate paid to professional town planners, who frequently find that the level of remuneration in councils is worse. Will the Minister confirm that local authorities will be free to set salaries above the market rate to attract planning officers in circumstances when the market conditions make that necessary? The Minister may not wish to answer all my questions now, but I hope that he can address them at some point.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I fully support what the Government intend to do in this clause. Those of us who have worked in local authorities or have supported the development industry over many years will know that there are many occasions when statutory deadlines are not hit, reports do not go to committee at the right time to enable consent within an agreed timescale, and reports have to be deferred because they have not been written well enough by an overstretched planning department.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister about the arrangements that will be introduced through this legislation. Will there be a backstop for local authorities that do not put a regime in place? Will he consider allowing local planning authorities and developers to agree bespoke fees for applications to be determined on a shorter timescale? Is the use of planning performance agreements, which are currently in common use, affected by the new legislation? What performance management arrangements do the Government want local authorities to put in place to justify the fee changes?
Paul Holmes
I welcome what the Minister has to say about this clause. In common with other hon. Members who have spoken, we welcome the general gist of permitting regional variation to planning fees as a general principle. In theory, that will create opportunities for local planning authorities to set their rates at a level that works best for them. How will the Government ensure consistency and fairness in planning fees across different local planning authorities, particularly for developers operating in multiple regions? Does the Minister have any thoughts on that?
In considering the need to support local planning authorities, what support will be provided to them to accurately calculate cost recovery levels and comply with consultation and reporting requirements? Given the ever-changing and growing costs to local planning authorities, which we all recognise, how frequently will they be allowed or required to review and update their planning fees?
Luke Murphy
I, too, rise to support the measures. The Committee heard evidence from developers that they do not at all mind paying higher fees as long as they get a fast, quality service that delivers quicker and better outcomes for everyone involved.
We know that planners are absolutely vital to planning the future of our communities, the places where we will live for years to come, and they cannot do that on a shoestring. For too long, we have seen many local planning authorities unable to cover their costs, which causes delays and cuts and has led to a doom loop in the planning system. It is great that the Government plan to give control to local planning authorities, with the safeguards that the Minister has set out, to set their own fees and ensure that we can have the proactive, effective and fast planning system that we all want.
Matthew Pennycook
I will set out a couple of points in response to questions raised by hon. Members. If I miss anything, I am more than happy to follow up in writing on the technical detail, including on some issues that sit outside the scope of the clause but are pertinent.
For example, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, raised the issue of salaries that could be paid to local planning department staff. That will be a consideration for local planning authorities attracting talent. He is right that over recent years we have seen, for a variety of reasons, a bleeding out of talent, particularly to the private sector. There is a challenge in attracting the requisite skills into the public sector to ensure that we can take our planning reforms forward.
The purpose of clause 44 is to allow the Secretary of State, through regulations, to delegate the power to set planning fees and charges to local planning authorities. It will be up to local planning authorities whether to set their own fees or remain on what will essentially become a default national fee rate. We will carry out a national benchmarking exercise, including engagement with local authorities, to ensure that the default rate is at an appropriate level.
For the process by which local authorities can set their own fees, if that is the route they want to take, the Bill has a number of safeguards to ensure that fees are not set too high. In the first instance, local planning authorities will be required to undertake public consultations and publish information to justify any local fees prior to their introduction. To respond to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, that is in the process in which local planning authorities would be able to evidence particular challenges in their area that require them to have a skillset and resource base slightly different from those of other local planning authorities, but that would have to be properly justified.
For objections, there will be a process by which the Secretary of State can intervene and direct local planning authorities to amend their fees or charges when those have been set at an inappropriate level. I note the point, well made by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, that such directions—that intervention—would have to come at a point that allowed a local authority to ensure that the changes were made in a timely manner relative to its other financial responsibilities.
Any hon. Member is free to intervene if I have missed a point, but I hope that I have broadly reassured the Committee that the clause will provide for those who want to set their own fees—although I stress that an authority can remain on the national default rate if it wants—so that the fees can more fully reflect the cost of processing applications and thus ensure that we are providing a timely service. It is a beneficial change.
Gideon Amos
The Minister is generous in inviting interventions; I rise to make a small one. I technically ought to declare that I live in a listed building—a fairly shabby one—but that is not the only reason why I wanted to listed building consents to be free.
Matthew Pennycook
On that point I should say, although I hope this was implied, that we will set out detailed processes in the regulations. We will absolutely take into account points that have been made today. I give the hon. Gentleman my undertaking that the specific issue that he raises will be fully considered as part of that process.
Lewis Cocking
I have a question to gain clarity for local authorities. Will the Minister request local authorities to submit how much they spend on planning currently? If the increase in fees is to go into additional planning service, I would not want to see local authorities moving money out of their planning services now, and then charging additional fees so that the services still had the same budget. I hope I have explained that point sufficiently. Will he ask local authorities to submit how much they spend on planning now, to ensure that the additional fees that they will be able to charge go into additional service?
Matthew Pennycook
That is an interesting point. That would be a fairly extreme measure for a local authority to undertake but, if I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, it could drain its planning department budget, foreseeing that it would be able to set a fee at an appropriate rate to make up for that, and therefore in a sense evading the clear stipulation that we have here to ringfence planning fee charges to the provision of planning services. I will say a couple of things on that basis.
As I said, local planning authorities will have to consult publicly and test their fee level. As part of that, they will have to consider the benchmarking exercise that we will undertake for the default national rate—so we will have a sense of what different local authorities are charging. However, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall go away to reflect more fully on how—as I hope is clear we have been thinking today—local authorities without the best intentions might seek to game the system.
Matthew Pennycook
The final point I will make before giving way is that, were a local authority to seek to evade that ringfencing provision by reducing the amount of resource going into its planning department—a not particularly sensible route to take—and then, potentially, it were not able or allowed to charge a fair and proportionate fee set in that regard, it would come under the usual planning performance dashboard, where the Department can look at the local authority for not providing a timely service or performing appropriately. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a set of intervention powers would be available to national Government, were that the case.
It is far more likely, however, as we have heard from local authorities, that they would use the power to set local fees that reflect the cost of services, using it to bring more resource in and—generally, this is what they want to do—to start processing applications in a more timely manner than they can now.
David Simmonds
The Minister’s response has been excellent. Clearly, there will be a number of different arrangements at a local level. That should encourage us, as a Committee considering the legislation, to reflect a little further.
In the example that the Minister talked about—the behaviour of local authorities—it may not be about those who have ill intentions. Some local authorities may have a planning and building control department—although the two regimes are separate, there is great commonality of skills—while others may have outsourced one or both those functions, or have them in-house but entirely separate.
As part of the published council tax fixing, there is a requirement to set out a schedule of fees for building control. Some local authorities may choose to bundle that together, so when people put in a planning application, they pay for both; but others may do that separately. Some developers, including householders, may choose to purchase the building control privately, even though they could purchase it from the local authority. A lot of factors will determine what a reasonable cost base is. It would help if the Minister shared with the Committee some further thinking on how the Government might seek to establish a baseline, in particular in the light of potential challenges in the future by developers who feel that the level of cost at a particular spot is other than reasonable.
I press the Minister a little on how that interacts with two further points that he made. Government new clause 39 refers to the power of the Secretary of State to implement a surcharge as a percentage of a planning fee that has been set. From what I understand of what the Minister said in his commentary, that will principally be to fund the work of the statutory consultees. Clearly, the imposition of a surcharge will then form part of the planning fees that have to be part of the statutory consultation on the legislatively fixed timetable that the local authority has to follow. How will the Government ensure that that timetable is respected, so that they themselves are not subject to the challenge?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for pressing those two points. I am more than happy to come back to the issue in more detail, but as a general point, a lot of further detail is yet to come post consultation and the regulations’ being laid. We will provide further detail then on some of the technical questions as to how the power will be implemented.
The surcharge introduced by Government new clause 39 will provide the ability to fund the statutory consultees and other bodies that provide assistance and advice in relation to the planning application process. For example, we may wish to fund training and guidance for local planning authorities so that they can better engage with statutory consultees. However, the surcharge, which, as he rightly says, comes as an additional amount on top of the fees for processing applications, is very much intended to address the particular challenges that we are facing in terms of how statutory consultees are able to engage with the process in a timely manner, so that we get that advice up front.
David Simmonds
May I press the Minister a little further? That is a really helpful answer in illuminating the Government’s thinking, but could he explain to the Committee how that will interact with the existing arrangements for planning performance agreements, which are very common in respect of larger-scale planning applications? Clearly, if a developer required to engage with all this wider statutory-consultee process is already entering into a voluntary agreement with the local authority to fund the process, there is a risk that that will have an impact. It risks either reducing the ability of the local authority, because that surcharge is effectively being taken by the Secretary of State, or increasing the cost base and therefore opening up the question whether the planning fees are reasonable in the first place.
Matthew Pennycook
I would say two things in response to that, and then perhaps, Ms Jardine, in the interests of making progress on the Bill, I will happily write to the Committee to set out further details of the operation of the surcharge.
First, on how the surcharge will be processed and distributed, it will, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, be paid by the person collecting the fee to the Secretary of State in a manner and at a time prescribed by regulations, which are forthcoming. Outside the regulations, the proceeds will then be earmarked for distribution to bodies that provide advice and assistance in the planning process, including by way of consultation responses.
Secondly, the question has been asked several times whether the Government have properly considered the cumulative impact of fees and charges—are we getting the fees right? We are very aware that the surcharge will increase the fees that are already out there—it is an additional levy in that sense—and that other measures in the Bill may already result in fee increases. I repeat that we are committed to consulting on the proposed rates and the type of application that this should apply to—not least to allow the development sector to fully engage with those proposals.
On that basis, I think it would help the Committee if I set out later—chapter and verse—how we think both the clause and the surcharge will operate, on a very practical basis, and how local authorities can understand the Government’s intent in bringing them forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Training for local planning authorities in England
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 152, in clause 45, page 58, line 3, at end insert—
“(c) require that any training accredited under this section includes content on—
(i) inclusive design principles in the built environment;
(ii) the requirements and intent of Approved Document M, Volume 1: Dwellings of the Building Regulations 2010, with particular emphasis on the M4(2) accessible and adaptable standard and the M4(3) wheelchair user standard;
(iii) the requirements and intent of Approved Document B of the Building Regulations 2010;
(d) require that all members, elected members, and officers of a relevant local planning authority who carry out any function relevant to planning undertake mandatory training comprising the content set out in paragraph (c).”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 49, in clause 45, page 58, line 15, at end insert—
“(7A) This section applies in relation to a relevant planning function conferred on a mineral planning authority as if references to a local planning authority were to a mineral planning authority in England.”
This amendment has the effect that (if regulations under inserted section 319ZZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are made) members of a mineral planning authority in England who have not completed any training required by the regulations will be prohibited from exercising certain mineral planning functions on behalf of the authority.
Clause stand part.
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I did not prepare anything in advance—apologies—but I do think it is important for the Committee to consider amendment 152, tabled by an hon. Member from another party. The amendment asks the Government to consider using the opportunity offered by the Bill to ensure that the training provided—which is essential for those involved in planning decisions, whether elected members or officers—includes a specific focus on accessibility.
This is a really important issue. If we are to be an inclusive and equitable society, it is vital that planning decisions are made in a way that takes into account the importance of accessibility. It is also an increasing issue. We are an ageing society: in 2022, 19% of our population was over the age of 65, but in 50 years’ time that will be 27%—half as many people again. We know that disability is associated with age; we know that 45% of people over the age of 65 report a disability, and half of those disabilities are mobility-related. So, accessibility of buildings—accessibility of all the areas that come within the remit of planning decisions—is a crucial aspect.
I ask the Minister to comment on the suggestion made in amendment 152. Does he recognise the importance of these issues? Would he consider taking this away and exploring whether the clause could be amended to make this minor but important additional change, to ensure that all planning decisions going forward recognise the importance of accessibility?
Jim Dickson
Just before I speak to the amendment, I will say that I fully support what the Government are doing here. As a former member of a local authority, I have seen good training, but in other contexts I have also seen very poor training for planning committee members. I know that most local authorities have a scheme in place, which is obviously welcome, but it is variable. Having some national guidance and trialling it in legislation is extremely important.
My point on the amendment is that accessibility is vital. I hope it will appear in guidance that the Department produces further to the legislation. We might wish to see a whole range of other considerations in that guidance, too, but I hope this one will be in there. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us that these important issues will be included in guidance. He might make the case that it is much better to have them in guidance because it can be changed regularly, rather than in primary legislation, which is changed via a much more torturous process. It would be interesting to have the Minister’s insights on the full range of the guidance.
Lewis Cocking
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine.
I have a few questions for the Minister. I am pleased to see this clause. When I was leader of Broxbourne council, we changed the council constitution to do exactly what the Government are trying to do here. I want to know how many local authorities will be affected, because I know that many of them already have mandatory training for planning committees in their constitution.
What I have not seen in the Bill is how often council officers will be required to carry out the training—will it be once per term of office, which means once every four years, or annually? I cannot seem to find any detail on when elected councillors will be required to do the training. I would like the Minister to comment on what he envisages as a workable interval. Obviously the training has to be timely, because there are always changes to the national planning policy framework and local plans, but not too exhaustive, so that councils can still make planning decisions.
The Minister speaks about speeding up planning decisions. I would not want councils to fall into the trap of not having enough people with the right certificate, and the right training at the right time, to carry on their quasi-judicial function of planning. I should be grateful for the Minister’s comments.
Rachel Taylor
Amendment 152 is well intentioned and sets out a number of matters that planning authorities should take into account when organising training. There are also other aspects of the planning process to consider, including how we make better provision for electric vehicles. The last major piece of planning legislation from 1990—it has endured for 35 years—is very prescriptive about the content of training for members and officers, but it will be extremely difficult to encapsulate everything that is needed.
I certainly think that the requirements for people with disabilities and for climate and nature are sometimes conflicting. I have seen a number of planning schemes where trees are put in the middle of the road or pavement. Although those environments look nice, they do not accommodate people with disabilities, such as sight or mobility problems.
We have to adapt as things move on, and this is exactly the sort of thing that I would ask the Minister to consider in guidance that could be regularly updated, as opposed to it forming part of the Bill. I certainly support the amendment’s intention, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for tabling it.
Gideon Amos
I rise to support amendment 152. The Liberal Democrats have a similar measure on the amendment paper, new clause 11, which also refers to the accessibility of housing. We are pleased to support this amendment, and we support training for planning authorities in general. In the Minister’s summing up, can he address the concern of some organisations that, as well as accessibility, the training needs to include conservation and heritage?
Paul Holmes
Clause 45 relates to mandatory planning training, which is long overdue. It could be a huge benefit to local planning authorities to have trained planning committee members.
When many members of the public—and many Members of Parliament—saw the mandatory training element of the Bill, they probably shouted, “Oh good God, thank you!” There is a massive variation in the outcomes of planning committees, as we will come to in debates on other clauses where we disagree with the Government on planning committees. To strengthen planning committees and ensure that they all perform—and that members of planning committees perform to the best of their ability and are trained to make the complicated decisions that local planning authorities and committees have to make—is a good thing.
I declare an interest that, as a former chair of a planning committee at Southampton city council for two and a half years, I really enjoyed the training. The planning training at the time, when the council was under Conservative control—I will say that it does it now under Labour too—was automatically given to newly elected councillors on the committee. It was exemplary.
Councillors could not pick and choose whether to go. Instead, the council very clearly said from an early stage, “If you do not attend this training, we will not defend any decision that you make, and we will not put you on the planning committee, despite the best wishes of group leaders from all parties.” That is a commendable approach, and one that I know other local authorities also take.
Planning decisions are sometimes the most user-friendly decisions that are made; although they are not necessarily the most important, they are where a local resident will have the most interaction with their local authority. Apart from when a bin is not collected—or, in a unitary or county council, when someone is going through problems with education or an education, health and care plan—planning decisions are the bread and butter of the public facing element for locally elected politicians.
Later in Committee, we will talk about how the Opposition feel that the Government are trying to take some of those responsibilities away, but the precept of this provision to allow locally elected councillors to have the best training that could possibly be provided, so that they make decisions that they are proud to stand by and are legally defensible on appeal, is long overdue and is of huge benefit to local authorities. We welcome clause 45.
On Government amendment 49, the Minister may forgive me a slight rant. I absolutely agree with this amendment on mineral planning authorities. I suggest that officers and managers of highways authorities, particularly those in Hampshire, should also undergo some training, given how woefully Hampshire county council officers have dealt with a mineral extraction facility in Hamble in my constituency. I know that the Minister cannot comment on that in his semi-judicial capacity, but I can because I do not have those responsibilities.
Locally elected councillors, who should make the decision and have had the proper training, refused Cemex’s application. When it came to appeal, local planning officers removed the rug from under people’s feet by refusing to defend that decision, so the local community has had to find £75,000 to try to defend it—thank God for the constituents of Hamble who are defending it. I know that the Minister cannot comment on that case, and I am being slightly facetious, but perhaps we need an audit of the way that officers engage their responsibilities as mineral and waste planning authorities. Other Committee members are aware of the case in Hamble, and, although I will not ask them to speak on it, I know they will be sympathetic to my call.
I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for moving amendment 152 on behalf of the hon. Member for Shipley. It is well intentioned, but it would create a burden that is already met by national equality and planning legislation, as well as local authority planning guidance and locally set planning regulations. This is a slight role reversal, but I hope that the Minister will agree—I am not writing his lines for him—that accepting the amendment would create more bureaucracy for councillors on planning committees.
There is already provision, through national guidance, national legislation and local guidance, to ensure that developments are accessible and that accessibility is at the forefront of any proposed development. The Opposition do not support the amendment, because we believe that we have made great advances over recent decades in ensuring that developments are accessible and that local authority members and planning officers take very seriously their responsibilities when it comes to accessibility in the planning system.
I wholly welcome clause 45, which is a great thing for the empowerment of local authority councillors. It will bring councillors, their constituents and their residents closer together. Some of the most difficult decisions that I had to defend in my time as a councillor were those I took on planning applications as chair of the planning committee, particularly on the big blue IKEA in Southampton, which other hon. Members might have been to. Yes, I did that—I am looking to other Hampshire Members, who may have been there.
That decision was controversial, but I was able to defend it because I had had the training. When some of my or my committee’s decisions were challenged, I had a detailed knowledge from that planning training, which officers provided, so I could be questioned at appeal and make sure that the decisions were sound. We lost a few, but we defended a few; that is the nature of local democracy. I say to the Minister that I am deeply encouraged by clause 45, which we wholeheartedly support. We do not accept amendment 152. We wholly agree with Government amendment 49.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the considered and thoughtful contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I will set out the purpose and effect of the clause, address amendment 152 and speak about Government amendment 49.
As we heard in the contribution of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, planning is principally a local activity, because decisions about what to build and where—although not decisions about whether to build at all—should be shaped by local people. That is why we believe that planning committees have an integral role to play in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. As I have said, I have been a local councillor and sat on planning committees, as have many Committee members—the hon. Gentleman just set out his experience. Planning committees are comprised of dedicated elected members, and in most instances the decisions are well informed and robust.
It is, however, vital that in exercising their democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions. One of the ways we want to achieve those outcomes is by ensuring that all planning committee members receive adequate training to support their important work, which can be extremely complex when it comes to certain challenging applications.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne rightly made the point that lots of local planning authorities already have some form of mandatory training in place. Data from the Planning Advisory Service suggests that more than 80% of councils do, but a percentage do not, and approaches to training vary quite widely across the country. That leads to inconsistencies in knowledge relating to planning law and in practice among planning committee members, which obviously has an impact on their ability to apply the relevant laws and policies when making planning decisions.
David Simmonds
I am struck by the Minister’s point about the need for consistency. We will all be conscious of the level of inconsistency in delegated planning decisions, which make up around 95% of decisions on planning applications. Does he have a programme in mind to achieve the level of consistency for those decisions that this measure will bring to decisions made by democratically elected members?
Matthew Pennycook
If I could probe the hon. Gentleman in turn, does he mean consistency in the decisions made by expert planning officers rather than on individual planning applications?
David Simmonds
Actually, the answer is both. We will all know of people’s experience with local authorities: they meet a planning officer to discuss a delegated planning decision and they receive advice, but when it is submitted, it is considered by a different planning officer who takes a completely different view. Given that that is how the vast bulk of planning applications are dealt with, if the Government’s aim is to bring consistency and certainty to the process—it is a laudable aim—it will be necessary to focus on the more than 90% of decisions that are already made under delegated powers, as well as this measure, which is for that small number considered by the planning committee.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a fair and reasonable point. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will write to him to set out the Government’s thinking on that issue. If it is available—I fully expect that it will be— I will give him some sense of the level of refusals on appeal for decisions made by committees versus decisions made by expert planning officers, which I think would be relevant. In general terms, in many instances, we think that expert planning officers have the relevant expertise to make good decisions on the basis of planning law. We are trying to ensure through this clause that elected members also have that experience in place through mandatory training.
As has been rightly said, the clause is about building on existing good practice—there is very good practice out there—and ensuring that it is implemented consistently across the country. It is worth noting that mandatory training for committees was strongly supported by the sector as a whole in the responses to the planning reform working paper where we set out ideas in this space, lots of which we are taking forward.
We will introduce regulations to specify which planning functions are covered by this measure, what the training looks like—its nature and content, and how it will be delivered—and details about the certification process. Those regulations will be subject to further engagement with the sector and I will reflect on all the points that have been made today.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is being very kind; he just mentioned a point that I forgot to mention. I do not expect certainty, and he has said that he is bringing forward regulations, but what work has the Department already done with organisations that may have the capacity and the desire to provide that training to local authorities?
There may be situations where a planning officer within a local authority may be confident that they can provide that training, as was provided to me, but we also had the Local Government Association and other private KCs—QCs at the time—who could be paid to provide training. How does the Minister anticipate the training will be provided and by whom? Has his Department started the work to see what parties might be interested in providing the training?
Matthew Pennycook
We have had a huge amount of engagement with the sector, both in working up the proposals and in the feedback that we have received to the planning reform working paper. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the Planning Advisory Service that already provides local authorities with support, and there are other organisations in this space that have a direct interest in planning and training. I am happy to provide him with further details if he wishes but, as I say, through the introduction of regulations, further detail will be forthcoming.
I should mention—Opposition Members will particularly enjoy this one, I think—that the Mayor of London can act as a local planning authority in respect of applications of potential strategic importance, so the training requirement will apply to him too.
Paul Holmes
I might as well pack up and go home— I did not hear any “hear, hears” in response to that—because the Minister has given us the best news that the Mayor of London requires planning training, after the failure of his authority to deliver the housing numbers that it wants and now the announcement that he thinks that he has carte blanche to build over the green belt with his blessing and that of the Secretary of State. I am delighted that under a Labour Government’s proposals, the Labour Mayor of London might actually learn something about planning in his authority.
Matthew Pennycook
What is there to say to that? In no way did I imply that the Mayor of London requires planning training—I think he has had extensive planning training—but the training requirement set out in this clause will apply to him, because he acts as a local planning authority in respect of applications of potential strategic importance.
Likewise, it will apply to mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities where they have functions corresponding to the Mayor of London conferred on them. The requirement will also apply to any persons authorised to act on their behalf, including, for example, deputy Mayors in London and other such figures. A mandatory requirement for training in planning matters will improve the overall decision-making process and decrease delays in delivery of much-needed homes and other crucial developments.
Before I turn to amendment 152, I will address a very well made point raised by the hon. Member for Broxbourne. Through regulations, we will set out the timing of when training is required, but he asked an important question about what happens if training is not in place when a decision is required and whether that would stall the process. As he will know, local authorities have their own codes of conduct. We trust local authorities to ensure that committees are carried out in accordance with the rules and regulations set out by the clause. We are aware of the need to ensure that undue delays are not caused, so for that reason any decision reached by members who are in breach of the measure will not be invalidated, but the requirement will still apply to local authorities. We are reliant on their code of conduct to enforce it.
Amendment 152 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and spoken to by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. As other hon. Members have said, it raises the excellent point that development must form an inclusive and safe environment for everyone. We wholeheartedly agree that that is of paramount importance.
The national planning policy framework makes it clear that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible. We want to ensure that our mandatory training supports members of local planning authorities to make decisions properly, in accordance with the relevant planning policies, including those I have just mentioned, and other material considerations. That is why we will work closely with the sector to design the mandatory training.
We do not think it is necessary to specify details of all the matters covered by mandatory training in the Bill, as to do so would be exhaustive and would pre-empt the forthcoming regulations and the further detail that I have referred to. I assure the hon. Member for North Herefordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, who tabled the amendment, that we will consult on the content of the training to ensure that councillors are appropriately supported in making decisions in this area.
Gideon Amos
I invite the Minister to go slightly further. Will he say today that the regulations will include the requirement for both accessibility and heritage training?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member understandably tempts me to start to specify what will be in the training, but I will not do that. Further details will be brought forward in due course, but I have certainly heard the case made by Committee members about what the training should include in respect of accessibility and other issues.
Finally, Government amendment 49 is a minor and technical amendment that clarifies that members of mineral planning authorities should also undergo training in planning matters. Mineral sites deal with complex planning issues, so it is only right that members of mineral planning committees, acting on behalf of mineral planning authorities, should be included in the requirement to undergo relevant training.
Along with amendments 50 and 51—which we will come to shortly—this amendment clarifies the position of mineral planning authorities for the purposes of the Bill. To be clear, we want to remove any doubt as to the requirements of the Bill with respect to the training of members of mineral planning committees, and that is what this amendment achieves. For those reasons, I humbly invite the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to withdraw amendment 152.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 49, in clause 45, page 58, line 15, at end insert—
“(7A) This section applies in relation to a relevant planning function conferred on a mineral planning authority as if references to a local planning authority were to a mineral planning authority in England.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment has the effect that (if regulations under inserted section 319ZZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are made) members of a mineral planning authority in England who have not completed any training required by the regulations will be prohibited from exercising certain mineral planning functions on behalf of the authority.
Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Delegation of planning decisions in England
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 46, page 61, line 39, at end insert—
“(7) Sections 319ZZC and 319ZZD and this section apply in relation to a relevant planning function conferred on a relevant mineral planning authority as if references to a relevant local planning authority were to a relevant mineral planning authority.”
This amendment has the effect that the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring certain planning functions conferred on mineral planning authorities in England to be discharged by certain persons or by committees of a certain size and composition.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 51
Clause stand part.
Matthew Pennycook
As I have set out, the Government recognise the vital role that planning committees play in ensuring that decisions about what to build and where are shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. Under local government law, local authority planning decisions must be a committee function, not an executive one, and presently every council has its own scheme of delegation to identify the circumstances in which planning decisions are taken by the planning committee rather than delegated to officers.
While the vast majority of planning decisions for local planning authorities are made by committees— around 96%— there is some inconsistency, which can create risk and uncertainty in the system. Clause 46 therefore seeks to build on the existing approach by giving the Secretary of State the power to introduce a national scheme of delegation. I reassure the Committee, as I have at other stages, that these measures are not about taking away democratic oversight but about spreading good practice, and there is good practice out there already.
A national delegation scheme will set out which planning functions across the country should be decided by officers and which by planning committees. It will also give the Secretary of State the power to set requirements around the size and composition of planning committees, so that we can have a uniform arrangement across the country as to what is effective in that regard. That will help to address some of the issues that we have identified around the operation of planning committees, which include a lack of consistency and clarity on which applications will be determined by committee; too much time spent considering applications that are compliant with the local development plan, or considering niche technical details including post-permission matters; and a lack of transparency on committee decisions and their consequences.
There is lots of good practice out there, and we know that in almost all instances, committees make good decisions on the basis of planning law and relevant material considerations. However, we are all familiar—in particular those of us who have served in local government and on these committees—with examples of where a development proposal was on a site allocated in the local plan, and in line with all policy expectations, but the committee refused the application against officer advice, and the subsequent appeal was upheld, unnecessarily costing the local authority significant sums of money and creating delay.
Paul Holmes
Does the Minister not understand that local plans are usually formed by an administration and executive of the council, and that it is up to local ward members who may be affected by appointed or adopted sites within that local plan, and who feel that they want to have a say, to request that that is called in? If a planning committee decides that it should not go ahead, that is their decision. Does he not see that there is a separation between the power of the executive to meet the guidelines that the last Government and his Government have set out, and the willingness and ability to allow the planning committee to make decisions, even if it is on sites that an executive has already approved in the council’s local plan?
Matthew Pennycook
A number of points here are worth pulling out. We have just discussed on mandatory training the need to ensure that all elected members across the country who serve on committees are cognisant of planning law and other considerations to which they must adhere.
I would gently press back. We know there are instances where committees take a decision on allocated sites against officer recommendation, out of line with planning law and those considerations, because it is easy to do so in certain instances—they might be responding to pressure from the gallery. I have had direct experience of that. It is deemed a cost-free decision to refuse an application on that basis, but it is not cost-free to the local authority and it introduces unnecessary cost and delay, and all the burdens that come with appeals.
Lewis Cocking
Does the Minister recognise the other side of that coin? There are examples, and I can give him some from my local authority, of where officers recommend a planning application for approval, the committee turns it down, it goes to appeal and the planning inspector has agreed with the committee. It is not one size fits all; there are two sides to the argument and there will be examples of both. This measure puts a lot of trust in, and gives even more power to, planning officers.
Matthew Pennycook
It does, and we think that is right. We think we should trust and empower expert planning officers. The appeals process will remain in force. I recognise the scenario the hon. Gentleman outlines. Local planning officers do not get every decision right. To gently challenge him, he is making the case for no scheme of delegation at all. Schemes of delegation are in place across the country. We are not saying that we do not trust expert planning officers to make the decisions on any applications. We trust them in lots of local authorities to make lots of decisions. As I said, 96% of applications go through planning officers.
There are two issues at play here, which we will perhaps draw out in the debate. We should be honest about them. Members may reasonably take the view that there should simply be no national scheme of delegation—that providing that consistency on the basis of a uniform national arrangement is wrong in principle. If that is the case, I respect that decision. That is not the position of the Government. We think there is a case for a national scheme of delegation.
Then there is the detail of what should go into that national scheme of delegation. Have we got the balance right in terms of the applications that should come before planning committees and should go to planning officers? We already trust expert planning officers to make decisions on a host of delegated applications across the country. The problem is there is huge variation in how those local schemes of delegation apply.
Lewis Cocking
In the current scenario, local planning authorities can go through their own scheme of delegation, and if there are lots of objections or a significant public interest, they can determine that instead of doing it through the scheme of delegation, they can bring it to the planning committee, which they will not be able to do under the national scheme of delegation.
Matthew Pennycook
I refer back to my point: the hon. Gentleman may take the view, which is a perfectly coherent and respectable view, that a national scheme of delegation is wrong in principle. That is not the Government’s view, because we think there are significant advantages to be had from introducing greater consistency and certainty about what decisions go to a committee, so we can have a uniform approach across the country.
Rachel Taylor
Does the Minister agree that very often the controversial decisions that go to planning committees and are declined by them, leading to an appeal, result in higher council tax for residents, because of the huge cost of appeals, reviews and so on? A national scheme of delegation, where it is clear which decisions can be made under delegated authorities and which cannot, will therefore simplify the process for developers, remove the delays and costs for them, and keep costs down for local residents.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is not a cost-free decision to refuse an application where a committee does so on grounds that are not robust. That does not apply in the vast majority of instances. As I say, most committees are comprised of elected members who are diligent, considerate and aware of the risks. Through the mandatory training that we have just discussed, we are trying to get to a situation where elected members are trained and are more cognisant of planning law and the considerations they have to take forward. We want to ensure that there is consistency across the country.
As I say, there are two issues at play here. Some Members may take the view that a national scheme of delegation is wrong in principle. If Members do not take that view, which is not the Government’s view, the debate that we should be having, and will have—as I said on Second Reading, we will bring forward details, so that we can consider them alongside the Bill—is what the most appropriate national scheme of delegation would be, to achieve the right balance between making sure that the most controversial, major applications come before committees and entrusting expert planning officers to make other decisions.
Paul Holmes
I wonder whether the Minister has given any thought to political proportionality when it comes to any future national scheme of delegation. I will give him an example. Forgive me if this is slightly out there; if so, I can write to him, or we can have a conversation in the Lobbies later.
Say a local authority was 87% made up of one party, and there was one councillor from one party and another councillor from another party. In my constituency, we have a local authority that is overwhelmingly dominated by one party. For many residents, the planning system feels like it is out of touch, because the leader creates a different committee that allows just his party to make a decision—or, in the usual planning committees, local residents do not feel like the administration’s wishes are being taken into account, because the planning committee is overwhelmingly dominated by one party.
Will the Minister please assure us that any national scheme of delegation will not exacerbate that situation where local authorities have very strong political control one way, and political decisions within the planning system are taken by an overwhelming political administration? Will he assure us that we can have future discussions about that, so that such a situation in any local authority would not be made worse by a national scheme of delegation? I hope I explained that right.
Matthew Pennycook
The shadow Minister did explain that correctly, and I recognise the challenge. I would say two things: first, I assure him that party political considerations have not factored in any way into the development of the clause. The measure that we are proposing will improve the situation in the sense that, if there are very clear rules about which applications can come before a committee and which should go to national expert planning officers, as per a national scheme of delegation, some of the potential to use specific applications that might not be the most major, controversial applications that should come before a committee, in a political way, will be removed. As I said, the detail regarding what the national scheme of delegation will entail will come forward in due course.
As I mentioned, the clause also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the size and composition of planning committees. Best practice suggests that having smaller planning committees can lead to more effective debates and decision making. We have seen some extremely large and unwieldy planning committees across the country. We want to ensure that there are, within reasonable parameters, some prescriptive views on what the most effective size is.
Our views have been tested with the sector. In response to our working paper, there was broad support for the principle of the proposals from the local government sector, and we will continue to take on feedback as we refine our detailed proposals. That will, as I said, include a formal consultation on the regulations through which the new powers will be exercised. That is a requirement imposed on the Secretary of State by the clause and must happen prior to the regulations being made.
As I said, local democratic oversight of planning decisions remains essential, but it is vital that planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions. Clause 46 is about ensuring that skilled planning officers in local authorities are trusted and empowered in their roles, while retaining important democratic oversight on those sites that local people care about most. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Government amendments 50 and 51 are both minor and technical amendments clarifying that the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring relevant planning functions to be discharged by committee, sub-committee or an officer, and regulating the size and composition of a planning committee, also apply to mineral planning authorities. As the Committee will be aware, a local planning authority is not necessarily also a mineral planning authority; it depends on if and where there is a minerals site.
Mineral planning authorities are a special type of planning authority, and it is only right and proper to include them within these provisions to ensure greater consistency and certainty within the planning system. We must be clear about which local authorities are to be caught by this clause. The amendment clarifies that mineral planning authorities, where they exist, are to be subject to the provision in the clause.
Paul Holmes
We will oppose the clause. Our reason for doing so is that this chapter of the legislation is a massive power grab and piece of centralisation. The whole Bill—in particular its planning reform elements and this clause—reeks of this Government’s centralising zeal, as I said on the Floor of the House on Second Reading.
I tried to explain our point of view in my interventions on the Minister. He rightly challenged people to say whether there should be a national scheme of delegation, and Conservative Members wholly say that there should not be. I am grateful that he recognises that that is a not an opportunistic viewpoint; it is one that we sincerely believe.
Local authorities should have the power to do what they wish to do, because they are elected by their constituents and their residents. They, too, have a democratic right to exist and to undertake the responsibilities placed on them by the residents of their wards. They have a democratic right and duty to undertake those responsibilities and to participate in their accountability structures as local councillors, delegated to make decisions on behalf of their residents, and of their towns, cities and villages all over the UK.
As I said, we are concerned that the clause is just another attempt to centralise and to give the Minister and the Secretary of State the ability to build 1.5 million homes without necessarily allowing democratic checks and balances to be in place. In further amendments later in the Bill, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State actively try to take power away from local authorities and locally elected people.
Has anyone on the Labour Benches who was in a local authority—I asked this on Second Reading—been approached by their local councillors saying that they are not happy? Former council leaders and former councillors sit on this Committee, and I ask them whether councillors have told them that their own party is taking away councillors’ power and ability to speak for their residents. Members of Parliament in Committee are actively allowing that to happen if they vote for this clause to stand part.
Many local authorities are allowed to choose the way in which they do their business. That is why we do not believe that there should be a national scheme of delegation. In my own regional structures, the county council has a regulatory committee and two planning committees, and the borough council—although I have vast disagreements with how Eastleigh is managed—has local area committees that are accountable to the local wards in their localities. Such committees are actually more democratic, because different parties might represent the ward on them. When I was a councillor in Southampton, we had one planning committee that looked after everything within the authority boundary. All of that is because local authorities, through their own delegated schemes and democratic structures, pick how they wish to conduct their business. The clause will simply stop those local authorities being able to do that.
I am not talking to the Minister only about the size of the committee and the principles behind that. All the way through this clause are regulations for the Minister to lay, not only about the size and composition of committees discharging such functions, but requiring which functions are to be discharged. Local authorities already have that. We believe that local authorities should be able to decide that.
I challenged the Minister on one of his examples about local plans that are drawn up by an executive but can now be challenged by locally elected members of a planning committee. We do not see anything wrong with that. Local council members represent wards affected by local plans delivered by an executive. Whether that is an executive of the same political persuasion as the councillors who have concerns or of a different political persuasion, councillors have their rights under a local scheme of delegation.
That planning application should be able to go to a planning committee and be called in by a member under the rights that they have as a councillor. If, after its members have been trained through the excellent provision proposed by the Minister, the planning committee still decides to reject the application, that is the power and right of the locally elected councillor, and this Government are taking that right away.
Nesil Caliskan
Does the hon. Member not recognise that a local plan has to be approved by full council? That already gives every single councillor the ability to have their say at a full council meeting. Democratic oversight sits not just with local planning committees, but with different local authority functions. Democratic oversight is at its best at full council, and local plans are approved at full council, with a vote for every member.
Paul Holmes
I accept what the hon. Lady says, but I do not agree that a local ward member who may disagree with the local plan should not then have it considered in planning committee later on. Of course, a full council does meet to approve the local plan, but I go back to my original point: that is an executive decision.
Paul Holmes
It is an executive decision. An executive is required by legislation to put five-year housing land supply forward under a local plan, and a local plan is approved by full council. That work is undertaken by officers, signed off by a lead member for environment or planning under their responsibilities, and put forward to full council. The hon. Lady is absolutely right about that, but why does she then say that if a ward member wants to call in a planning application that affects the constituents who elected them in the village they represent, that should not be allowed to go to a planning committee and be decided on by that committee, whether or not it is against the executive’s local plan?
Nesil Caliskan
Does the hon. Member not recognise that once a local plan is approved at full council, it is a regulatory framework that has legal standing? That is the framework on which a planning committee bases its decision. I take the point that members may want to voice a view, but in the context of a regulatory framework, all we are doing is setting people up for failure and costing taxpayers money for decisions that will be overturned on appeal.
Paul Holmes
Again, I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from, but it is still within the rights of the appointed planning committee to say yes or no to the detailed development proposals. Local plans talk about numbers and locations. Planning applications that go before officers but are then called in by the committee are discussed in detail: what the developments look like, how many affordable houses there are, and what roads and community infrastructure there will be. That is the right of local planning committees, and under these measures this Government will take that away.
Why does the Minister feel that he and the political leadership of his Department should say what functions should be discharged by a committee, sub-committee or officer, and what conditions local authorities should abide by? I say that that is the right of the local authority, and that a scheme of delegation drawn up through consultation by local members in a full council or a committee role should perfectly satisfy the democratic checks and accountability that local people expect.
We said earlier that one of the only ways in which people engage with their local authorities is through the decisions that their councillors make on planning applications. This Minister and this Government are potentially taking that away from a huge number of people across the country, just because they want to get their 1.5 million houses through. They are doing so based on what they think is acceptable, despite the fact that local councillors may not find it acceptable to them. That is a disgrace. This is the way in which this Government have decided to go forward on delivering their 1.5 million homes—through mandatory targets in urban versus rural areas, a national scheme of delegation, and taking power away from local planning authorities, local councillors and lead members.
The Opposition say that that is a disgrace. That is something that local members should be doing. At every sitting of this Committee and at the later stages of the Bill, we will always say that locally elected councillors should have the power and right—they have the democratic responsibility and the democratic mandate—to make local decisions for local people. This Government are taking that away. We will oppose this clause and push it to a Division, because it is simply not right for the people in this country, who elect their councillors to speak for them. Every hon. Member on the Government side of the Committee whose councillors and constituents are affected by planning decisions is effectively saying to those councillors that they are not good enough to make decisions on behalf of their ward members, and that those ward members should not be making decisions on behalf of their councils. I look forward to them explaining that at their AGMs.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I would like to speak on amendments 50 and 51.
Portsmouth is a part of a minerals partnership and collaborates with Hampshire county council, Southampton city council, New Forest national park authority and the South Downs national park authority. Together, they have developed and adapted Hampshire’s minerals and waste plan. Does the Minister agree that amendments 50 and 51 will support administrative efficiency, particularly for those fully urbanised authorities such as mine in Portsmouth, where we have no or very few mineral resources to extract? Releasing such authorities from having full mineral plans and duties could reduce future duplication and free up much-needed planning resources, allowing us to work on plans that are relevant and specific to our area.
Gideon Amos
We support the delivery of 1.5 million homes, but a confrontational approach, whereby elected representatives are longer allowed to take decisions on behalf of local people, will alienate people from the planning system, create more conflict and make it harder to deliver the homes that we need. Taking powers away from local elected representatives is taking powers away from local people. So much of planning is already predetermined by national guidance and policy.
Only last Friday, I had two parish councillors at my surgery. They came to ask why Government guidance on highway planning overrides everything that they, local people and their own transport planning expert know about highway safety in their village. Those objectors wanted to support the housing scheme in Cheddon Fitzpaine, but they were asking for a previous commitment to secondary access to be honoured. The councillors were told that there would be costs of £400,000 if they did not follow Government transport planning guidance, and they had no choice but to accept the application without the road. Not for the first time, after that meeting some of my councillors came to me and said, “What is the point of being a councillor if local resources are so constrained that there is no money to provide local services?” Even on planning committee, the Government are taking away decision-making powers from local people. It is totally unacceptable.
Matthew Pennycook
This is an important point to try to tease out. The decision the hon. Gentleman has just referred to took place in an instance where, if I have understood him correctly, local residents took issue with the application of national policy and guidance on a planning decision. I do not think it is the position of either the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats that national policy and guidance should not exist, and that it should all be completely localised. We may have disagreements on the spectrum, but we all recognise that national frameworks should be in place in some instances. The NPPF is a good example, as are other policies and guidance.
That is why I think we should have a more rational and proportionate debate—we may disagree at the end of it—about the pros and cons of a national scheme of delegation, and, if one is in favour of it, as the Government are, what it should include. There is this idea that, at present, local authorities and local elected members can do whatever they want—that they are completely free, and their mandate gives them scope—but, no, that is not true. They are constrained in several respects. In fact, we have debated that at length in this Committee. The NSIP regime was introduced in recognition of the fact that certain applications should be determined on a national basis, not by local committees.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect and expand on why in this area, local discretion should be untrammelled—if I follow his argument—whereas in other areas he would rightly support the idea that national guidance and policy should be in place. He may differ with the content of that guidance, but local planning authorities are subject to frameworks and guidance that I think we all recognise should be in place.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention, but guidance and policy are guidance and policy. We are talking about giving him and all future Ministers, of whatever party, the power to write the delegation arrangements for each local council in the country and tell them what they may or may not be allowed to decide. The difference is that national infrastructure projects are huge projects that have a national justification and are decided by an elected Secretary of State, but the Bill will forcibly delegate to an employee of a council decisions that will quite often be completely disagreed with by every single member of a council but will stand as a decision of that council. It cannot be logical.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a separate argument, but the hon. Gentleman cannot pray in aid the case that he has just cited, which was made on the basis of a national scheme of delegation not being in operation, and where his local residents just took issue with national policy and guidance, which he thinks should be in place. He has recognised, quite rightly, that elected members of the Government can take views about what national framework should be in place.
We strongly feel that there is a good case for a national scheme of delegation that does not remove, in the apocalyptic terms that the shadow Minister outlined, all decisions and all ability to input into applications from local residents, but simply sets out where appropriately elected members in committees should make decisions and where decisions should be left to expert planning officers.
Gideon Amos
I completely accept that policy and guidance exist, but there is a degree of discretion when it comes to policy and guidance. We are dealing with primary statutory legislation here, and there would be no discretion over its implementation.
I think the Minister should accept that this is not about a fluffy national scheme of delegation that we all agree with; this is about removing the right of councillors to recover decisions to democratically elected members of the council. They may not; they are not allowed to. The clause is very clear that the Local Government Act 1972 will be changed so that councillors may not recover those decisions, and they will be made by employees.
This is not about a national scheme of delegation. We could all agree on a recommended scheme and have a standard scheme of delegation. This is about the law. I am surprised that the Minister is so lightly giving all future Ministers power to deny decision making by local councils.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is making a very reasonable argument. Does he agree that we could be having a very different debate today if the Minister and the Secretary of State had not been so heavy-handed in legislating on what local councils can do? We could be having a conversation about national guidance for planning committees. This overreach and this democratically reductive approach are the reason why the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington I are so concerned about the Government’s measures.
Gideon Amos
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, the Local Government Act will be changed so that councillors may not have permission to recover such decisions, even if every single member of the council disagrees with a decision. This would be better described not as a national scheme of delegation, but as a forced removal of planning powers from councillors.
In response to a statement in December, a number of Members from across the House challenged the idea of taking these powers away from planning committees. The Minister said that the measure would be in relation to “minor reserved matters” applications—that is from Hansard on 9 December 2024—but the clause we are presented with has no limits at all. The Secretary of State may draft regulations in relation to any relevant function, so there is no such qualification and no limitation on any future Minister or Secretary of State.
Let us look at the history of planning in this country. It began as a local system and has gradually become more and more centralised and nationalised in its approach. Surely to goodness, that is exactly what will happen again with this huge power that is being given to future Secretaries of State.
Breaking the link between elected councillors and decisions made by their councils is so anti-democratic, and it will undermine trust in politics further. Councillors are coming to me and asking me, “What is the point of being a councillor any more?” Imagine their voters’ response if councillors say that they no longer have any ability to affect a whole tranche of decisions, and what decisions they are allowed to make will be determined by Ministers in Whitehall, not by their council.
By dint of this clause, the Government’s message is, “It doesn’t matter how much you engage in the planning system. It doesn’t matter which councillors stand for election, what they stand for, what their manifestos are or who gets elected. All decision making is directed by Whitehall, and local people must keep out. They have no say over what their employees will decide at the council.”
The enforced removal of decision-making powers is completely unnecessary to sustain the granting of the permissions and consents that everyone wants in order to provide the housing that the country needs. The vast majority of planning decisions—some 97%—are already made by council officers. Councillors and committees are not blockers; they approve nine out of 10 of all applications that come before them.
Nesil Caliskan
I have heard comments about the planning system during the debate, but less focus on the fact that we have a housing crisis that has manifested itself in record numbers of people living in temporary accommodation, with young people unable to buy properties and many people priced out of the communities into which they were born and in which they live. A national housing crisis requires a national solution.
I do not believe that the proposed changes in any way hinder or damage democratic oversight from a local perspective. The reality is that with the existing framework, it is not possible to deliver planning approvals at the scale that is required to meet the national housing crisis, and a national delegation will help to speed up delivery. We cannot simply depend on a handful of brave councillors who too frequently find themselves in the firing line of decision making for schemes that it is clear to everybody should already have been approved.
I hear what Members say about local authorities, and what the LGA has said. However, the LGA is also clear about the housing crisis our communities are experiencing. The national scheme of delegation gives clarity not only to local authorities and planning officers, but to the industry that we so depend on to be able to build homes up and down the country. The scheme will also speed up processes. The speed at which planning permissions could be granted means that developers are more likely to put bricks on the ground and build homes. It is about recognising the severity of the housing crisis in this country and its impact on millions of people, and choosing whether one is willing to take action to address that need.
Ellie Chowns
I absolutely recognise that we have a housing crisis in this country, but does the hon. Lady recognise, in turn, that it is not just a question of building our way out of the housing crisis? Does she recognise that we have nearly 1 million empty homes in this country, that we have an incredibly unequal housing system, and that financial mechanisms such as the introduction of buy-to-let mortgages had a huge effect in making our housing system even more unequal and unaffordable for many people? Does she recognise that a key part of resolving the housing crisis has to be for Government to take a more direct role in funding the development of more genuinely affordable social rented housing?
Nesil Caliskan
I recognise a number of those points, but supply of housing is the fundamental reason why we have a housing crisis in this country. The amendments being proposed sit alongside many of the solutions that she is seeking. Without our ability as a country, including local authorities, to see housing delivered at the necessary speed, we will never see the number of affordable homes we need or a buy-to-let market being constrained in the way that it needs to be. Supply is the No. 1 reason why we are experiencing a housing crisis. We cannot deliver the number of homes we need without fundamentally looking at the planning system.
Finally, on councillors having their say, the idea that councillors run for public office only because they want to sit on a planning committee—it sounded as if a number of Members were insinuating that—is, I am afraid, a little out of touch. There are lots of ways in which local authorities and councillors can make a difference. Planning committees are indeed one of the most attractive committees, but there are multiple layers of regulatory policy in a local authority that members not only can have a say on, but get to vote on. Earlier, I referenced a local plan that full councils are required to vote on.
An officer making a decision on an application that will not go to a planning committee does not remove a local authority’s ability to put out for consultation. Members of the public, and indeed councillors, will still have the opportunity to submit their views through what will be a statutory consultation period. Local authorities and planning officers will be obliged to take those views into consideration.
I want to underline the point that if we accept that there is a housing crisis in this country and that the planning system is broken, surely planning has to be an aspect that we look at in recognition that local authorities are sometimes being hindered by the existing framework. The speed at which we can deliver housing through a more streamlined planning system, putting faith in professionals in a local authority alongside councillors, will allow us to deliver the 1.5 million homes that we so desperately need.
David Simmonds
I will start where the hon. Member for Barking finished. We know that the planning system has delivered consents for 1.5 million new homes in England, where the development sector has failed to step up. One of the things much debated among political parties is the fact that that seems to suggest that, although there are undoubtedly issues, the planning system has been good at producing the opportunity for those new homes—the challenge has been the inability of the development sector to step up to the plate. That should be the priority to address.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley mentioned the Mayor of London’s recent decision about going into the green belt. That is in the context of a capital city that already has 300,000 unbuilt planning permissions for new homes. The Opposition’s argument is that the priority should not be increasing the stock of unbuilt planning permissions but delivering the homes that our country needs.
Gideon Amos
As an illustration of the hon. Gentleman’s point about unbuilt planning permissions, in Somerset there are permissions for 11,000 new homes that have not been built, while the new NPPF requires a 41% increase in the allocation of permissions. There is no record of these pressures having led to an increase in the number of houses actually being built.
David Simmonds
If we look at the statistics from the ONS on new household formation and the balance between that and the delivery of new homes, we see that they are reasonably in balance at the moment. We know that many people would like a bigger home or a different type of home, and that is why we have consistently argued that we need to focus on the nature of the homes we are delivering, not just on the units being delivered through the planning system.
Members have consistently made the point about centralisation. The UK is already an exceptionally centralised country: we have fewer democratically elected politicians per head of population than most other developed democracies in the world. Our concern with these measures is that they further reduce the voice of a local resident through their democratic representative about a decision that may be the most significant thing affecting their home or their neighbourhood in their entire life.
By creating a national scheme of delegations, we go beyond a point of saying that all local authorities must ensure, in the delivery of a quasi-judicial process, that they are following the law. We begin to say that this is no longer a delegation: it is compulsory. We are taking away the democratic power of the local authority, under which it delegates those decisions to planning committees and to officers, and we are deciding in Whitehall who will make those decisions.
While I absolutely respect what the Minister is saying about expert planning officers, having served in the last Parliament as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on housing and planning and worked very closely with the RTPI, I think we need to be realistic. In many cases, when the Minister says “expert planning officers”, we are talking about newly minted graduates who do not live in—and have no experience of—the local area. They arrive and undertake a desk-based exercise to make these decisions. They are not highly experienced people with a level of local insight who understand why particular aspects of design, materials, or the nature of a development will have a real impact on a neighbourhood.
There are specific examples; one is applications by elected members themselves. I know from my time as a councillor in Hillingdon that a standard rule to ensure transparency is that any application by an elected councillor must be heard by a committee. If someone wishes to change the windows in their home, or build a loft extension, it has to go through a planning committee, even when those things are covered by permitted development rights. That was to ensure that level of transparency. It is not clear how such issues are dealt with through this proposed scheme of delegation.
Matters of detail can be critical: ensuring the acceptance of a proposed development at a neighbourhood level may often come down to issues like overlooking or how it respects the privacy of neighbours. Does it have tree planting, to screen developments that people are unhappy to see? Will there be mitigations around noise? Those are not trivial matters; they have a huge impact on people’s quality of life. The ability of elected representatives to say, “This decision made, entirely in accordance with planning law, needs to be taken transparently in public so that these representations can be heard” is critical.
Olly Glover
I am conscious that we are reaching that time in the afternoon when we may be feeling a little fatigued, so I shall attempt to keep my remarks concise. First, it is important to bear in mind in this discussion that the Minister’s and the Government’s desire to take action to increase our ability to deliver the housing the country needs is sincere. The debate, of course, is whether the measure is an effective way of doing that.
I say to the hon. Member for Barking that there are many reasons why people decide to become local councillors. However, going by those in my constituency, it is because of a deep passion and care for their community. Major developments, of course, have major impacts on communities—hopefully for good, but sometimes for ill. It is entirely understandable that councillors would wish to have the full opportunity to scrutinise such proposals.
I was encouraged to hear the Minister say that national guidance and context are important for planning officers; I therefore hope that he will be receptive to some of our amendments and proposals in subsequent clauses. We must be clear that we are not attacking planning officers in this debate; they have a difficult role in balancing the national guidance and statutory requirements with strong local sentiments from councillors and residents. But that is why it is so important that councillors do continue to be involved.
One of the challenges is that we make the assumption that more house building automatically leads to more affordability, which sadly is not necessarily the case at all. The issue is all about the type of housing being delivered, and perhaps the current market-dominated approach is not always so effective. For example, in my constituency of Didcot and Wantage, in Oxfordshire, we have seen 35% population growth in 20 years. I have never opposed a housing development—neither in my current role as a Member of Parliament, nor before election. I do not intend to change that, because, yes, we do need more housing.
However, the housing growth has led to the fact that, in the town of Didcot, where I live, the average house price is now 15 times the average annual salary. South Oxfordshire Housing Association highlights a serious shortage of social and affordable housing, particularly for one or two-person households. A fairly small two-bedroom terraced house from the mid-’90s costs nearly £300,000, despite some of the fastest house-building growth rates in the country. So the issue is not just about the volume; it is also about the type.
I will give another example, then conclude my remarks. In Valley Park, to the west of Didcot, an outline permission request for a 4,000-plus home development came before the planning committee in 2021. The planning application was recommended for approval by officers, but the councillors on the committee felt that it did not include any provision for healthcare—something already under pressure in the town—and that cycle and walking provision was also poor. Because elected representatives made speeches during the meeting, outlining the issues, the planning decision was deferred for a couple of months and those things were able to be added in. That is an example of the real value that councillors can add.
Another example is that an application for a Lidl in the town of Wantage was recommended for refusal, but the planning committee and the councillors, having heard from local people, realised that it would be a well-used amenity and granted approval. Those are just two examples of where councillors in my constituency have added huge value.
In this time, when we are seeing a perhaps unprecedented loss of faith in politics—I am certainly thinking of the recent elections and, shall we say, some interesting voting patterns—keeping the local link and making sure that local people are brought into the planning process, and that planning is done with them rather than to them, continues to be very important. Councillors play a key role in that, and that is why they should retain their current positions and influence on planning committees.
Lewis Cocking
I am beginning to get fond of the Minister, but we do disagree about clause 46 specifically. It is an attack on democracy. I have already made the point that, within my local authority of Broxbourne, we have a scheme of delegation that delegates some decisions to officers, but there is an ability to change that: if lots of residents are particularly concerned about a development, or even about a dropped kerb, that can go to committee.
I have served on a planning committee and overturned officers’ recommendations, both for approval and for refusal. On one planning committee, after we overturned an officer’s recommendation for approval, the issue went to the planning inspector, who wrote back, saying, “I uphold every reason that the planning committee has given for refusal. I fully support the decision it has made.”
I am really concerned about the lack of accountability because, at the end of the day, whether council tax goes up because of planning decisions made by the council that it then needs to defend at appeal, or bad planning decisions are made, the electorate can have their say at the May local elections. They can say, “Do you know what? We don’t agree with any of the decisions that this council is making, and we can vote for someone else at the ballot box.”
A national scheme of delegation removes councils’ ability to be flexible. This should not be one size fits all. There is also no accountability. We work with some brilliant planning officers, but we also work with some who are not as good in their opinions on planning applications. I have many examples within my own local authority. Speak to one planning officer, and they will say that something is a brilliant idea that fits the national planning policy framework; speak to another, and they will take a completely different view. There is a lack of accountability in what the Government are doing. Let me make a broader point: I do not know what councils have done to offend the Government. They want to abolish lots of them, create super-councils and take away their planning powers.
When we adopted our local plan in Broxbourne, I think it was the second local plan in history to be adopted virtually; because of the covid regulations, we had to meet online. I gently push back on the arguments that councillors at full council—I know that they have to vote on a local plan at full council—have had their say on a development. A local plan is not that specific. It will set out areas for development. It may set out some principles, such as wanting a school or a community centre on a site, but it will not go into detail on design, or the look and feel of the community.
The idea that councillors have had their say on the local plan and now everything will be approved and can go through is nonsense. I have made the point in the House that we really need to think about the communities we want to make. We can approve as many house building targets or applications as we want, but we have to give some thought to the communities.
Amanda Martin
Does the hon. Member accept that two thirds of local planning authorities in England—around 206 councils—do not have an up-to-date local plan?
Lewis Cocking
Both of mine have a local plan. A number of authorities do not have one; it is a long and arduous process, and I welcome discussions about how we can streamline it. As I said, if a local plan has been approved, a site may have been allocated for development, but the minutiae or detail regarding the design of that development will not have been gone into. I have always maintained that the reason developers struggle to get through the planning system is because they try to build absolute rubbish. If they came forward with lots of really good schemes, councillors would not give them as hard a time as they do.
Lewis Cocking
The hon. Lady shakes her head, but I have sat on a planning committee and seen developers come forward and make planning applications in line with local plan allocation on outline, which means that we are just discussing the principle of development, or potentially the numbers or the access, with all the detailed designs left to the full planning application. It is set out in gold. We get everything we want. We get a good 106 negotiation. There will be a new doctors surgery and a new school. Lo and behold, when that same developer comes back with a full planning application, it is completely different, but because the principle of development has been established it is very difficult to then turn down. Developers are taking some councils for a ride, and we need to be careful of that.
Nesil Caliskan
The hon. Gentleman will recall that he and I worked very closely: we are part of a small percentage of ex-council leaders who actually saw through a local plan.
Nesil Caliskan
We had to work together on a statutory basis to consult each other’s local authority, so I recognise the points that the hon. Gentleman makes around the pressures of the planning system, particularly as we both have scars on our back, having seen local plans through. However, I ask him to reflect on the fact that a number of the issues that he raises can be effectively dealt with through local guidance and design principles—an authority within the administration that has set out clear guidance, not just for the public in their place but for applicants.
Those are very separate issues from what the Government propose around a national delegation scheme, which is about speeding up the process for what will be a national framework to agree to a number of houses to meet a target. His points are really important, but they would not be lost through what is proposed in the amendments.
Lewis Cocking
I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady; we worked closely together as leaders of neighbouring authorities. I would push back slightly. The point has been made before. I do not necessarily think that the hold-up is the planning system. There are lots of unbuilt planning applications out there—I can reference loads of applications in my constituency from when I sat on the planning committee nearly two years ago where a single house is yet to be built. The Government have an ambition to build 1.5 million homes. If they want to achieve that ambition, they should be going after all the planning applications that are yet to be built out.
The hon. Lady makes some valid points on design codes. I would welcome more guidance so that local authorities can use them more effectively—I think lots of local authorities would agree with that—but design is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. Lots of planning officers do not live within the local planning authority in which they work. Local councillors who stand in a local authority area have to, by law, either live or work there. They are part of the community. I am really concerned about removing the power of planning committees and local councillors to determine planning applications in their area.
This works both ways. As I have said, I have voted to overturn where officers have recommended a refusal. Councillors have to be brave sometimes on planning decisions, as the hon. Lady well knows, and as I well know from being on a planning committee. I am really concerned about the attack on democracy and the lack of accountability.
When the Minister sums up, can he comment on how we will hold planning officers to account if they make the wrong or bad decisions? This is not just a policy where someone has stood for election because they want their bins collected on a Monday and not a Tuesday. Once planning permission has been granted and the application has been built out, the result is there for decades. It is very difficult to retrospectively change that if mistakes are made. Ultimately, the public have their say at the ballot box, but with unaccountable officers, they do not. How will the Government hold planning officers to account under this national scheme of delegation?
Matthew Pennycook
Let me first say that, for entirely understandable reasons, this has been a passionate debate. People feel very strongly about the local planning system, the role of elected members in it, and the role of residents in inputting to those decisions. That is because local planning is principally a local activity. It is for that reason that we as a Government are putting so much emphasis on ensuring that up-to-date local plans are in place in every part of the country, because we think that they are the best way to shape development in a particular area, but we want to ensure that planning committees function effectively.
I will make a couple of points in response to the issues raised. The first is on outcomes. I slightly chide the shadow Minister, because it cannot be true on the one hand that this is a measure, as he alleges, that we are introducing to build our 1.5 million homes and then, on the other hand, to say that it will essentially make no difference to the current arrangements.
Outcomes-wise, we think this is an important part of the reforms that we are bringing forward, because it will ensure that decisions are made in a more consistent and more timely manner. That is why I gave the example on Second Reading of reserved matters applications. I do not know what the views of Members are, but I certainly do not think that every reserved matters application should come back to committees. I think that often delays the process.
We can discuss many of the other challenges that we face in the planning system. It is absolutely true that there is more that we can do on empty homes; we are giving that consideration. There is more that we can do on build-out—watch this space. There is more that we can do on all these things, but it is still the case that the planning system is too inconsistent and slow, and that there are things we can do about that.
To come back to the point on build-out, and we do need to take action on build-out, it is this Government’s view that we need to oversupply consents into the planning system to ensure that we are building out at the rate that meets the housing crisis, because whatever anyone thinks about the rights or wrongs of this reform, we are not building homes at the scale that we need in order to meet housing need and housing demand. We have to do things differently. In terms of outcomes, we think this measure is impactful.
Gideon Amos
Another time, I would be interested to discuss what level of oversupply will actually work, because we have huge oversupply permissions already. My point is in relation to reserved matters. The last reserved matters application I dealt with was for a waste site that had 770 objections. I think local residents would have been incredulous to be told that their local planning committee was not allowed to decide that application. There were more objections to that than to any other application in the council area for years. The Bill does not say that this relates to just reserved matters, but even if the Government did bring forward a proposal to say that, does the Minister not see how controversial and significant even reserved matters applications can be?
Matthew Pennycook
I take the point, but let me be clear about what I said: every reserved matters application should come back before a committee. I will come back to the point that the hon. Gentleman rightly raises, but in terms of outcomes we think this measure will be impactful.
My second point is about straw men. Parts of this debate have generated more heat than light, if I am honest, and many allegations have been thrown around. Some said that this measure rides roughshod over local democracy, and the hon. Member for Broxbourne alleged that the Government are saying that once a local plan is in place, every decision will just be shoved through. That is obviously not the case, so let me be very clear about what we are talking about.
Local schemes of delegation are in place across the country. In lots of those, lots of decisions are delegated to planning officers. In principle, we all agree that expert planning officers should be allowed to make decisions on certain applications—I do not think that is contested—so let us put what we are discussing in proportion. We are not changing the consultation rules on planning applications. Representations are and will continue to be considered by the decision maker, whether that is the planning committee or the planning officer. In that sense, I will continue to argue that the proposed change does not remove democratic oversight.
My third point is about what is decided. There are understandably a lot of assumptions about what the national scheme of delegation will suggest. I would wager that in a couple of years’ time, when we look back at this, a lot of the concerns raised will seem to have been unfounded. I hope the Government allay those concerns when we bring forward the precise proposals about what we want the national scheme of delegation to entail. It is not the case that the controversial and significant applications that several hon. Members have raised, which we agree should absolutely come before committees, will be ruled out in the national scheme of delegation. The assumption about the amount that we are removing from the system will prove to be unfounded.
Paul Holmes
I would say to the Minister that significance is in the eye of the beholder, but may I bring him back to something that he said? I do not want to do him a disservice, but I believe he said that planning officers’ decisions, rather than local committee decisions, would not change under a national scheme of delegation; they will still be there. Can he assure us that any ability that currently exists within local schemes to call in a decision made by a planning officer will not be affected by the national scheme of delegation that he proposes?
Matthew Pennycook
I understand why the hon. Gentleman is doing so, but he tempts me to announce the proposals that we will bring forward. I would like to do that as a package so the House can see what the Government are proposing. As I said, at that point I think some of the concerns will have been assuaged.
My fourth and final point, which is the crux of this debate, is that we can have a very sensible discussion about the type of things that should or should not be in a national scheme of delegation. The shadow Minister just inadvertently went down that route, and I am happy to have that conversation. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington gave the game away, in a sense, when he argued that if we were just talking about a scheme of standardisation across the country, that would be fine, but a national scheme of delegation is not. We are, in a sense, talking about a standardised scheme that will ensure consistency in the system about what comes forward.
Matthew Pennycook
I will just make this point, then I will give way for a final time. This debate has revealed a very principled difference of opinion, sincerely held, about whether it is appropriate at all to have a national scheme of delegation. I feel very strongly that, just as the Government set frameworks in other areas, it is right that we have a say on schemes of delegation that apply in local areas. I think that is right, both in terms of the outcomes that will be secured and to reduce uncertainty and risk in the system. I understand that Opposition Members feel differently and think that a national framework should not be applied. That is a perfectly reasonable view, but we disagree.
Matthew Pennycook
But the conversation that we will have to have, because we have the numbers, is what the national scheme of delegation should incorporate, not whether we bring one forward. Three Members want to intervene. We have a few minutes left.
Gideon Amos
My point was about the distinction between a voluntary guideline and putting in statute the removal of powers from councillors. I repeat: does the Minister not have any qualms about giving all future Ministers and Secretaries of State in future Governments the power to make any regulations they want to take these powers away from councillors?
Matthew Pennycook
I think it is perfectly appropriate that we introduce a national scheme of delegation, and that we bring forward, through a regulation-making power, those details in due course. Any future Government would have to consult on changes and take them through via secondary legislation, and it would be up for scrutiny.
I am tempted to comment more widely on regulation-making powers, but I gently say to Opposition Members that some of the placeholder clauses that I saw in legislation in the previous Parliament make this one seem very minor, in relative terms. We can debate that more widely, but I think our approach, both in outcomes and in a reasonable balance between democratic oversight and trusting expert local planning officers, which we all do in certain circumstances, is the right one.
Lewis Cocking
The Minister has been generous with his time. Could he comment on how we will hold planning officers to account? At the moment, we can call in planning applications democratically. How are we going to hold planning officers to account under a national scheme of delegation?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that point. It is a point well made, and it was also made by the shadow Minister on another clause. I will go away and reflect on what more, if anything, needs to be done in that regard. It is rightly put that, just as we want to ensure consistency in decisions by elected Members, we want consistency in the decisions and recommendations made by expert planning officers at a local authority level. I will happily come back to the Committee on that.
David Simmonds
I gently say to the Minister, who I look up to in many ways, that it is a challenge for the Committee to rely upon, on the one hand, an argument that this is not a big deal because it would affect hardly any planning applications, and on the other hand, an argument that it is so important we have to push it through via a national scheme of delegation. The concern that Members have is considering the 4% of applications that go to committee as a major problem, when in fact, by general acceptance in today’s debate, they are not really much of an issue. We lose the important element of local democratic accountability without any corresponding benefit in planning delivery.
Matthew Pennycook
I would say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, we do think there is a corresponding benefit, because we think the change will remove a large element of risk and uncertainty in the system and ensure some very important applications are made in a more timely way. I end by inviting the shadow Minister, at the point we publish our proposals, to come back on whether we have got the balance right. I am more than happy to continue the conversation about what we take forward on the regulations. On the principle of introducing a national scheme of delegation, the Government feel very strongly that it is the right thing to do.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 13th May 2025
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 May 2025 - (13 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk and to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. It will probably get very hot, so if you would like to take off some of your layers, that is absolutely fine.
Clause 21
Long duration electricity storage
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse. On that cheery note, it is great to be back in Committee this morning.
The clause is about long-duration electricity storage, or LDES, which is an incredibly important part of an electricity system, allowing us to store cheap renewable energy when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, and to generate electricity when people need it most. It is a crucial part of our clean power mission.
Across Great Britain, we already have 2.8 GW of LDES on the grid. I have had the pleasure of visiting some pumped hydropower stations that have been part of our system for decades. They allow excess electricity to pump water high up to a mountain reservoir, where it can be released when we need it to drive turbines and generate electricity. The most recent of those sites, however, was completed more than 40 years ago. The clean power 2030 action plan suggests that we need another 1.2 GW of LDES in the next five years. The National Energy System Operator suggests that we could need up to 15 GW by 2050, so a significant increase on where we are today.
Despite low operating costs and high system-wide benefits, which in 2024 were estimated at £24 billion, the large up-front capital costs to build such stations in the first place, and the revenue uncertainty over such a long lifespan of an asset, have deterred private investment in LDES over the decades. The clause therefore introduces a cap and floor scheme to develop new long-duration energy storage in Great Britain.
Those wishing to develop an LDES asset will be able to apply to Ofgem for protected revenues, conditional on satisfactory delivery and operation and on sharing excess profits with consumers. That provides the revenue certainty needed for investors, giving the green light for the next generation of those important assets. We expect—we have set out deliberately—that this will be technology-agnostic. We therefore expect that we will have more pumped hydro, as well as more novel technologies such as liquid air energy storage.
The clause imposes a duty on Ofgem to establish and operate a cap and floor scheme to encourage the development of LDES assets across Great Britain. The clause also defines the minimum eligibility requirements for the scheme: assets will need a minimum power output of 50 MW, and to be able to discharge at full power for eight hours without recharge. Simply meeting those requirements, however, will not guarantee success, and Ofgem will only select the projects that are most useful for system-wide benefits and for consumers. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to update that definition by regulation. It also defines in broad terms how Ofgem will set the cap and floor, and how it will fund floor payments.
This is a really important step. As I say, after 40 years of not building long-duration energy storage in this country, we are incredibly excited to be building it once again. It is also crucial to how we deliver the clean power system in the future. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Good morning, Mrs Hobhouse. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to see you again. I welcome both Ministers to their places. As soon as you said that we can start removing layers, Mrs Hobhouse, my button suddenly popped off. I apologise, and I guarantee that I will not remove any more layers, for fear of disrupting the Committee.
The clause amends the Electricity Act 1989, requiring the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to implement a cap and floor scheme for long-duration energy electricity storage or LDES. We are concerned that the clause introduces unnecessary bureaucracy and will distort the market with the introduction of the scheme. I have several questions on this. Can the Minister explain what criteria will determine the initial cap and floor levels? More importantly, how frequently will they be reviewed to stay responsive to market changes?
We know that the scheme aims to provide financial stability to LDES for operators by setting revenue caps and income floors, and to encourage investment in this technology. However, will LDES operators and investors have a role in reviewing or adjusting the scheme to ensure that it reflects real-world conditions? Will there be eligibility criteria for a formal application process for operators to access the scheme, ensuring fair access for all players? Those concerns, we would argue, highlight the need for clarity and effective integration with broader energy policies and to ensure the scheme’s success. I look to the Minister for clarification on those elements of the clause. We do not intend to divide at this stage, but we will provide further scrutiny at further stages of the process.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Good morning, Mrs Hobhouse, it is especially a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. Liberal Democrats are supportive of a scheme to encourage long-duration energy storage and, for that reason, are generally supportive of the clause. Long-duration energy storage is crucially needed, including, of course, battery storage.
There are instances of fires in battery storage facilities, but there is no reason why they should not be built safely—they can and are built safely. We ask the Ministers to consider whether fire brigades should be statutory consultees in applications for battery storage proposals. That is not the case at the moment, which seems perverse, given that there is an acknowledged fire risk that needs to, and can, be dealt with. We should have fire services as statutory consultees to ensure that happens.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I rise simply to support the provision. The first point to note is that this sort of technology has always been critical for the electricity system, which is why we have plants such as Cruachan in Scotland—which I commend to everyone as a great place to visit on their summer holidays—and Dinorwig in Wales. We need more investment in this.
As someone who has been involved in the energy sector for almost 30 years, the simple fact of the matter is that this technology will not be invested in without additional support. The plan for a cap and floor mechanism is well worked through, and has a reasonable pedigree in the electricity industry for supporting investment. Clause 21 seeks to introduce that. Quite properly, it is technology-agnostic, because there is a great deal of innovation in this sector. The provision is important for decarbonisation, energy security and jobs across the British Isles; I therefore support it.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I remind Members to please indicate a little bit more clearly to me—preferably at the beginning of a debate—whether you want to speak.
Michael Shanks
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and their recognition, first and foremost, of the important role that long-duration energy storage plays in our system. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East referred to Cruachan—the hollow mountain —and I think there is barely a person in Scotland who has never been on a school trip to there. I would recommend it to anyone; it is a fantastic example of not just how important this is to our energy system, but the engineering that has lasted a significant number of decades and still runs on our system. It plays an incredibly important role.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, raised a number of important questions. Ofgem has consulted on the process for the first window of the cap and floor scheme. It has published detailed, technical guidance on what we would expect those projects to be able to deliver. We, and Ofgem as the regulator, have very deliberately been technology-agnostic to allow more of these innovative projects to come forward. That first round will run its course, but we absolutely would expect that Ofgem and the Government will look at the results of that review and see if there are areas that we might improve on for a further round if that is deemed necessary. We will keep the scheme constantly under review.
The cap and floor scheme that Ofgem has run for interconnectors has been an incredibly successful way of delivering value for money for consumers and of giving that revenue certainty over the long term. It is a model that works very well. We will review the projects that move forward in the scheme. As I outlined, there are technical requirements that they must meet, but there will also be a process of ensuring that the projects deliver value for money for consumers.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly recognises the role that LDES plays in the mix. We could see some battery projects coming forward in this round. Traditionally, they have not been part of long-duration energy storage, but that technology is moving forward rapidly and some might be able to bid into this process. There are some really innovative projects in that space.
It is important to take the question of how we deal with safety risks for batteries in a balanced way. There are safety incidents for a whole range of infrastructure in our country; some get a lot more attention than others in the media, and we need to be careful not to draw more attention to one particular technology at the exclusion of others. But the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is right that safety should be paramount in everything we do with every energy system and every part of infrastructure.
We are looking at the wider question of how we might introduce additional safety measures on battery storage sites more generally, not just as part of the LDES scheme. The Health and Safety Executive has a key role in regulating battery designers, installers and operators to ensure that they take the necessary measures to ensure health and safety. It is an important step, and one that we take seriously.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I want to press the Minister on the point raised by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. On a visit to the London Fire Brigade I learnt that there is a particular set of risks associated with batteries—essentially, the difficulty of putting the fires out.
In the grand scheme of things, batteries are not more serious than, for example, oil storage, but they require different equipment and differently trained and equipped crews to respond. Will the Minister say more about how, as batteries become a more significant part of the energy mix, he will ensure that fire brigades are able to take a view at the planning stage and are made aware of the risks—just in case they have to respond?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which we will take onboard. It is already part of what the Health and Safety Executive and the Fire Service are looking at nationally in terms of guidelines, but the Government continue to take an interest. The hon. Gentleman is right that as the schemes expand across the country, more fire brigades that may have not had experience of these incidents in the past will have to gain experience. It is an important point and we take it seriously.
On a general point, I am glad that hon. Members across the Committee recognise the importance of LDES. It is genuinely an exciting moment for the country that we will build some of these important engineering projects to deliver the long-duration energy storage that the country needs.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Benefits for homes near electricity transmission projects
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 22, page 29, line 33, after “benefits” insert
“of £1,000 per year for ten years”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 102—Community benefits from major energy infrastructure projects—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a scheme under which communities with a specified connection to a major energy infrastructure project are entitled to financial benefits.
(2) In subsection (1), ‘major energy infrastructure project’ and ‘specified connection’ have such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify, provided that any such definition includes all newly consented renewable energy projects.
(3) Financial benefits provided for by a scheme under this section must—
(a) be provided by the owner of the relevant major energy infrastructure project, and
(b) amount to 5% of the annual revenue of the relevant project.
(4) Where a major energy infrastructure project is onshore, regulations made under this section must—
(a) provide for two-thirds of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid to the council of that community, and
(b) provide for one third of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid into a strategic fund operated by the council.
(5) Where a major energy infrastructure project is offshore, regulations made under this section must provide for the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid into a strategic fund operated by the relevant council.
(6) Regulations made under this section may, among other things—
(a) specify the powers, purposes, responsibilities and constitution of a council strategic fund;
(b) make further provision determining which communities are qualifying under this section, and defining community for this purpose;
(c) confer functions in connection with the scheme;
(d) provide for delegation of functions conferred in connection with the scheme.”
This new clause sets out a scheme for providing financial benefit to communities in areas connected with major energy infrastructure schemes.
Paul Holmes
Amendment 83 was tabled by the shadow Scottish Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). We welcome clause 22, which empowers the Secretary of State to establish a financial benefit scheme for people living near new or upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure. It is vital that people living locally to such works, who will see their life disrupted, should receive fair compensation for their trouble. I said in the last Committee session, as did other Opposition Members, that we support the Government’s move to do that and to involve local communities, following on from some of the provisions that the Conservatives made in government.
Where there is a disagreement, however, is on the level of that compensation. Amendment 83 would require the Secretary of State to establish a scheme under which persons with a specified connection to qualifying premises are entitled to a financial benefit of £1,000 per year for 10 years, provided directly or indirectly by electricity providers. We believe that this would be able to be monitored under the current scope of the legislation, particularly where it says that the Secretary of State may provide funding from Parliament to those administering the scheme.
Provisions would also be made for complaints, procedures, appeals or dispute resolution related to the scheme. The regulations would be subject to an affirmative procedure—we do not see any need to change that. The clause would apply to England, Scotland and Wales and come into force on Royal Assent. We would argue that the level set out in the amendment would not need to change the Bill. The scheme would allow eligible residents, mainly through electricity suppliers, to receive benefits based on the proximity to above-ground transmission projects, including past projects, which are fair and proportionate.
Under our amendment, any scheme established under proposed new section 38A(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 would have to include provision for, for example, homeowners residing within 500 metres of qualifying premises to be entitled to financial benefits of £1,000 a year for 10 years. The Minister and I did not argue—we never argue—but debated last time, and the Opposition accept the nature of what the Minister intends to do, but we feel that there needs to be more clarity for the consumer and for local people. There were stories on Sky News that the consumer benefit for homes near electricity transmission infrastructure would be set at about £250 a year, so I would be grateful if the Minister would state what he expects the level of compensation to be and clarify that for the rest of the Committee.
Whether the Minister chooses to accept our very reasonable offer of £1,000 a year or not, will he answer how errors or instances of fraud will be handled within the administration of the benefit scheme? What rights do residents or other parties have to appeal decisions or penalties related to the benefit scheme? What role will the Secretary of State play in ongoing monitoring and enforcement of the scheme, with particular regard to regulatory powers?
As I said, I do not want to go over the arguments again, but the Opposition believe that we must take communities with us, when it comes to consumers and people affected by large-scale planning decisions through centralisation and an attempt—to be fair to the Minister—to reduce the bureaucracy and deliver the infrastructure that we need. We talked last time about community benefit under other amendments and clauses of the Bill. The Opposition believe that residents and local communities deserve to know that there will be a certain amount for a certain period, and we believe that £1,000 a year for 10 years is something that local people would welcome. I commend amendment 83 to the Committee.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be able to speak briefly on clause 22, which I welcome. This scheme is key to delivering the key Government commitment to ensuring that those who are closest to new electricity infrastructure feel the benefits soonest. Also important is the Government guidance that will be brought forward on how developers will ensure that communities hosting transmission infrastructure can benefit, including through funding for community projects, sports clubs and leisure facilities. I welcome this key commitment.
It is disappointing that the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, is not here to explain further his comments in the newspapers today. He has moved from saying that he opposes electricity pylons to the issue of scientists themselves, suggesting that climate targets are not, in fact, science-based. It is disappointing that he is not here to defend his amendment, but I very much welcome the Government’s proposal.
The Chair
I remind Members that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine cannot be here because he is not on the Committee, so he is excused.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise in support of amendment 83, in which the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland sets out a fair and reasonable system as to what benefits people living near new energy infrastructure should be able to get. It is important to note that the House of Commons Library says that the Government are minded to set aside £2,500 a year for 10 years. The Government should be able to find it within themselves to support our amendment, considering we do not even go as far as the provision that they suggested, according to the House of Commons Library. This amendment should be an easy step to get to where the Government want to go.
I do have some concerns. It has been raised in Committee before that this provision cannot be a simple solution to not doing any consultation. We still need a belt-and-braces consultation, and I want to hear some clear words from the Minister to say that this will not replace that—residents will still be able to have their say, and there will still be a full and proper consultation when new energy infrastructure comes forward.
I am disappointed to see in the legislation hardly any detail about what the community benefit scheme will be. I have said before that if we leave too much ambiguity, electricity providers and developers will want to get away with paying nothing at all or as little as possible. We should not allow that to happen. We should allow people—our constituents—who live near energy infra-structure projects to get the best deal possible, considering that they will have to put up with a lot of disruption. I have some constituents who live near large housing developments. There is a lot of disruption during the construction phase, so I want more detail about what the Government intend to set out.
As I have said, a House of Commons Library paper said that the Government were minded to go to £2,500 a year. The Government should therefore have no issue supporting the amendment because it does not go as far as that. It sets out reasonable benefits that everyone should expect across the country, leaving less to ambiguity and putting power into the hands of this Parliament scrutinising this legislation rather than developers and electricity providers because, as I said, they will want to get away with paying as little as possible.
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak to new clause 102, which stands in the name of the Liberal Democrats. This would ensure that all communities hosting major energy infrastructure—solar farms, wind farms, major battery storage, gas, nuclear or other power stations, as well as transmission infrastructure, which is already covered by the Bill—would receive a benefit of 5% of the annual revenue of that project.
Safeguarding the future by tackling climate change is vital, but we are only going to achieve that if we bring communities with us and make it affordable for households. We recognise, and of course welcome, the provision in the Bill for community benefits for those near transmission lines, but those living beside nuclear, gas, coal-fired or other power stations are not eligible for any community support. For example, I supported the development of Ham Farm solar park in Taunton, but none the less the community gets no benefit for the significant impact it is having on that community.
It is time that we had a system that gave community benefit for all energy infrastructure if we are to persuade communities and work with communities to host that infrastructure. If we are going to move Britain to a low pollution energy future with more home-grown energy—something the Liberal Democrats strongly support—we must be willing to compensate those expected to live with and host these enormous developments. It is time, in short, that local people benefited from national energy projects.
Liberal Democrats have consistently led the way on community benefit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) brought in the first community benefit system of this kind. In 2013, when he was Secretary of State and making the UK the biggest offshore energy generator in the world, he said:
“Communities hosting renewable energy installations play a key role in meeting the national need for secure, clean energy. It is only right that local people should be recognised and rewarded for that contribution”.
He continued:
“developers already offer community benefit packages on a voluntary basis, we challenged them to do more”. —[Official Report, 6 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 116WS.]
He then announced an increase in the recommended community benefit package in England from £1,000 per megawatt of installed capacity per year to £5,000, which remains the basis of the system today. Now it is time to extend that benefit to all energy, and to make it proportional to the revenue raised by energy projects. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), who is a real champion for his constituency, proposed a scheme such as is set out in new clause 102 to Highland council back in 2021. It is important to recognise that the industry has contributed in this area, and in renewables especially.
In February 2024 the Government, in their document, “Developing Local Partnerships for Onshore Wind in England: Government response”, endorsed the 2013 system of £5,000 per megawatt installed capacity. Our new clause would mean that 5% of revenue from all energy projects goes to local communities. To put some figures on that, Grubb and Garjardo at UCL Bartlett estimate that, in a good year for energy generators such as 2022, UK revenue from renewables was £15.5 billion. Put that across 53,000 megawatts of installed capacity, meaning that £288,00 revenue per megawatt of installed capacity was raised, and 5% of that would be around £14,000 in community benefit per megawatt of installed capacity. In less good years, such as 2021, it might be around £7,000 per megawatt of installed capacity.
With average electricity bills in households being £730 in the UK, it is also important to secure reductions in bills by adopting the Liberal Democrat policy in our manifesto of finally decoupling electricity prices from the wholesale gas price. Based on Energy UK’s figures, that would mean a reduction in electricity costs per household of around £200 per year. The sums yielded to communities through the new clause—around £7,000 in 2021—would be comparable with the volunteered figure of £5,000 from the industry, but with the added benefit that when revenues increase, the community benefit would also increase.
So far the Government have taken only limited steps, which are welcome; but as part of the proposals that we put forward for a similar system in a debate in Westminster Hall in October, we were encouraged by the Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen, who said:
“On community benefits in particular, we are continuing—at pace”—
that key word—
“the work started by the previous Government to review how we can effectively deliver benefits for communities living near this infrastructure.”
He said that they were,
“developing clear guidance on community benefits for both the infrastructure and the transmission networks.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 276WH.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire provides an example from the highlands. It is in the periphery of the UK—the highlands and elsewhere—that many of the biggest energy projects are located. Typically, they are areas where there are high levels of fuel poverty, limited access to affordable housing, lower wages, and high costs for electricity connection and heating. Rural areas, where many major projects are built across the UK, share the characteristics of departing young people, sparse and remote public services, especially after the ending of the rural service delivery grant, and poor infrastructure.
Other countries provide compelling examples of what can be done. Denmark, for example, requires new renewable projects to offer at least 20% ownership to local residents. In Germany, local authorities, or Länder, such as Munich, develop their own offshore wind farms, and community benefit comes from the tax revenue that they provide.
Our new clause would see two thirds of the benefit funds designated for the community, by which we mean to be spent in the council ward affected, where community groups themselves could and should be delegated with the power to manage and distribute those funds, with one third used for community benefit at a more strategic level for the council area decided by elected councillors. Fuel vouchers, affordable housing and investment into health and social care could be among the priority candidates for the spending of these benefits. It is unacceptable that these communities, which provide the backbone of our energy revolution, often see little financial benefit from hosting such infrastructure.
Michael Shanks
I thank all Members for an interesting debate. Amendment 83 was tabled by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. He is ever present in these discussions, but never present—
Luke Murphy
Can I withdraw my criticism about the absence of the shadow Minister for Energy?
Michael Shanks
The Minister for Energy made it on to this Committee; the shadow Minister for Energy could have made it on to this Committee as well, so my hon. Friend should not withdraw his criticism so hastily. Anyway, he is ever present in these discussions and we enjoy his contributions from beyond the Committee room.
Paul Holmes
I will try not to take that personally. The Minister should be grateful for what he has got. If he wanted a shadow Energy Minister on the Committee, he could have made that known through the usual channels.
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. I will turn to the substance of the amendment before I get into trouble, Mrs Hobhouse.
The amendment seeks to set the level of benefit at £1,000 per year over 10 years. First, I should say I welcome the fact that across the Committee today there is support for that principle. That is really important, because the principle that we want to recognise—to be fair, the previous Government did when they launched the consultation—is that if we host nationally important energy infrastructure, particularly transmission infra-structure, which so often has less of a community benefit in the communities that it passes through, there should be some benefit from it. That is a really important point.
The balance that we sought to strike was to find a way to give a benefit to those households affected by the transmission infrastructure, but also make sure that the wider bill payers across the country that will pay for those community benefits are not saddled with a significant bill as a result. So the balance that we struck was £250 per year over 10 years. I would never seek to question the House of Commons Library, but I think perhaps the hon. Member for Broxbourne might not be correct in his interpretation of its figures. It would be £2,500 over the course of the 10 years that the scheme would be in place. I think that is what he was referring to.
In our view, the point here is that this still provides a significant benefit regarding bills for those households for a substantial amount of time—10 years—but at the same time does not result in significant amounts being added to the bills of other people right across the country who will pay for this. We think £1,000—which we looked at carefully as part of this process—is too much.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I thank the Minister, and I absolutely recognise the importance of the principle of community benefit. However, would he not agree with me that it becomes problematic if we put in specific numbers, such as £250 or £1,000 a year? Inflation will change what that means, so is it not more relevant and logical to place a requirement more like the amendment advocated by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, which talks about a community dividend that is in proportion to the revenues generated by the project rather than an absolute number?
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Lady for that point; I will come to the new clause shortly. The difficulty with that approach for transmission infrastructure is that by definition it goes through so many different communities in a linear way that it would be really difficult to divide up that funding among communities. How you define each community is quite challenging, whereas defining households that are within a certain distance of pylons, for example, is very easy, and we want to give a direct benefit to those households.
Ellie Chowns
Logically, we could divide by the number of miles of transmission infrastructure in each community.
Michael Shanks
I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making, but a transmission line goes through a significant number of communities in a linear way. For a wind farm, you could draw a line around it and benefit all those communities; a transmission line does not work that way, so we would be giving to a significant number of communities who have maybe one or two pylons near them. That is why we think what is most important is that the households closest to the infrastructure get the direct community benefit.
To the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, this is not the only part of the Bill—we will also have a community benefits fund for infrastructure like substations, where if there is one particular piece of infrastructure built in a community, with all the disruption that goes with building that, wider community benefits come from that as well. It is not one or the other; we are doing both, but in a legislative sense, we only have to legislate on the Bill discount scheme, which is what we are talking about in this amendment.
The shadow Minister asked for detail on some important points—including that we should set out in secondary legislation the specific level of benefit and the duration over which it will be paid. Of course, the £250 a year is a “minded to” position that we have come to as a result of the consultation that the previous Government did and the evidence that we have seen, but that will be set out in secondary legislation, which—to the hon. Lady’s point—allows us to alter that over time if the scheme is successful. This is, in some ways, a trial to find out whether the intended policy outcomes result. I hope that for those reasons—I will come to some others—the hon. Member for Hamble Valley might withdraw his amendment.
Clause 22 is about creating a financial benefit scheme for eligible households living near certain new or significant increases in network transmission infrastructure, and inserts new sections into the Electricity Act 1989. It empowers the Secretary of State to establish and determine the overall design of the scheme, including qualification criteria, scheme administration, enforcement, and provisions requiring the benefit to be passed on.
The “pass-through provision” is outlined in new section 38B(2), and is essential to ensure that the right consumers benefit and to ensure that when an intermediary sits between the electricity supplier and the end user—as happens in some cases—the intermediary will be required to obtain the full benefit and then pass it on to the end user. If this is not complied with, new section 38B(3) allows regulations to provide for the withdrawal or recovery of benefits made to intermediaries.
To enforce compliance with the scheme, new section 38C details the enforcement provisions that may be made in regulations, and I hope this answers the shadow Minister’s point around potential fraud in the system and the imposition of penalties that we will make through secondary legislation for instances of regulations not being complied with. Finally, new section 38D deals with provisions around data collection for the purposes of administering the scheme. Overall, it is worth remembering the purpose of this clause: it is to improve the public acceptability of network transmission infrastructure.
Lewis Cocking
I appreciate the Minister’s correction of what I said—the Government are less generous than I interpreted, in terms of the £2,500 over 10 years. But can he give us some warm words about this not replacing any consultation and say that it is on top of all of the consultation and residents being allowed to have their say, and that we will not allow electricity companies just to pay some money and then get away without doing any consultation at all? Can he give us some reassurances on that?
Michael Shanks
It is a very important point, and this will come through in the discussions that we will have more generally in this Committee around community consultation, but it will continue to play an important part. I think it is important to separate out any question of compensation from community benefit.
This is not a compensation scheme, and landowners that currently are compensated for infrastructure being built will continue to be compensated through whatever channels that is decided in. This is a community benefit, so it is additional. It is about recognising that it is critical for the future of the country that we build new grid infrastructure, and that if someone hosts that infrastructure they should gain some benefit from doing so. This is our proposal for doing that, alongside the community benefit funds that we have announced.
The Government believe that it is appropriate to set out the full detail on this in regulations, as is the case in many such schemes that have been set up over the years, due to the technical level of detail that will be required, and have drafted this clause to make sure that it applies only to transmission infrastructure, as it is not the intention that it should apply to other technologies. I commend clause 22 to the Committee.
That brings me to new clause 102, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, which seeks to introduce a scheme that would ensure communities are provided with financial benefits from hosting major energy infrastructure projects from a range of technologies. I welcome the intent of this measure. Indeed, I have had a number of conversations with the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues on this very topic over the past nine months in which I have had the privilege of having this job, and spoken fairly recently to his colleague, the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr Angus MacDonald)—I was in his constituency yesterday, seeing the investment that this Government have made in port infrastructure in his constituency.
We therefore agree broadly with the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington’s point about how communities should benefit from all this energy infrastructure, but the new clause is not the right way to do it. We are already considering—he quoted myself to me, and I was delighted to hear I was fairly coherent in that debate—the question of wider community benefits. Clearly, at the moment most such community benefit schemes are voluntary schemes run by developers. It is important to say that some of those are actually hugely successful, and communities welcome the collaborative approach in drawing them up, but others are very unsuccessful, and leave communities without the genuine benefits that they should get. We are therefore looking at this really closely at the moment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke noted, we published guidance in May 2025 on community benefit funds for those who live near electricity transmission infrastructure, and shortly we will publish updated guidance for onshore wind in England, which, of course, follows the 10 years of the previous Government’s ban in England. We are also exploring options for our overall approach to community benefits, to provide consistency across different technologies and to maximise the ambition from that. We have left on the table the option of that being mandatory in every case, but we want to look closely at how that would work, and how the design would work to ensure that we are not setting a scheme that does not suit the flexibilities that individual communities might want to take advantage of.
I reiterate that communities are providing a service to this country when they host clean energy infrastructure and there should be a benefit from it. Towards the end of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, he rather veered off community benefits and into an equally important space on community ownership, which is something that I have also had a number of important conversations about. We see ownership of energy by communities as a really important step as well, and that is a step up from community benefits.
Gideon Amos
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for addressing the serious points in the new clause, and particularly for saying that mandatory schemes will not be taken off the table. He was coherent back in October, except—if I might suggest—for the phrase “at pace”. Could he explain what “at pace” means in this context, in terms of what the timescale might be?
Michael Shanks
That is a question that I have asked myself many times over the past nine months. The problem is that we inherited a number of these things from the previous Government and we are working through them.
I have regular meetings on the subject. It is really important that we get this right, because we need to strike the balance: ultimately, the community benefit funds will, one way or another, be paid for by bill payers, but we want communities to have a real benefit. The balance has to be right because we are trying to bring down bills for everyone across the country. The Conservative amendment would increase people’s bills, but we are determined to try to bring them down. There is a balance to be struck.
We feel that this is an exciting moment to drive community ownership forward. A key aim of Great British Energy will be to drive forward the local power plan, so that communities do not just have benefits from infrastructure, but own some of those benefits. A number of hon. Members across the House have mentioned the real benefits of communities having a stake in projects—they can spend the money on whatever they want to spend it on, rather than on what a scheme might define. The two go hand in hand.
The bill discount scheme is an important step to drive forward community acceptance of new network infrastructure. We will develop proposals at pace for the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and for communities right across the country on the wider aspects of energy infrastructure. I hope that he will not move his new clause 102.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful to the Minister for some of the answers he has given—
Paul Holmes
Well, I am grateful to him for trying to give all the answers, but I only agree with some of them, as he would expect. I wish that he would accept the amendment, but he has stated clearly that he will not. The amendment is ambitious and would give clarity to the consumer and local people about what they should expect.
I understand what the Minister said about the amount of money given to local people being legislated for in secondary legislation, but there is a question about why he will not put that into primary legislation. He could be clear—the £250 a year was clearly leaked to the press a few months ago—but the Government have still not produced any legislation to give certainty to the consumer. That is symptomatic of the Government: in lots of areas of the legislation, they simply have not provided any detail to the people it affects. We will get to those other examples later, when we come to the specific issue of planning reform.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke seems to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of Opposition politicians’ quotes; I suggest that the Whips Office makes more use of him, given his ability to get an Opposition quote quickly, just like that. He might want to get a hobby, I don’t know, but he is good on quotes.
Luke Murphy
I do not need to have encyclopaedic knowledge to read the newspapers this morning, which is where the shadow Secretary of State made those comments.
Paul Holmes
I do not know which newspaper the hon. Gentleman reads, but it is obviously not a very good one, because it takes the comments of my hon. Friend the shadow Scottish Secretary and acting shadow Energy Secretary out of context.
My hon. Friend did say that the target date was not based on evidence, but he was talking about the arbitrary nature of the 2050 target for net zero; he clearly did not say that there was no science behind the concept of climate change. The hon. Member for Basingstoke is a doughty champion and fiery Back Bencher, destined for high ministerial office. He would be a good Minister, but he needs to read out the whole of a quote and give the genuine context of any comments by Opposition politicians.
To come back to the amendment, Mrs Hobhouse—I feel your beady eye upon me—the shadow Scottish Secretary has a clear record. In his earlier comments, he talked about bills going down, but bills are up by £300 a year. There was a manifesto commitment to reduce energy bills for people by £300 a year, and that is simply not happening because of the record of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. At the moment, it is closing down oilfields and relying far too much on renewable energy, without getting to the sustainable level at which energy bills could come down. The Minister keeps saying that he wants to bring them down, but when will they come down?
We understand and support the aims and ambitions of new clause 102, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. However, we think there is some question about its practical implementation, specifically taking into account
“5% of the annual revenue of the relevant project”
and the provision
“for two-thirds of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid to the council of that community”.
We do not necessarily think that that is how the money should be distributed. As we discussed in the last sitting, and I agree with the Minister entirely, if a local authority gets money dedicated for a community, that does not necessarily mean that the money will get to the community. That is part of the flaw of the section 106 system and the community infrastructure levy. We all know examples of when money has been given, with the good intentions shown in this honourable new clause, but the community that needed to be helped simply was not. We feel that is not the best way to distribute the money; I believe the Minister feels the same, following our lengthy discussion on whether he can or cannot award money to Scottish Ministers or local authorities. I am sure he will come back to that line another time.
On new clause 102, the point is what the Minister said earlier about lines going through multiple local authorities; the well-intentioned money would not get to the right people at the right time. It would be diluted, and we do not think that that is the right way forward. However, we absolutely support the Liberal Democrats in their ambition to make sure. That is why we put a specific figure into our amendment 83: we absolutely want to make sure that the people desperately affected by some of the infrastructure investment genuinely get some of that money. We also understand and endorse the element of community improvements, which I know we will come on to in other areas of the legislation.
The Minister is a good man. We entirely endorse him and will work together on the need for benefits for the people affected. But he needs to be more ambitious—he should have come the Committee today with a specific figure; he should not have said to the Committee that he is “minded”. He could have put in primary legislation the amount the Government were willing to give. I put down in my notes too soon that the Minister was very tight, with £250 a year—I think that was unfair to him.
But the Minister needs to be more ambitious: he should match our commitment to £1,000 a year and to local people affected by such infrastructure knowing that they would be guaranteed that for 10 years. Most people are responsible when spending their own money; we believe they would put that into the community, which would benefit it and improve its infrastructure. I commend amendment 83 to the Committee, and we will press it to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
Before we move on to the next clause, I remind Members that, although I recognise the importance of the principle and the discussion of community compensation and benefits, we need to press on and get through our agenda of line-by-line scrutiny. It is important to discuss the principles, but please also remember that we have a very long agenda in front of us.
Clause 23
Electricity transmission systems: extension of commissioning period
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michael Shanks
We come to the most exciting clause in the Bill: the offshore transmission owner, or OFTO, regime. I can see everyone is on the edge of their seats.
This is an incredibly important clause. It provides a competitive market for offshore electricity transmission, which is important because it helps us to achieve cost-effectiveness in the building and operation of offshore wind farm connections on to the national grid. The clause is part of our efforts to ensure the regime supports the UK’s continuing ambition to be a world leader in offshore wind.
The clause extends the time that wind farm developers who build their own transmission assets have to divest those assets to an independent offshore transmission owner. That time is currently 18 months and the clause increases it to 27 months. That period is known as the generator commissioning clause, or the GCC.
The clause addresses the increase in size and complexity of wind farms since the GCC was first introduced. My Department issued a call for evidence on the OFTO regime, which closed in February 2024 under the previous Government. The responses suggested that the GCC period was too short and should be extended due to the increase in the size and complexity of wind farms, which has led to an increased risk of developers experiencing technical faults, and has meant more time is required for more complex commercial negotiations.
Without the clause, we would expect to continue to see many offshore wind farms needing to request individual transmission licence exemptions, which we bring to this House for decision, if they are unable to transfer transmission assets within the current 18-month period. The vast majority of offshore wind farms entering the process since 2016 have needed to apply for one of these exemptions, with each exemption requiring a separate statutory instrument to be considered each time.
The clause is therefore expected to reduce very significantly the number of offshore wind farms requiring an exemption. The requirement for an exemption leaves wind farms at risk of shutting down, taking a source of renewable energy off the grid and endangering the UK’s energy security, which is of course something we all want to avoid. This is a technical but very important clause and I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Use of forestry estate for renewable electricity
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michael Shanks
The clause enables the generation of electricity from renewable sources within the public forest estate through inserting a new section into the Forestry Act 1967.
Our public forests are a national asset, providing vital environmental, social and economic benefits. They also offer an opportunity to contribute to our clean power by 2030 mission through the development of home-grown renewable electricity proposals. The clause will support this by enabling Forestry England to undertake activity relating to both small and large-scale renewable electricity projects on the public forestry estate.
Developments may take place on both forested and non-forested land within the public forest estate. There will, however, be no reduction in size of the estate and sites will be carefully selected. These powers will see us integrating technologies including solar, hydro and wind energy into our natural landscape, accelerating progress to net zero and helping to tackle climate change.
Principles underpinning renewable energy developments include ensuring that there is no net loss of woodland area, positive habitat restoration and maintaining a sustainable home-grown timber supply. Forestry England has already developed around 40 small-scale renewable energy installations, but under current legislation any excess electricity that Forestry England generates is wasted and cannot be exported to the grid. That includes rooftop solar and biomass heating to generate energy used at their various visitor centres and offices. The new powers will allow Forestry England to export electricity generated from its own projects to the national grid.
Without this change to legislation, there would continue to be an imbalance between English activities in this space and those that take place in Scotland in connection to renewables. Public land being managed by the forestry authorities in Scotland is currently able to be used to generate renewable electricity at commercial scale. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I welcome the clarity in the Minister’s opening remarks on the clause. While the theory of generating renewable energy, and deriving income by selling electricity generated from renewable sources, on public forestry land is positive, several concerns need to be addressed that do not lend support to the Government’s initiative. I issue a word of warning to the Minister from experience: measures that concern public forests can be very divisive. As the previous party in government, we still have the scars on our back when it comes to forests. However, we accept that there are clear precedents in Scotland for what the clause will do.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister on these very well intentioned measures. Again, there is a need for clear consultation with people who live locally. We accept that these forests are run by experts, and we pay tribute to them for the way in which they run our forests across the country, but there will be people who have an absolute passion for our forests. Believe me: we saw them in our inbox when I worked for an MP. We need some clarity on that.
My first question is how the powers will balance commercial activity with conservation duties. The Minister said that there are examples of where we have done that before. It is a genuine question. We must make sure that when there is a drive to allow this to happen, some of the conversation elements are not lost in the management of the forests, and that renewable projects do not undermine biodiversity, recreation or climate resilience.
Secondly, what criteria will determine when ministerial consent is required for projects? As I am sure we agree, clear thresholds are necessary for consistency and community confidence. Within that, there must be consultation of local people. As I said, it can be an incredibly emotive topic when people find out from their local forestry commission that it is engaging in some electricity generation. When it comes to our beautiful forests, such wording can mean that people need to be told about it properly and consulted properly. What is the Minister doing to ensure that that will be at the forefront of these projects? As I said, we have been there before.
Does the Minister have any concept of how income from renewable generation will be managed? Oversight mechanisms will be vital to ensure transparency and accountability in these commercial activities. Are there limits on the scale or type of renewable projects on public land to prevent industrial-scale developments, and how will local communities be engaged in decisions affecting their access to public land?
While the clause offers opportunities, it poses risks that need careful management, so I urge the Government to provide more details to ensure that the powers are used responsibly, and that there is no mission creep at the end of the day from this very well intentioned clause.
Luke Murphy
I rise briefly to welcome the clause, which underlines the Government’s commitment both to tackle climate change and to restore and protect nature. As the Minister said, we have seen how Forestry and Land Scotland has been able to make use of its estate to install more than a gigawatt of generating capacity, which has been a major source of revenue for it to continue its conservation, preservation and reforestation mission. Once again, it underlines the Government’s commitment to protect nature while tackling climate change.
David Simmonds
My great-grandfather spent his entire working life at the pit in Cwmcarn, which is now a forestry commission site. There is evidence of the coal that was dug for centuries on that site, which is now a place that is enjoyed for leisure by all. Broadly, I echo the comments about welcoming the clause.
On page 35, line 20, the excluded types of fuel are listed, to determine what may be considered to be renewable. Waste to energy is not included; nor is the sustainable fuel mandate, which is currently focused on aviation fuel, but ultimately involves producing a gasoline product entirely from waste the purpose of which is to create energy. The fuel may go into aircraft, but it could be used for other purposes. The concept of waste to energy means, essentially, building an incinerator on forestry land to burn waste and generate electricity. By implication, that is something that the Government envisage as a result of that subsection. Could the Minister say more about that?
Michael Shanks
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley has taken the right tone, which is that our forestry land is to be treasured and protected for future generations, but there is a balance to be struck—we strike it every day in relation to how much the public can access and enjoy that land, and use visitor facilities. Stewardship of our forestry land is the responsibility of all of us. I thank him for his remarks.
We expect the footprint from the projects to be incredibly small. In fact, the most successful projects in Scotland are often on the rooftops of visitor centres, alongside toilet blocks, and in those sorts of places, so we are not talking about cutting down huge areas of forest to build ground-mounted solar. However, the point the hon. Gentleman made about consultation is critical. There will be comprehensive public and statutory consultation, and I fully expect Forestry England to carry out an even more detailed engagement process, given its stewardship role for certain pieces of land.
In fact, in Scotland, where some projects have been carried out, groups of people who frequently use the forest have been involved in designing the projects and deciding what the money will be spent on. There are real benefits to that. Although there is sometimes short-term disruption from construction, often the projects have resulted in accessible routes being opened in Scottish forests, including new wheelchair-accessible paths, so previously inaccessible land is being made accessible. However, the hon. Gentleman is right about consultation.
On the subject of revenue stream, we expect the measures to enhance Forestry England’s wider role and its existing objectives, which do not shift as a result of the measures. Of course, those objectives relate to environmental conservation. In fact, the revenue, which is currently being wasted—the critical point is that these projects cannot export to the grid—could actually create a net benefit, and we would expect it to do so. That is an important point, as is the issue of mission creep. We will certainly keep that in mind.
Paul Holmes
The Minister has satisfied me with his answers and is adopting a constructive tone regarding the clause, but I want to press him on the criteria used to determine ministerial consent. He is right to say that we do not want mission creep, and that we would usually expect minimum amounts of development around visitor centres and in the existing infrastructure of forests. Can he outline where the Government might set, not necessarily restrictions, but additional criteria regarding the size and scale of energy projects under the clause?
Michael Shanks
Again, there is a balance to be struck: we do not want to create a fixed set of national guidelines that preclude larger scale projects that would not disrupt existing forestry. I do not want to suggest that every piece of forestry land is the same, and therefore that the guidelines should apply in the same way. None the less, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I will write right to the Committee about it.
I say the same to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. As I think he would expect, schemes such as those he mentioned are not intended to be part of these measures However, I will consider whether we can tighten the guidance. The clause is intended to be about using land that, in some cases, already has some of these projects on it, but they cannot export to the grid. Small-scale solar or hydro—those are the sorts of schemes that we see as fitting alongside the wider mission of Forestry England. The hon. Gentleman raised an important point, and I am happy to write to the Committee about it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Fees for certain services
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse.
Chapter 3 of part 1 of the Bill deals with reform of transport infrastructure. Its various clauses—all of which, I hope, are uncontroversial—are designed to streamline and improve the efficiency of delivering transport infra- structure projects. Clauses 25 to 29 of the chapter make various amendments to the Highways Act 1980.
As hon. Members will be aware, local authorities and statutory consultees provide advice, share information and prepare responses to consultations on proposed highway projects. However, they currently do not have a statutory basis on which to recoup the costs associated with the work they do to review the applications. That can lead to delays in processing applications due to a lack of resources, or information being received late in the process.
Clause 25 inserts a new section 281B into the 1980 Act, providing a new regulation-making power for the Secretary of State in England and for Welsh Ministers in Wales to charge applicants for services in connection with certain schemes and orders on a cost-recovery basis. To be clear, it will not allow them to make a profit; instead, it will support the capacity and capability of local planning authorities and statutory bodies to carry out those processes, which in turn will encourage timely and high-quality inputs into the process.
The charges will apply to parts of the Highways Act associated with approving new roads, making changes to existing ones and making other legal orders necessary for highway projects. Furthermore, we will use a proportionate delegated power to ensure that cost recovery and the provision of services remain flexible and responsive in the light of changing circumstances over time, such as inflation.
The clause will bring the Highways Act into line with cost recovery provisions established under other infrastructure consenting regimes. By resourcing the input from critical stakeholders, this power will contribute to the acceleration of highway infrastructure project delivery, supporting the Government's economic growth mission now and in the future. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We welcome clause 25, and I welcome the Minister to his position. He has a lot to live up to after those clauses, and I will continue to be nice to him. I say well done also to the other Minister for the constructive way he has been working on this Committee. Opposition Members do appreciate that. Because we are not stupid, we realise it is sometimes a challenge to win votes. Although the votes we undertake here are closer than the ones on the Floor of the House of Commons, let that not be an encouragement to us to call more.
As I said, we welcome clause 25, which allows public authorities to charge fees for services related to specific highway schemes. None the less, some clarity is needed on several points. While recovering costs is reasonable, the clause must be carefully implemented with safeguards to ensure fairness, accessibility and consistency across England and Wales.
The Minister has stated that this is a reserved matter for certain statutory bodies and local planning authorities, but will he outline how this goes with his perfectly admirable stance on devolution? Will he look to allow new combined authorities and mayoralties to take on some of the powers, or is he planning for them to be devolved even further, to mayoral authorities coming on stream rapidly from the Department under this Government? We would like some clarity on how he sees the powers being amended once local authorities and some of those statutory bodies no longer exist or are reformed.
Has the Minister considered the impact of the fees on small developers, charities and community groups? Could they create barriers or delays in any process? Will there be provisions allowing fee waivers or reductions for certain applications, such as for community-led or rural projects? How will disputes about fee fairness be resolved, and will there be an appeals process? What guidance will there be to ensure consistency in fee application across regions, to avoid significant variations from one local authority or statutory body to another? Finally, could the fees delay or discourage essential infrastructure development, especially in areas with planning capacity challenges?
Rachel Taylor
I acted for developers before coming into the House, and I know their biggest concern was always delays, not the fees that the local authority charged for doing these things. As a result of the lack of capacity in local authorities, there has been a move to more unadopted roads on small estates, which has its own problems for property owners going forward. I really welcome this provision, because it lays sensible steps toward making it easier for developers to complete their projects sooner, which enables them to make more money.
I think that the offset in costs will be welcomed by small developers. This provision is particularly important in the small authorities that cover large geographical areas, because it will enable them to go out and make visits. To give an example, my client was required to build a pavement but could not do so while there was a vaccination centre up the road. The local authority could not, under the fee structure, find the time to come out and visit the site, which would have enabled it to make a more sensible decision. In general terms, this provision is really welcome and developers, both small and large, will see this as a very positive step forward.
Lewis Cocking
I have a few comments, although I support the principle of this provision. There is not enough capacity in some planning departments, so I agree that fee cost recovery and some of the additional fees, particularly those relating to highways matters, are really important for local authorities, but I have a few questions. When will the money be paid? Will it be paid before the development has started, so there is capacity in the system? People sometimes make planning applications and get planning permissions but do not actually build out the development, so will the fees still need to be paid in those cases?
I have some concerns that I would like the Minister to comment on. Some authorities still have section 106 agreements, and I am concerned that developers will just move money from those section 106 agreements—money that is to be put into education or healthcare, for example—by saying in a viability assessment that they now have to pay these fees to the local authorities, particularly around highways. How can we stop it being the same money, just moved around? These fees should be additional to the money from section 106 agreements that the council was already getting, as they are going directly into capacity issues within planning departments. I am worried that developers will try to play games by just moving the same money around the system or cutting the same pie in a different way, which will not help local authorities. I would like to hear the Minister’s response to those comments, but I wholeheartedly support what the Government are trying to do in this specific case.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome both the broad support for the intent behind the clause and the very reasonable questions that have been put to me by members of the Committee. To be very clear, because we have strayed into pavement applications, section 106 applications and other things, this clause very specifically relates to allowing local authorities and statutory consultees to recover the costs that they incur when providing services on highway-related applications only. We may discuss later some of the other matters and the general position of planning authorities and the challenges they face in capacity and capability. I just wanted to make that point.
All the clause does is bring the Highways Act 1980 into line with the cost recovery provisions established under other infrastructure consenting regimes. It is broadly accepted that we need to support local planning authorities and statutory consultees to process applications in a timely manner. We think that will drive high-quality and timely—
Matthew Pennycook
I will address the hon. Member’s point, if he will wait, and then he is more than welcome to come back in. As I said, it help to drive timely and high-quality inputs into the process, which will speed up the delivery of highway infrastructure projects and avoid extra costs. This is an important point to make: there are costs associated with the fact that applications are not taken through in a timely manner. If they are delayed or time out, that can result in design changes or the process to reach a decision being extended, which brings extra costs. In general terms, we want to ensure, as with many of the provisions in the Bill, a more streamlined, certain and faster consenting process.
It will be for the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to set out in regulations those bodies that are able to charge the fees; they may include bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England. Regulations and guidance will set out in more detail what advice and information will be covered by the cost recovery process, as well as other matters, including how fees are calculated, when fees can and cannot be charged and the point at which fees are charged.
We will get into separate issues relating to build out, but to respond gently to the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, I cannot see how a very specific highways-related application will necessarily bleed over into section 106 negotiations. None the less, I will reflect on that point, as we do not want cost recovery provisions in the clause to allow developers to reduce section 106 contributions on the basis that they are having to pay this charge. As I said, delegated powers will ensure that the cost recovery power is future-proofed by ensuring that it is flexible enough to account for changes, not least in inflation, which we have discussed before.
Lewis Cocking
I completely understand where the Minister is coming from on specific applications just for roads. I suppose my comments were related to new towns or garden villages, where there will be lots of facets to those applications—house building, new roads and what have you. I therefore welcome the Minister’s comments on the fact that he will look at those issues that I have raised.
Matthew Pennycook
I certainly will do so, and, just to stress the point once again, what we are trying to do here and in a number of other clauses in this chapter is broadly about bringing the processes under the Highways Act 1980 and the Transport and Works Act 1992 into line with other consenting regimes. As I said, in this case, it is about ensuring that cost recovery provisions established under those other infrastructure consenting regimes apply in the case of the Highways Act. However, I certainly will be more than happy to reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s point, and on those made by other members of the Committee. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Power of strategic highways company in relation to trunk roads
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 26 will allow National Highways to handle the majority of the administrative actions for creating or changing the status of a trunk road. As I am sure all Committee members are aware a section 10 order under the Highways Act is used to designate or declassify a road as a trunk road.
Trunk roads are major routes in our highways network that are managed by National Highways instead of local authorities. Having the power to make a road a trunk road is an essential step in ensuring that key roads are maintained at the national level. Trunk roads perform an important role in enabling safe, reliable and often long-distance journeys by both people and goods between our major towns and cities, and provide access to our international gateways.
The current system places much of the process for handling requirements of these section 10 orders—namely their preparation and publicity—on the Secretary of State, rather than the highways body itself. Clause 26 will simply transfer the administrative control of the application from the Secretary of State to the strategic highways authority—National Highways. It will also align the handling process with the way in which applications under other parts of the Highways Act are currently managed.
I stress that the Secretary of State will remain the ultimate decision maker on the application. However, by removing the administrative burden from the Secretary of State, clause 26 will create a more efficient process, which we believe will lead to faster decisions on new and upgraded trunk roads. This will help to deliver road improvements more quickly, support economic growth, enhance transport links and reduce congestion.
Paul Holmes
On that point—depending on the Minister’s answer, I may not have to make a speech and detain the Committee—the Minister has outlined that the strategic highways authority is National Highways; does he envisage that for some roads, particularly across England, the county council is the strategic highway authority, and will have to apply the section 10 changes? Is he not worried that, because of the financial implications for some county councils—regardless of politics—there could be a kind of enticement for people to get rid of some of the strategic parts of their local road networks? It may be a complete lack of understanding on my part, but could the Minister outline whether county councils could be included in some of that process?
Matthew Pennycook
I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister about the role of county authorities in managing the highway network, and how the Highways Act and the consenting regime applies to them. I do not think his point is pertinent in this respect, in the sense that the clause transfers administrative functions related to section 10 orders under the Highways Act from the Secretary of State purely to National Highways. It does not change the legal decision-making authority, which remains the Secretary of State’s, but the administrative burden, in terms of the final preparation, publishing and consultation of the necessary documents, would be done by the applicant—National Highways. But I am more than happy to provide the shadow Minister with further detail about the interaction with county authorities.
Paul Holmes
Please do not write to me on that. I say that not to offend officials but because I do not want them overworked and the Minister has clearly outlined what he means, for which I am grateful. The question was obviously to clarify my understanding of the legislation. I asked it because I just wondered whether strategic highways authority included county councils. My county council controls a large number of roads, and I wondered whether it was enveloped under the proposal—under the meaning of strategic highways authority. The Minister has answered that, and I am perfectly content not to make a speech.
Matthew Pennycook
I very much welcome that intervention, as will my officials, I am sure. It saves them a letter—although letters may be forthcoming in the course of debate if we require further detail on very technical points. I will just stress the point again: I think the confusion lies in the fact that section 10 orders apply only to National Highways, if the shadow Minister needs reassurance in that regard. But broadly, these are procedural changes that just allow, as I have said, the administrative burden to be transferred from the Secretary of State to National Highways.
David Simmonds
Just to pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister—again, at the risk of placing officials in need of writing a letter—we can consider London, where we have Transport for London, Highways England and various other agencies or companies that manage the miles and stretches of those motorways. Very close to my constituency we have the M40/A4 motorway, which is literally the same road but transfers from being a Highways England road to a TfL road at the boundary of Greater London. There could be significant issues where, for example, local authorities that are responsible for neighbouring roads would need to be consulted, so I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify, particularly in respect of where we have TfL, red routes and things like that, all of which I think would be within the scope of the clause, that that has been fully considered so that we can ensure that we do not see unnecessary friction as a result.
Matthew Pennycook
I do not think that in any circumstances we would see friction on elements where the Secretary of State remains the body that takes forward the administrative process. I cannot envisage a way in which that would cause friction. Just to be very clear, a section 10 order under the Highways Act is used to designate or declassify a road as a trunk road. That is action carried out by National Highways, as I have said. We simply want it to take the administrative actions for creating or changing the status of a trunk road. I am more than happy to write to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—apologies to my officials —on this administrative change as to who takes on those actions, namely National Highways rather than the Secretary of State, and how that interacts, which I think was his point, with the boundary of roads managed by the Greater London Authority, which is not covered by this clause of the Bill.
David Simmonds
I am just reflecting on my experience as a councillor in local government. There are often disputes. For example, the creation or designation of a red route clearway as a trunk road removes all parking along the length of that route and also affects things like bus services along it, so there are situations in which there may be a difference of opinion between a local authority, which is the current manager or administrator of the route, and a trunk road manager, who wishes to designate it as such for the benefit of an infrastructure project but clearly will not be subject to the consequences that that would have for bus routes, parking and other issues under the ambit of the local authority. I am just looking for clarity that there is a process by which those issues will be resolved and that there will be a relevant level of consultation, so that the kind of tensions that we saw around low traffic neighbourhoods with a dispute between Transport for London and a local authority about what was going on in a local area are not replicated.
The Chair
I remind everybody of the tightness of the parameters within which we need to keep this debate. Otherwise the Committee will have to find another day to sit. By no means do I want to stifle debate, but it is also up to the Minister to allow interventions or not.
Matthew Pennycook
I think we will all know where to place the blame if that scenario arises—we will not need to add an extra day.
I gently say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, that he is comparing apples and pears. To be as clear as I possibly can be, all the requirements set down in the legislation in respect of preparing and publishing materials, and the fact that the Secretary of State remains the decision maker, remain in place. The clause purely changes the body overseeing the administrative actions associated with those applications. On that basis, I think this is a fairly uncontroversial procedural change. We have committed to write to the hon. Gentleman about any possible interactions with the Greater London Authority’s management of red routes. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Deadlines for consultation and decisions on certain orders and schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 27 will reduce the objection period for applications under the Highways Act 1980 from six weeks to 30 days. Such applications could be for the construction of new roads, changes to existing ones and other necessary legal orders for delivering highway infrastructure. The objection period refers to the timeframe during which interested parties can view application materials and provide comments.
Reducing the objection period will speed up the consenting process without sacrificing the safeguards that are essential for the fair consideration of objections. An objection period of 30 days aligns with the relevant objection periods for other transport consenting regimes, such as the Planning Act 2008. Again, I draw the shadow Ministers’ attention to the fact that, as per the previous clauses, we intend to align the Highways Act provisions with those in other consenting regimes, to provide for a more uniform arrangement across the piece.
Additionally, the clause will introduce a 10-week deadline for the Secretary of State to make decisions on these schemes and orders. Currently, there are no statutory deadlines for the decision-making stage for the relevant processes, unlike in other consenting regimes, such as the Planning Act 2008. Bringing the Highways Act into alignment with other consenting regimes will improve certainty and the efficiency of the process. The power for the Secretary of State to extend the decision deadline, if necessary, ensures flexibility in cases where additional time may be required.
By shortening the objection period and setting a clear decision timeframe, the clause makes the process more predictable for all stakeholders. Faster, more predictable decisions will result in more efficient delivery of transport infrastructure projects, contributing to better transport networks. We think this change strikes the right balance between improving speed and maintaining fairness, ensuring that the process remains transparent and accountable. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
May I say, Mrs Hobhouse, that you are absolutely on fire? We are getting through things very quickly, and I will adhere to your instructions.
The clause updates the objection and decision-making timelines under the Highways Act 1980. Although the goal is to align with other planning regimes, several concerns remain. First, the clause reduces the objection period in England to a minimum of 30 days, but maintains it at six weeks in Wales. What justifies that discrepancy? Should there not be consistency across all authorities?
Furthermore, is it not the case that reducing the objection period may limit the time available for affected parties to prepare responses? I know that this is outside the remit of this very prescriptive clause, but many constituents will say that they did not get the letter or see the things that were posted, or that local people simply were not able to see things. I really think that this 30-day restriction will harm many average Joes—I hate that term, but I do not know how else to put it. People out there, who have busy lives, busy jobs and families, and who are working on their daily lives, will really struggle, in the first place, to see things within 30 days. However, they will also not know that the period is now 30 days and may therefore not be consulted on some of the actions that authorities may take.
I ask the Minister to assess whether 30 days is the right length of time. I am not talking about having an unrestricted length of time for consultation, and we absolutely need to make sure, if we want to deliver on some of these policies, that the timeframe is reasonable. However, I question whether 30 days is far too rapid and will cause more harm than good to the consultation rights of the British public. I would also ask what systems will be in place to notify stakeholders of deadline changes and extensions in individual cases, to ensure clear and accessible communication.
I have a last question. While the intent of the clause is to streamline processes, we must ensure fairness, transparency and quality decision making, allowing stakeholders to engage meaningfully. We absolutely accept that there is currently no statutory deadline. Ten weeks is adequate, but on the 30 days element of the consultation period, when we think about people out there with busy lives, I think could cause a huge problem for democratic accountability and for the transparency of the system in allowing local people to have their say. I ask the Minister to look at that 30 days again, but we will not press the clause to a Division.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for his response and questions. Again, I make the point that with a number of these provisions we are trying to align the Highways Act with other consenting regimes. I do not know whether his position is that the statutory objection period in those other consenting regimes—for example, the Planning Act 2008—should be lengthened. I would argue that such an extension would add time and complexity. We think that should be brought into line with the others.
We think that 30 days is the appropriate period, that the existing arrangements, which set out a period of not less than six weeks, are too long, and that we should bring the Highways Act into line with the other regimes. On that basis, we do not think that the clause sets a precedent for the shortening of objection periods, because objection periods of about four weeks, as I have said, can be found in other infrastructure consenting regimes. That is an adequate period of time in which to submit objections.
The shadow Minister asked another, separate question about the Secretary of State’s ability to extend deadlines from the 10-week period. Again, in any such instances, the Secretary of State would need to send written notice of the extension to the relevant parties in those cases, setting out why an extension is required. I hope that on that basis the shadow Minister is reassured about the use of that particular part of the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Procedure for certain orders and schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The clause seeks to address the fact that under the existing system, a statutory instrument is required to approve applications under sections 16 and 106(3) of the Highways Act, and for orders under section 10, which are made by the Highways Authority in the form of a draft statutory instrument, whereas a simpler confirmation process exists for other applications under that Act.
An SI is currently required for applications to make or unmake a trunk road or special road, to construct a special road, or to build a road bridge over or road tunnel under navigable waters. Those statutory instruments are not subject to any parliamentary procedure, but they take extra time to prepare. That represents an unnecessary and disproportionate burden of bureaucracy in our view.
As I have mentioned, the Highways Act already contains a quicker process for confirming other types of application via a confirmation document issued by the Department for Transport. The clause will simply allow the applications to which I have referred to be confirmed via a confirmation document issued by the Department. In short, that again aligns the handling processes across the relevant parts of the Highways Act. That will support the Government’s goal of speeding up the consenting of transport infrastructure by streamlining the process.
To maintain transparency in the decision-making process, the clause ensures that a confirmation notice must be published in the public domain. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Compulsory acquisition powers to include taking of temporary possession
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The clause concerns compulsory acquisition powers in relation to projects undertaken under the Highways Act 1980. No clear provision is currently available to allow Highways Act project promoters to temporarily use and possess land, such as for construction purposes, by compulsion. In lieu of such a provision, if a project promoter cannot come to a commercial agreement with the landowner or owners for a licence to access the land required, the project promoter will typically apply for powers of compulsory acquisition to enable it to buy and use the land. That approach is disproportionate when the land is needed only temporarily for construction purposes. Additionally, the current arrangement offers the landowner no legal right to regain their land.
The intention of the clause is to provide clarity that project promoters, under the Highways Act 1980 regime, can temporarily use and possess land by compulsion. It does so by introducing a clear and proportionate legal power to require authorities that have already identified a piece of land as necessary for the planned construction of the proposed highway works to temporarily use land when they cannot reach agreement with the landowner, while also protecting landowner rights to regain their land and support compensation mechanisms.
By reducing legal ambiguity, the power will help to shorten often protracted land negotiations, speeding up the process to submit an application for highways works, ultimately thereby delivering transport projects quicker. In doing so, it will contribute to the Government’s ambition to simplify the consenting of major transport infrastructure projects.
David Simmonds
Broadly speaking, the Opposition support the intention set out in the clause. Improving the efficiency of such works is clearly a very logical step. Could the Minister say a little more about how the power will interact with the powers and duties that apply to statutory undertakers? I am thinking, for example, of where it is necessary to divert a gas main or water main, or other significant infrastructure, where there are already legal rights in place that can be used for that purpose. An issue we are all familiar with is the disruption caused to transport networks when major works are being undertaken. Will there be a process for ensuring a degree of co-ordination? Will there be a requirement or expectation for consultation so that, where a highways body wishes to undertake that work, it can possibly be co-ordinated with the work of other statutory undertakers involved in the same project, to minimise the disruption?
Will there be an assurance that that process will provide for an appropriate level of compensation for the landowner whose land is being taken temporarily, as that often seems to be a source of dispute? This should not become a back-door way by which a highways agency, as the lead body, says, “We are going to take that at no recompense,” rather than going through a process of negotiation to achieve an agreed sum in respect of the loss of amenity to the owner of the land.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that contribution and I recognise the reasonable concern he raises. If he will allow me, because it is a very technical aspect of the Bill, I will write to him with full details of how we see this power working, particularly in respect of compensation measures. I think his remarks recognised that the present arrangements do not provide the necessary certainty for landowners that they can regain their land. They force applicants to use disproportionate powers. We are trying, through the clause, to provide certainty that there is a way to take possession of land temporarily when required.
It is worth saying that there is a temporary possession power in the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017. It is a different mechanism; it has not yet been enacted. We are trying to achieve a fairly simple clarification through the Bill, which will not require us to enact powers that are above and beyond what is required under the simplification to which the clause gives effect. It is an uncontroversial procedural change that will make the process more certain and efficient for both parties and provide them with reassurances.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Replacement of model clauses with guidance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clauses 30 to 41 make various amendments to the Transport and Works Act 1992. I would hope that the Committee has a shared recognition that that Act of Parliament needs to be more efficient for applicants applying for transport infrastructure schemes such as new railways or tramways in England and Wales. This will allow transport infrastructure projects to be delivered as efficiently as possible, providing faster decisions and support economic growth.
Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales the power to move template model clauses from legislation into guidance. The model clauses are intended to streamline the drafting of Transport and Works Act orders, but they can currently only be amended through secondary legislation. Setting them out in more flexible guidance, rather than legislation, will allow them to be updated more regularly via a more efficient and faster process. That supports the Bill’s aim of simplifying and streamlining transport rules, ensuring that we have a more efficient legal framework moving forward. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Removal of special procedure for projects of national significance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I hope that on this clause, at least, we can avoid detailed questioning by the Opposition, because there is nothing with which issue can be taken. It is a simple tidying up of the statute book. The Transport and Works Act requires updating to reflect the wider changes that are to be implemented in the planning sector. It was, as I have mentioned, given Royal Assent in 1992.
The purpose of clause 31 is simply to remove a redundant section of the Transport and Works Act, which refers to schemes considered to be “of national significance”. Since the Planning Act 2008 was introduced as the consenting regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects, with clearly defined thresholds for what is considered “of national significance”, it has effectively rendered that part of the Transport and Works Act entirely redundant.
The effect of the clause is a simple procedural fix. By removing outdated references, the clause will make it easier for developers and public bodies to understand and apply the law, while also reducing administrative burdens. I commend the clause to the Committee.
David Simmonds
Throughout proceedings on the Bill, we have flagged up the important point that is highlighted by subsection (3), namely the lack of retrospective application. I would like the Minister’s response on a point that is of concern to the Opposition. There is always a risk that powers that are due to expire will be used and exploited in advance of new legislation coming in. What measures does the Minister have in mind to ensure that that does not turn into a problem?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. As ever with his points, it was well made. I will go away and reflect on it, but I struggle to see how the use of the clauses we are considering in the Transport and Works Act—as I have said, they have been rendered entirely redundant since they were superseded by provisions in the Planning Act 2008 that clearly define thresholds for what is deemed to be nationally significant infrastructure —give rise to the challenge that he posits.
David Simmonds
The Minister has served on a planning Committee, and he will be aware of the challenges that arise where, for example, a historical permission is secured on which a developer subsequently seeks to rely. It is clear that the intention is, quite rightly, to remove those redundant clauses. The concern I am highlighting is that when permission rights have arisen under the clauses that have been made redundant and a developer later relies on them, we must ensure that the process is effectively managed.
Matthew Pennycook
If I have understood the point correctly—I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister and set this out in detail, but he can intervene if I have not got this right—the challenge is about applicants who in the past have relied on the provisions of the Transport and Works Act 1992 that we are today arguing are redundant, and how permissions obtained on that basis prior to the Planning Act 2008 interact with the changes in the clause. It is essentially a concern about retrospection in relation to the clause.
David Simmonds
We are zeroing in on the issue that I seek to highlight. The statement in subsection (3) says that the clause does
“not apply in relation to an application in respect of which a notice”
has been made
“before this section comes into force.”
Early on in his remarks, the Minister referred to sections of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 that have not come into force, eight years after they underwent scrutiny in a Committee like this one and Parliament passed them. This clause may not come into force for some considerable time after we debate it in Committee and the Bill becomes law—indeed, it may never come into force. If the previous legislation remains the relevant legislation for an extended period, or if a developer sees advantage in securing a permission now, under the previous legislation, before the new measures take its place, do we have an appropriate process for dealing with that?
Matthew Pennycook
I understand the point, but I think the shadow Minister is conflating an application under the relevant provisions in the Transport and Works Act and what the clause seeks to clarify, which is when schemes are considered to be of national importance. As I said, with the Planning Act 2008, we have an Act of Parliament that provides very clear thresholds for when schemes are considered of national importance.
I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister with further detail, but I think he raises a valid point. We think the redundant section 9 should be removed from the Transport and Works Act to give developers and public bodies clarity on how the law should be applied going forward, while also reducing administrative burdens. The easiest way—mindful of your strictures, Mrs Hobhouse—to move the Committee on and ensure that we can debate important clauses later in the Bill is for me to commit to writing to the shadow Minister with exhaustive detail on that point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Duty to hold inquiry or hearing
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clauses 32 and 33 relate to public inquiries under the Transport and Works Act. Clause 32 will amend the circumstances in which an objection is considered to an application under that Act. Currently, if an objection is raised to an application under the Act, a public inquiry or hearing can be required to be held, even if the objection is deemed to lack substance. That can result in costly and lengthy public inquiries taking place, even where objections lack merit.
The length of the inquiry process can range greatly depending on the complexity of what is being examined, from six months to two years. Clause 32 will mean that a public inquiry is held only when an objection is raised that is considered by the determining authority to be serious enough to merit such treatment. A streamlined process for considering objections saves time and cost for applicants. All objections will continue to be decided—I want to stress this point—entirely on the merits of the arguments put forward. This not about removing the voices of individuals or communities; instead, it ensures that the objections process remains proportionate, so serious objections are given due attention.
Clause 33 makes amendments to section 11 of the Transport and Works Act regarding decisions on costs arising from a public inquiry. It will enable an inspector conducting the public inquiry to make decisions on those costs, unless the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers direct that a cost decision is to be determined by them. Currently, the inspector must write a report with recommendations of costs to the Secretary of State based on the conduct of parties taking part in the public inquiry. That approach contrasts with the Planning Act 2008, where cost decisions are made by the examining authority.
By delegating the decision-making capability to the inspector conducting the inquiry, we will ensure that claims are resolved more quickly for all stakeholders. That will reduce administrative burden in determining such cases and save time, helping to deliver transport infrastructure more efficiently. The Secretary of State in England, and Welsh Ministers in Wales, will retain the ability to direct that a cost decision is to be determined by them should they not wish to delegate responsibility on a potentially contentious case. The clauses, as I have argued, will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and administrative burdens, helping to deliver transport infrastructure more efficiently. I commend them to the Committee.
Gideon Amos
I rise to query some of the provisions. We understand that the Government’s proposal would effectively remove the automatic right to call a public inquiry. The Minister knows we are concerned that the Bill seeks to remove people from the process, and to remove the opportunity for objections in the planning process. That is a very serious concern for us. The clause proposes a public inquiry only where the Secretary of State
“considers that the objection is serious enough”.
Matthew Pennycook
Hopefully I can provide the hon. Gentleman with further clarification. I recognise and appreciate the valid concerns he raises. As things stand, it is not the case that any objection to an application of the kind we have described results in a public inquiry or hearing, but it can in many instances give rise to one.
For example, when an objection comes from a landowner whose land would be affected by compulsory purchase; when a local authority for the area concerned receives an objection that they do not consider frivolous or trivial; or when other concerns are raised that need to be considered, a public inquiry or hearing takes place. In many circumstances, that is appropriate. In others, it may be the case that an exchange of correspondence, for example, can achieve the same goal without the need for a lengthy and costly public inquiry. I hope that gives him some reassurance as to the type of circumstances—
Matthew Pennycook
I am pre-empting what the hon. Member is going to intervene on, so I will finish making the point and he can come back to me. I hope he is reassured as to why we consider the change necessary, and the outcome that we are trying to achieve.
The hon. Member raises an entirely valid point about the fact that it will be for the Secretary of State for Transport to decide on a case-by-case basis when objections meet the test that he rightly reiterated. I will reflect on how we might provide further clarity, perhaps through guidance on the circumstances in which that test should be applied, but I recognise there is a fair challenge about what cases will come through this route.
I hope the hon. Member will recognise that the problem we are trying to resolve is that under certain circumstances, as things stand, a public inquiry or hearing can be triggered where it is not necessary, and there may be a far more proportionate way of moving things on and responding to objections—for example, in an exchange of correspondence. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman somewhat. As I have said, I am happy to reflect and come back to the Committee with further thoughts on this point.
Gideon Amos
I simply say that doing away with, effectively, an automatic right to a public inquiry in certain circumstances, as the Minister has clarified, and replacing that with the words “serious enough” is a big leap. I strongly encourage the Minister to put on record guidance on what relevant parties can expect will be considered serious enough to merit a public inquiry.
Matthew Pennycook
I do not have much more to add. There is a genuine problem with the current arrangements that we need to resolve. As I have said, in some circumstances a public inquiry or hearing is not necessary; things can be dealt with in other ways. Under the current arrangements, public inquiries and hearings can be triggered even if an objection is considered to be lacking in substance. That is onerous and disproportionate, but the hon. Gentleman raises a fair point about the basis on which the Secretary of State for Transport will determine whether the objection is of the relevant level of seriousness to require a public inquiry or hearing. I am more than happy to come back to him on that point in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Deadline for decisions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 34 provides a power for the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers to introduce statutory deadlines for the determination of Transport and Works Act order applications. Unlike other infra-structure consenting processes, the Transport and Works Act process does not have statutory timeframes to govern the duration of its decision stage, and that can lead to uncertainty and delays. The clause will bring it into alignment with other planning consenting processes, such as the Planning Act 2008 process, and introduce greater accountability of decision makers.
Clause 35 seeks to modernise the way decisions under the Transport and Works Act are communicated. It enables the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers to issue a notice online when publicising a decision on an application for a Transport and Works Act order and removes the requirement to publish the notice in the London Gazette. Moving to digital advertising will mean that notification of decisions can be done on the same day as decisions are finalised, which will ensure that there are no delays in communication and provide a more efficient service to interested parties. The clause also provides that any legal challenges must be filed within six weeks, starting the day after the notice is published, bringing the timeline in line with other consenting regimes.
By making use of modern technology, we will bring the Transport and Works Act into the 21st century, helping to speed up the process and deliver transport schemes more quickly. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Fees for certain services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The clause allows the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales to make provision in regulations for public authorities—limited to certain statutory bodies and local planning authorities —to charge applicants for their services in connection with Transport and Works Act orders. Currently, public authorities cannot recover costs for this work, and that can lead to delays because of a lack of resourcing. The clause will apply to parts of the Act associated with approving the construction or operation of railways and tramways, externally guided buses, monorails and certain other types of guided transport.
Supporting the capacity and capability of local planning authorities and statutory bodies will encourage timely and high-quality inputs into the process, which will speed up the delivery of highways infrastructure projects. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We welcome the clause and the clarification and certainty that the Minister has given, but I want to put some questions, along similar lines to those we have asked before, about transparency and limits or caps on the fees that authorities can charge.
We believe that without clear limits, there is a risk of inconsistent or excessive charges and a disproportionately wide range of fees across authorities. What mechanisms will be in place to allow applicants to challenge or appeal fees that they consider unreasonable? What impact does the Minister think this measure may have on smaller companies in the supply chain, which may be less able to absorb the costs that will be imposed? We do not disagree with the principle of the clause; we just have some questions about the detail.
Finally, how will the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers review or update the regulations? As costs and administrative practices evolve, it is crucial that the regulations are reassessed regularly to ensure that they remain fair, relevant and effective. Will the Minister remark briefly on that and on some of the smaller businesses that may be affected?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for those points. The clause only allows for the charging of fees for services on a cost-recovery basis. I think there is broad agreement across the Committee that cost recovery for applications is a fair and proportionate way to proceed. Organisations will not be—
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting)
Wednesday 14th May 2025
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 May 2025 - (14 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to our Hansard colleagues at hansardnotes@parliament.uk. I also ask Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Officially, I think that Members have to ask my permission to remove their jackets, so I can give a unilateral order, on a hot day like this, that you may all have it off—[Laughter.] You may all remove your jackets; it is hot, especially for women of a certain age. We now come to clause 47.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 47, page 62, leave out from line 32 to line 2 on page 63.
This relates to amendment 22. This amendment would remove the requirement for unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 22, in clause 47, page 63, leave out lines 14 to 17.
This relates to amendment 21. This amendment would remove the requirement for unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies.
Gideon Amos
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq—although I was not sure how much of a pleasure until you introduced the sitting in the way that you did.
Amendments 21 and 22 would remove the requirement on unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies, simply based on the resources that unitary authorities have and the stretch under which they have been placed.
My own authority is working hard to stave off financial challenges after being left with a massive deficit to manage—£2 of every £3 of the council’s funding is spent on care for children and adults, but it also has to prepare a new local plan. It has permission for 11,000 homes that are not yet built, but the new plan will require a 41% increase in housing allocations in Somerset, which is a massive task that will cost millions of pounds. For an individual unitary authority, having to not only establish a unitary local plan but, at the same time, prepare a spatial development strategy seems over the top. That should be reserved for mayoral authorities, where a strategic authority is established.
We do not oppose the concept of spatial development strategies; for strategic-level authorities, they could be a sensible addition to the planning system to reintroduce the strategic level of planning that was taken away. However, we are concerned about the significant additional burden on unitary authorities in also being required to prepare spatial development strategies that are meant to be more strategic in nature and have more than a single unitary authority area. With that in mind, I commend amendments 21 and 22 to the Committee.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to resume our proceedings with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling amendment 21, but the Government will have to resist it for reasons that I will set out. Having said that, as we have already discussed in previous sessions, we absolutely recognise the real challenges that local planning authorities face not only in resourcing but more widely in capability and capacity. We have discussed a number of the measures that the Government are taking, both in the Bill and outside it, to address that challenge.
Amendments 21 and 22 seek to make upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities ineligible to produce a spatial development plan. It is the Government’s intention that, in the future, all spatial development strategies will be produced by strategic authorities in accordance with our devolution framework, including combined authorities, combined county authorities and the Greater London Authority. While we are making substantial progress, with six areas currently part of the devolution priority programme, the establishment of strategic authorities across the whole of England will be a gradual process.
However, the Government want to move quickly on strategic planning. That means that, as well as combined authorities and combined county authorities, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities are being made into strategic planning authorities with a requirement to produce a spatial development strategy. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington would remove the requirement for those aforementioned authorities.
The requirement to produce a spatial development strategy will be realised either individually or in defined groupings; in some cases, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities may also be grouped with a combined authority or combined county authority. As such, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Gideon Amos
Dr Huq, I do not know whether I get the opportunity to sum up, so I have jumped in with an intervention. Could the Minister clarify the circumstances in which an individual unitary authority—perhaps a unitary county such as Somerset, or Oxfordshire, if it becomes a unitary county—would be required to, on its own, prepare a spatial development strategy? Will all unitary authorities be required to prepare spatial development strategies on top of, and in parallel with, preparing local plans? I think that that clarification would be helpful.
The Chair
Apparently, there will be a chance to sum up and to respond to the summing up.
Matthew Pennycook
Thank you for that clarification, Dr Huq; we may hear further from the hon. Gentleman on that point. Just to be clear, the Government are driving for universal coverage for strategic planning across the whole of England, so, either individually or in defined groupings, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities will have to, in some form, be part of producing a spatial development strategy.
As I said, I very much recognise the challenge that the hon. Gentleman posed around resourcing. It is worth pointing out that, in addition to the elements that we discussed yesterday—the £46 million that the Budget allocated to local planning authority capacity and capability, and the measures in the Bill allowing for the setting of fees locally and the ringfencing of those fees—the Government have already identified funding for 2025-26 to support authorities to prepare for the production of spatial development strategies. We recognise the need for core funding and that is being negotiated with the Treasury as part of the spending review for 2026 to 2029.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Could the Minister outline what would happen if a unitary council created a spatial development strategy and then became part of a larger, bigger authority under the devolution? What would happen to their specific strategy, and would that new authority, as a bigger authority, have to create a new SDS across the whole area?
Matthew Pennycook
Over time, spatial development strategies will have to reflect the appropriate geographies at the point they are renewed and refreshed—if that answers the hon. Gentleman’s point. But as I said, either individually or in groupings through the strategic boards we are creating, we will have to have those SDSs in places, although obviously the geographies will be able to change over time, if that is the wish of the component member authorities.
As I was saying, for the reasons I have outlined the Government believe that the legislation, as drafted, is essential to support the introduction of our strategic planning policy, which is an important means of ensuring our pro-growth agenda and that we are able to deliver 1.5 million homes over this Parliament. As we have argued on many occasions, the introduction of a robust, universal system of strategic planning is a core part of the Government’s reform agenda, and we think that the Bill is required to operate in the way that I have set out. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to withdraw his amendment.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, and he has my respect for bringing strategic planning back into the system. I know he has worked on that for a number of years; some of us have also worked on regional planning for a number of years and can remember the regional spatial strategy processes—in fact, took part in them. However, the question of individual unitary authorities preparing SDSs remains quite a challenge.
Perhaps the Minister, in summing up, could say something about the timescale. I can see that the Government are moving towards universal coverage of mayoral—well, strategic—authorities, as well as SDSs, which makes sense, but the timescale will be crucial here. If an individual authority becomes something of an orphan, or it needs time to ally itself with others and agree its strategic authority area—for example, Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire put forward their proposal but were knocked back, so they cannot establish that strategic authority—it would seem unfair for those authorities to be required to prepare three SDSs for those three counties on top of three local plans. That is a massive amount of work. We must not underestimate the weight of work that goes into a local plan. For a huge area such as Somerset, it will costs tens of millions of pounds and it will take several years. For those three authorities also to be required to prepare an SDS at the same time would be unfortunate.
If the timing could work such that—this may be the Government’s intention—those authorities have sufficient time to establish their mayoral strategic authorities first, and then develop an SDS, that would appear to be a much better way. I am interested in the Minister’s comments on that. We do not intend to press the amendment to a vote.
The Chair
Minister, I am advised that you are not obliged to speak now—you can respond in writing—but if you wish to, you can.
Matthew Pennycook
I will address a couple of points to give the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington some reassurance. First, I very much welcome his support for the reintroduction of sub-regional strategic planning—I would actually say introduction, because we are not proposing a regional model along the lines of what happened before.
In our view, there has been a clear lack of strategic planning and of those effective cross-boundary mechanisms between local authorities for delivering housing growth in the past 14 years. Therefore, we do not intend to wait for strategic planning to be reintroduced. It is the Government’s intention for all future SDSs to be produced by strategic authorities, but I recognise that there is a sequencing issue here.
As I have said, however, establishing strategic authorities nationwide will be a gradual process, and the Government want all areas of England to feel the benefit of effective strategic planning as soon as possible. Strategic planning boards will allow areas outside of strategic authorities to do that, so we think there is a mechanism that will allow for those instances where a strategic authority is not yet in place. As I said, however, I do recognise the sequencing issue.
To reiterate to the hon. Gentleman, we have already identified funding for 2025-26 to support authorities to prepare for the production of spatial development strategies. We expect all local planning authorities within the area of a strategic planning authority, such as district councils within a combined authority, to be closely involved in the production of a spatial development strategy, including by sharing staff members and expertise. That is already standard practice in areas producing a joint local plan, which can be done at the discretion of local authorities wishing to take part, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. On that basis, I hope that I have reassured him and other hon. Members as to the Government’s intentions in this area.
Gideon Amos
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 47, page 63, leave out from line 28 to the end of line 28 on page 65.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 122, in clause 47, page 64, line 40, at end insert—
“(e) requiring the production of infrastructure delivery plans;
(f) funding for meeting the requirements of this subsection.”
This amendment would extend the list of matters which the Secretary of State could include in regulations about strategic planning boards.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I cannot tell you how delighted I am to be here for the second day in a row, with a third day tomorrow.
This simple amendment would block the mandatory transfer of powers over planning to strategic planning authorities in proposed new sections 12B and 12C of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. On the consultation for the spatial development strategy, we also think the consultation requirement in proposed new section 12H(3) should be replaced with a simple requirement to consult the public.
Blocking the mandatory transfer of powers over planning to strategic planning authorities would allow for greater local control and flexibility in decision making. It would ensure that planning decisions remained more closely aligned with the specific needs and priorities of individual communities, rather than being imposed by a centralised authority. Local authorities often have a better understanding of their residents’ needs, the environmental considerations and the unique challenges, making them more capable of tailoring development plans to suit their areas.
Retaining those powers at the local level would also promote accountability, as local officials and politicians are directly answerable to the communities they serve, and foster a more transparent and responsible planning process. That approach would encourage more balanced development that reflects local aspirations, while reducing the risk of a one-size-fits-all solution imposed from above.
We take into account the comments of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington about the burden on local authorities. I think the Minister has responded to that issue, but I would like to press him further on the Government’s drive to unitarisation. He is outlining that, as we go through, this would be a gradual process, but I hope he would acknowledge that there is a risk that the repeated reforming of local government could mean added bureaucracy and a repeated requirement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne said, to amalgamate plans and go through another review period. I hope the Minister can reassure us that there would be no burden on local authorities in relation to amendment 21, which slightly ties into the concerns and aspirations behind why amendment 76 was tabled, but I do not intend to debate this amendment for very long.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I bob to speak to amendment 122. Is now the right time?
Olly Glover
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq, and thank you for your ongoing generosity to those of us who continue to learn how Bill Committees work.
Lib Dem amendment 122 would require the production of infrastructure delivery plans by local authorities and accompanying funding to meet the requirements of those. I note the comments of other hon. Members about taking into account the administrative burden on local authorities; we need to strike the optimum balance here, but I shall explain why I think infrastructure development plans are of merit and need to be mandated.
For those not familiar with IDPs—to use yet another dreaded acronym—I should say that they are developed during the local plan-making stage and serve as an important part of the evidence base and quality of those local plans. They identify and schedule the infrastructure needs for a community, including social, physical and green infrastructure, all of which are needed in addition to houses for the high quality, well-functioning communities we all wish to see.
The planning policy team at the local authority writes to all infrastructure providers to ask them to identify what infrastructure will be needed to accompany the development that the local plan is proposing. That becomes a list, which is tested through a viability assessment and local plan examination. Once the plan is adopted, and at the point where planning applications are submitted, planning officers will use the IDP to help to secure infrastructure—through direct delivery, financial contributions or indeed a mix of the two. IDPs are therefore an important part of both securing infrastructure and tracking the progress of its delivery.
However, at present IDPs are not compulsory and are not specified in the national planning policy framework or the Government’s planning practice guidance. Local plans are supposed to be reviewed every five years, although many are not, and by extension IDPs may be updated only infrequently. We think Government should compel local authorities to produce infrastructure delivery plans so that communities get the necessary infrastructure to create the well-function communities that we need to transform our country.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. As we have seen, there are very many amendments to this part of the Bill, which speaks to the fact that it is one of the most important parts of the legislation the Government are moving through. It is absolutely necessary that it should happen, but I want to make a quick point about infrastructure that is pertinent to this amendment.
As the Minister knows, and the Committee may know, I represent Ebbsfleet Garden City in Dartford: a new community that has arisen from no homes in about 2015 to around 5,000 now, and is due to be 15,000 by the middle of the next decade. We have seen with Ebbsfleet Garden City the importance of social and physical infrastructure being built alongside homes. Generally, the corporation there has done a good job in making sure that there are schools, recreation areas, community spaces and medical facilities; the timing has not always been brilliant, and sometimes the growth of the homes has outstripped the provision of infrastructure, but that infrastructure does eventually get delivered.
It is extremely important that the Minister gives an assurance, in line with what the amendment, I know, is seeking to do. I do not know whether the precise format that the amendment suggests is the right way to do it, but it is vital that we see that social and physical infrastructure grow at the same time as the housing.
Lewis Cocking
Does the hon. Member agree that nothing in this Bill makes developers build the social infrastructure that he is describing, which many communities desperately need, first—or at all?
Jim Dickson
The hon. Member is helping me to make my point. The only difference I have with him is that I know that the Government intend to ensure that infrastructure appears at the same time as homes and the Minister will provide reassurance on that. It is vital that that happens, via either a development corporation with those powers, or the spatial development strategies that we are discussing. Let us ensure that we do build the physical and social infrastructure at the same time as homes, with the examples of generally good development we see in Ebbsfleet Garden City reproduced elsewhere, as the Government meet their ambitious plans to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me begin with amendment 76, tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, which seeks to remove provision for the establishment of strategic planning boards that would allow two or more authorities to produce a spatial development strategy jointly. The main purpose of strategic planning is to provide a mechanism for cross-boundary planning between local planning authorities and to plan for growth on a scale that is larger than local. For that to be done as effectively as possible, it is essential that spatial development strategies are produced across the most appropriate geographies. To that end, it will be necessary for some strategic planning authorities to be grouped together so that they can produce a spatial development strategy across their combined area. Unless SDSs are produced across appropriate geographies, they will not be as effective as they could be and the full benefits of strategic planning will not be realised.
To address the perfectly reasonable point made by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, establishing strategic authorities nationwide will be a gradual process, as I said, and the Government want all areas of England to benefit from effective strategic planning as soon as possible. Therefore, in some cases, responsibility for producing an SDS will transfer between different authorities while the broader reforms are being undertaken. We are seeking powers in the Bill to complement existing powers to make regulations for transitional arrangements when such scenarios occur, similar to how responsibility for a local plan can transfer when a local authority becomes a unitary authority. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
I turn to amendment 122, which seeks to add provision for infrastructure delivery plans and funding to the list of matters in proposed new section 12C(3) to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that the Secretary of State may consider, including in regulations establishing a strategic planning board. I should make it clear to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that that list is not exhaustive. Indeed, proposed new section 12C(2) is clear:
“Strategic planning board regulations may make provision about…such…matters as the Secretary of State considers are necessary or expedient to facilitate the exercise by a strategic planning board of its functions”.
In general terms, the Government are clear that new development must come with the appropriate social and physical infrastructure and amenities for new communities to thrive. The hon. Member for Broxbourne challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, saying that there are not provisions in the Bill directly relating to things like infrastructure delivery plans. That is right, but the Bill is not the sum total of the action the Government are taking in housing and planning. As my hon. Friend alluded to, we are talking action in other areas. However, to address the point made by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage directly, it is not the Government’s intention for strategic planning boards or any other strategic planning authority to be required to produce an infrastructure delivery plan, although I am more than happy to pick up the wider discussion about infrastructure with him outside the Committee.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for reiterating the Government’s position and commitment to infrastructure delivery alongside housing. Will he comment specifically on infrastructure that allows people to get on a train and go to work? Does he agree that transport infrastructure is critical and that we must not build homes in the middle of nowhere, which condemn people to poverty? The ability of people to connect to places by getting on a train or a bus to go to work and earn a decent wage, and then to get back home, is crucial for an economy that works for everyone.
Matthew Pennycook
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As we know, done properly, transport infrastructure and effective interventions in that regard can unlock huge numbers of homes. As I said, the Government have already taken action to support the provision of infrastructure, for example in the changes to the national planning policy framework in December last year, and we are looking at what more can be done, but it is not necessary for the clause to introduce that.
I will make a final point about how IDPs work now. IDPs are put in place where local authorities decide to take them forward, on the basis that they support the delivery of a local development plan. Local development plans have to be in general conformity with spatial development strategies. There is a clear link here, even though we are not asking strategic planning boards to have responsibility for bringing forward IDPs in the way that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage suggests. I hope that I have given him some reassurance and, on that basis, that he will agree that amendment 122 is not necessary. I also request that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley withdraws his amendment 76.
Paul Holmes
I appreciate the spirit in which, as usual, the Minister comes back. I am content to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I would appreciate some further conversations and some reassurance on how, in the reform of local government, we do not add an undue burden on local authorities.
The hon. Member for Barking made an astute point, as usual, approaching this topic with her experience: we must absolutely make sure that where development happens, whether in rural areas or areas in the middle of nowhere—although I presume that that would be rural too—the infrastructure also comes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne said, nowhere is that stated in the legislation.
The Minister is a man of integrity and I take what he says as such. I know that his aims and ambitions are to make sure that there are further plans with an infrastructure-first approach, but given the Bill at the moment, as well as the reforms and changes to the NPPF, the aspirations of the hon. Member for Barking will simply not be met under this legislative agenda. Indeed, some of the housing targets and reforms brought in by this Government have placed an overwhelming burden on rural areas, rather than on urban areas where the infrastructure is already in place and easier to develop.
We look forward to challenging and scrutinising the Minister in future stages of the Bill. We also await with anticipation proposed future legislation that he will bring forward on infrastructure—
Paul Holmes
Not legislation, sorry. Forgive me. We are good mates—well, I think we are—so I must resist the temptation to talk across the aisle. On that basis, we look forward to what the Minister will say. We will scrutinise the measures on infrastructure that he may bring forward, and we will not press the amendment to a vote.
Olly Glover
Briefly, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and for his empathy with and understanding of the point that we sought to make about infrastructure supporting housing. I am very grateful for his offer to discuss the wider problem at a future stage. On that basis, I am content not to move amendment 122.
Paul Holmes
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 47, page 65, line 34, at end insert—
“(1A) A spatial development strategy must prioritise for new development previously-developed land.”
This amendment would require that spatial development strategies prioritise development on brownfield land over other locations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 75, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) A strategic planning board has a duty to ensure that any development specified or described under subsections (4) or (5) does not take place on green belt land unless there is no practicable option for development in existing urban areas, including by—
(a) increasing the density of existing development, and
(b) regenerating an existing development,
in an urban area.”
This amendment would ensure that a strategic planning board must only propose development on green belt land where development in urban areas is not possible.
Amendment 82, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) Where a spatial development strategy proposes the development or use of agricultural land, the strategy must consider—
(a) the grade of such agricultural land;
(b) the cumulative impact of projects developing or using such agricultural land.”
New clause 104—Protection of Green Belt land—
“For the purposes of protecting Green Belt land, local planning authorities must—
(a) within two years of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of existing areas of Green Belt land and;
(b) for areas designated as Green Belt land under the review, prevent any development for a minimum period of 20 years.”
Paul Holmes
The amendments stand in the name my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner or, in the case of amendment 82, my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland—I cannot remember his constituency name, but he is listed on the amendment paper. Like the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, I am learning on the job—
Paul Holmes
I appreciate your forbearance, Dr Huq.
The amendment and the others tabled by Conservative Members relate to a brownfield-first approach. Our concern with the measures in the legislation as drafted, and with the actions of the Government so far, is that the green belt at the moment is under threat. Specifically, with amendment 72, we want to ensure that land that has previously been developed should be considered for development ahead of other categories of land. That will reduce pressure to build on undeveloped greenfield land, helping to protect natural habitats, agricultural land and green belt.
In addition, we believe that such developments can regenerate neglected or derelict urban areas, improving the local environment, attracting investment and jobs, and helping residents. That is not to mention that putting brownfield sites first may benefit from existing infrastructure such as roads, public transport and water power, reducing the need for costly new developments, and making services more efficient. Essentially, we are saying to the Minister that we want spatial development to have a brownfield-first and an existing development-first approach, and a basic assumption within those guidelines.
With amendment 75, we want essentially to allow development on green-belt land only where urban development is not possible. Already we have seen in the last couple of weeks the Mayor of London, for example—despite assurances from this Government that the green belt would be safe—proposing to put something forward around the M25 on green-belt land. I know the Minister cannot comment on live planning or on the decision made by the Secretary of State this week, but there are other examples where we are seeing an encroachment on to the green belt. The Government have given assurances that the green belt would not be under threat, but we can see that some measures in the spatial development strategies and the existing powers being given to Ministers and the Secretary of State do not provide overwhelming safeguards to the green belt across the UK.
The amendment is a perfectly practicable step to make sure that ,where we have previously developed land and brownfield sites, there is a basic assumption that that is where buildings should go first, for all the reasons I set out. We also think that restricting development on green-belt land, and allowing it only where urban development is not possible, helps to protect the countryside from urban sprawl and ensures that the natural landscape, farmland and biodiversity are preserved for future generations.
We also argue that it encourages a more efficient use of previously developed brownfield sites, as I said, within towns and cities, supporting urban regeneration and reducing the environmental impact of new construction. I think that slightly matches the aspirations of the hon. Member for Barking: by focusing growth within existing urban areas, this approach also makes better use of existing infrastructure and public services, helps to maintain clear boundaries between towns and rural areas, and supports sustainable patterns of development that are less car dependent and more community focused.
Amendment 82 would require that a spatial development strategy consider the grade of agricultural land and the cumulative impact of projects on agricultural land. Notwithstanding what I said about the protection of the green belt, previous actions, particularly by the Minister’s ministerial colleagues from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, show an eradication of, and an easier approach to developing on, agricultural land. The position we have long held on that, which I know the Minister may not agree with, is that in this world of uncertainty, agricultural land should be protected. Food security is of absolute importance when we have seen food prices go up in the country because of international uncertainty.
By requiring a spatial development strategy to consider both the grade of agricultural land and the cumulative impact of projects such as the ones I described, the amendment would help to safeguard the UK’s long-term food security. High-grade agricultural land is a finite and valuable resource—I think everyone on the Committee would agree with that—and it is essential for domestic food production. Factoring in its quality ensures that development prioritises lower-value land where possible, reducing the loss of productive farm land. Additionally, considering the cumulative impact of multiple developments helps to prevent gradual, piecemeal erosion of agricultural capacity, which might otherwise go unnoticed in individual planning decisions. This approach promotes a more balanced and informed strategy that protects rural economies, biodiversity and the resilience of the agricultural sector.
I hope the Minister takes the amendments in the spirit in which they are intended, which is to protect. They are not political amendments, but genuine attempts to probe the Minister to see whether he could bring in some additional protections—despite previous actions on the green belt—and look to strengthen the legislation to protect agricultural land, which I know he will agree is so important at this time for our domestic food production. The Government have been positive, and I welcome the food strategy announced by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We support that, and we absolutely agree with the aspiration.
We need a food strategy in this country—before the Minister stands up and says that the last Government did not do enough on that, let me say that I think that is a fair challenge. That is why we welcomed the Secretary of State’s announcement at the beginning of this Government, but that has to be matched by the legislative actions being taken in other areas of Government, which is why we have tabled these amendments.
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak to new clause 104, which relates to green belt protection. We recognise that the Government’s proposals are set out in the national planning policy framework. We do not support the way in which the standard method is being imposed on local authorities, nor do we support the way in which green belt release will be forced on local authorities through the requirement that they review and effectively release land for green belt. However, among the rules that the Government have put forward, we sympathise with the strictures they have come up with for the release of green-belt land where local authorities decide to do that, which should support higher levels of social housing.
Our new clause would require a quid pro quo for the release of green-belt land, which clearly will happen—it must happen, because it has been required and dictated in an NPPF. Local areas want to see proper protection for their green-belt land. Indeed, many areas would like to have a green belt, but it is extremely difficult for areas that have not historically had green belt to introduce it, such that there are hardly any areas where that has ever happened.
There is therefore an inequity in terms of protecting land. Greenfield land can be just as valuable and important in Taunton, where we have green wedges stretching into the centre of town, as it is in and around London, where there is official green belt protection. Our new clause would provide for local authorities to carry out a review of the green belt and then to protect that land from development for 20 years. That semi-permanent protection would be a quid pro quo for the loss of green-belt land that many authorities will see under the NPPF.
It gives people a real sense of the planning system’s failures when they have believed for years and years that a piece of land near them is protected green belt, but then they attend the planning committee or some meeting, and a planner—possibly like myself in the past—comes up and says, “Oh, no, no. It’s not actually protected any more. It’s not got long-term protection; that protection didn’t mean anything,” and it is wafted away. Communities want to know how their most precious areas of green land will be protected. Our amendment seeks to provide them with a mechanism to establish green belt protection for at least 20 years.
Nesil Caliskan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I would like to make a couple of points about the green belt, not least because I would like to address the direct comments from the shadow Minister.
Nesil Caliskan
I do not expect him to have followed my very short career to date or my position on the green belt, but just for the record, my long-standing position has been to identify appropriate areas on the green belt, particularly in London, where we have a housing crisis, that can be built on. The truth is that there are many areas of the green belt—areas that could, indeed, be described as grey belt—that already have some kind of development, perhaps without planning permission, or where enforcement is needed, that are entirely appropriate for housing development, and many of those areas are already well connected.
In my constituency, a new train station has been built in the Barking Riverside area in recent years. It is not green belt, but it is strategic industrial land. In our discussions about well-connected neighbourhoods, we often forget the pressure on strategic industrial land, too. That is a good example of where infrastructure was delivered and houses have followed. The rest of the country can follow that example.
On the point about urban areas needing to be the priority for development, of course, we have to see urban development intensify in housing delivery, but many of our urban areas already have high density, and overcrowding is a familiar picture. It is simply not possible to deliver the housing numbers we need by looking only at urban areas. I often hear the argument that it should be brownfield sites first. Of course, they should be first, but if people think there is a secret drawer full of brownfield sites that will deliver the housing numbers we need in this country, they are out of touch with the housing pressures facing our communities.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is right that I have not followed the minutiae of her career, but I know from her comments in the Chamber and this Committee that she has an expertise that we should all listen to, even if we disagree. She led a council for a good while, so I know that she is an expert in these areas.
She outlined in her comments that urban areas should have a higher rate of delivery because they are of higher densities. Why is it, then, that on the Floor of the House, that is not matched by what she is voting for? Housing targets under the new algorithm in her area and her constituency are being reduced, while in rural areas, where she is concerned about the lack of infrastructure, they are being increased exponentially. How does she defend that, with what she has just said?
Nesil Caliskan
The hon. Member gives me the opportunity to make two points. First, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will allow the Government to spearhead infrastructure delivery in this country in rural areas that do not have the necessary infrastructure. That is why the Bill is so important. With the necessary infrastructure, we will be able to see the delivery of homes not just in urban areas. Secondly, to the point about housing delivery in Barking and Dagenham, the area has some of the most impressive stats for house building in London and the rest of the country. It has been delivering housing at a much better rate than areas not just in London, but in the rest of the country.
My final point is about the threat to the green belt, which the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington mentioned. The biggest threat to the green belt is not having a strategic approach to planning in this country. If we take the absence of local plans in areas, as it stands, the legal framework means that if a planner says no to a planning application, and there is no up-to-date local plan, then on appeal, the appeal process can enforce such that the development happens in the green belt anyway. We need a strategic approach across the country that not only encourages or, in fact, forces local authorities to have up-to-date local plans, but ensures that house building—alongside infrastructure, which I firmly believe the Bill will help to deliver—is fair in its approach to delivering homes.
We cannot just build in urban areas. We do not have that capacity. It is unfair for those who are already living in overcrowded accommodation. People deserve to have access to open and green spaces, and our rural communities deserve to have the infrastructure necessary for well-connected neighbourhoods. I firmly believe that the Bill supports that, and that the debate around green belt and access is more nuanced than some Opposition Members have set out.
Lewis Cocking
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I rise in support of amendments 72, 75 and 82. I await with anticipation what the Minister will say, because surely we can all agree that green belt should be protected and that we should do brownfield first. Sometimes, under the current planning system, green-belt land gets developed on through the back door.
Even if a council has an up-to-date local plan, there can be issues if it does not meet its five-year land supply or housing targets in terms of its build-out rates, which the council has very little control over. The council has control over the speed and determination of planning applications. However, it can approve all the applications it wants—it could approve thousands—but if the developer or developers are not building them, the council then gets punished. Someone else will come along and say, “I want to develop on this piece of green-belt land,” and when that goes to appeal, the Planning Inspectorate will say to the council, “You haven’t got a five-year land supply, and you’re not meeting your build-out rate targets.” It is the community and the council that get punished for developers not building what they have been given approval to build.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In relation to previous comments that have been made about building on green belt through the back door, does he agree that these amendments strengthen the case for some of those councils? The current planning appeals system takes into regard national guidelines and national legislation, and these amendments provide a safeguard to stop some of those things happening.
Lewis Cocking
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, and I completely agree. We should do anything we can to strengthen councils’ hands in protecting green belt. I suspect there is broad support for brownfield-first and protecting the green belt.
I turn to amendment 82, tabled by the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). A wider failure of the planning system is that it does not account for the cumulative impact of lots of planning decisions. This amendment goes some way to protecting farmland. It may be appropriate for a field to be developed for a specific farming purpose, but if there is lots of development in farming areas in a specific location and the planning committee does not take into account the cumulative impact, there can be negative consequences—for example, where a floodplain is built on and that creates issues for the field next door.
The Government need to grapple with this wider issue of the cumulative impact of lots of development. At the moment, planning committees judge the planning application in front of them and do not necessarily look at the cumulative impact. I hope the Government will support our amendments, in particular amendment 82, which tries to rectify some of those cumulative impacts in order to protect our agricultural land, which is very important for our food security.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank members of the Committee for these amendments. I hope I can give them some reassurance that none of them is necessary from the Government’s point of view.
I turn first to amendments 72, 75 and 82, tabled by the hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. These amendments relate to developments taking place on green-belt, brownfield and agricultural land resulting from the introduction of spatial development strategies. While I understand the positive intent behind the amendments in seeking to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect valuable land from development, they are not necessary, as current national policy already achieves the intended aims.
On amendment 72, I fully agree that we must make the best use possible of brownfield land for development. The Government have been very clear that we have a brownfield-first approach to development. That is recognised in national planning policy. We made changes in the recent national planning policy framework update to expand the definition of “previously developed land” and reinforce the expectation that development proposals on such land within settlements should normally be approved.
We are also consulting on our working paper on a brownfield passport, which we are considering through the introduction of national development management policies, as provided for by the previous Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The aim of those proposals we are seeking feedback on—lots of feedback has been gratefully received—is to ensure that we prioritise and accelerate the development of previously developed land wherever possible. We are very firm on our brownfield-first approach.
Paul Holmes
I accept what the Minister says; there is a recognition across Government, demonstrated by some of the actions they have taken, that they have a brownfield-first approach. I simply ask him: what has he got to fear from an amendment that would back that up and ensure that that goes out into the community, strengthening his Government’s position?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that challenge. On this whole group of amendments, whether they have been tabled on the basis of a misunderstanding of spatial development strategies or Members have just taken the opportunity—I completely appreciate why—to initiate wider debates on the Government’s national planning policy, I will address why I do not think they are necessary.
The Government are in absolute agreement on the point made about brownfield first. In a sense, we want the default answer for planning permissions on brownfield to be yes, unless circumstances necessitate otherwise. The hon. Member for Broxbourne made a very good point about build-out, which I addressed yesterday. The Government are looking to take action on build-out, not least with the introduction of the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, to incentivise the prompt build-out of housing sites, and we are looking to bring those forward in fairly short order.
Lewis Cocking
The Minister has just said that he wants a default yes on brownfield sites. Is he concerned that if we give carte blanche to developers and say, “You can build whatever you want on brownfield sites,” some of that development on brownfield sites will not be of the quality that I am sure we both want?
Matthew Pennycook
I am not concerned, for the reasons set out in the “Brownfield Passport” working paper, which I encourage the hon. Gentleman to go away and read, if he has not had the chance to do so already. In a sense, we are looking at a set of proposals, and again I emphasise that we have asked for feedback on them and we are considering how that feedback maps on to how we take forward this approach through national development management policies. In effect, we are saying that there is a presumption that the answer to applications on brownfield land is yes, but it has to meet certain criteria and conditions. The various options that we have explored are set out in that note, but it would absolutely not be a free-for-all on brownfield land, so I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman on that point.
I do not agree that amendment 72 is necessary to achieve the important objective that it raises because, while spatial development strategies will provide for a high-level framework for infrastructure investment for housing growth, they will not allocate specific sites. Strategic planning authorities will be required to have regard to the need to ensure that their spatial development strategy is consistent with national policy. National planning policy, as I have said, already provides strong support for brownfield development, and it is clear that brownfield land should be the first port of call.
It is also clear that authorities should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs. In the event that spatial development strategies do not meet the requirements of the NPPF, the Bill gives the Secretary of State a range of intervention powers to ensure consistency with national policies, and those national policies are clear, as I have argued. I therefore ask that the shadow Minister withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 75 seeks to ensure that spatial development strategies consider other practical options before identifying infrastructure or the distribution of housing within the green belt. To be clear, spatial development strategies cannot allocate land for development. This is a really important point: they can identify broad locations for new development, if the participating members wish to take those forward, and that may include land within the green belt. However, the formal allocation of sites will remain the preserve of local plans and neighbourhood plans.
I am in full agreement that it is crucial to take a brownfield-first approach to development, as I have said, in which the reuse of previously developed land and options to increase density are given priority. I can assure Opposition Members that, when any such green belt review takes place, existing planning policy in relation to the reuse of green belt will still apply. The NPPF makes it clear that, when plans are considering the release of green-belt land, they must demonstrate that they have examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting identified needs, including making use of brownfield land and optimising the density of developments. This is a point that I have made on several other occasions: there is a sequential approach to plan making to green-belt release, and it is very clearly set out what the Government intend in that regard.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My apologies, Dr Huq, for my late arrival to the Committee. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley, for moving the amendment, which stands in my name. I seek a more detailed assurance from the Minister. I appreciate that he is not in a position to comment on the specifics of individual cases, but yesterday I raised something that is very pertinent: the decision of the Secretary of State on the Abbots Langley development.
It was a longstanding principle of the approach to green belt that, where there were hard boundaries such as motorways, rivers and railway lines, the preservation of green space between them and adjoining settlements was very important, because it creates a green boundary and some additional space to reduce air pollution. The Secretary of State’s decision in respect of the national planning policy framework 2025 is effectively to redesignate all such land as grey belt. Areas that our constituents clearly understood were directly protected and were in the green belt have effectively, at the stroke of a pen, been redesignated as grey belt and eligible for development. That is why these amendments are so important. We need to guarantee that those vital green spaces, which provide a bit of a cushion between hard infrastructure and people’s residences, will be preserved and protected. Without commenting on that specific case, will the Minister address the legitimate concerns raised by that decision?
Matthew Pennycook
I will make a couple of points in response to the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I understand his argument, but I go back to the point that what we are doing in this clause and others in this part of the Bill is setting out a framework for spatial development strategies for cross-boundary strategic planning. National planning policy is already in place in those areas and is very clear. The national planning policy framework sets out the considerations for deciding whether development in the green belt is appropriate.
The definition of grey belt is set out in the glossary of the NPPF. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it includes previously developed land in the green belt, such as disused petrol stations, and other land that, although formally designated green belt, does not strongly contribute to green belt purposes. The test of what qualifies as grey belt is very clear in the NPPF, and that is supplemented by planning policy guidance. For every application, there will be a judgment about how the national policy applies—the hon. Gentleman will understand, for the reasons he has outlined, why I will not comment on specifics.
I repeat that it will not be for SDSs to allocate plots of land; that will be for local plans and neighbourhood plans. Where the release of green-belt land is necessary, the Government are asking authorities to prioritise the release of brownfield land within the green belt, along the lines I have just discussed. Our proposal in the Bill to allow spatial development strategies to specify infrastructure of strategic importance or an amount of distribution of affordable housing does not change the existing requirements in relation to the release of green-belt land. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendment 75.
I can assure the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine that the Government are committed to maintaining strong protections on agricultural land, but I do not consider amendment 82 to be necessary to achieve that objective. Strategic planning authorities will need to consider national policy when preparing their SDSs. The NPPF is clear that authorities should make best use of brownfield land before considering development on other types of land, including agricultural land. Planning policy already recognises the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. If the development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land should be prioritised.
The Government are supplementing the national planning policy that is in place in respect of this issue with a land use framework, which has gone out to consultation. That will set out the Government’s vision for long-term land use change, including by exploring what improvements are needed to the agricultural land classification system to support effective land use decisions. We all agree on the need, on such a constrained island, to make the most effective use of land possible.
When it comes to issues such as solar farms, which we have discussed in the Chamber many times, I want to ensure the debate is proportionate. Even in some of the most optimistic scenarios I have seen for solar deployment, no more than 1% of agricultural land will be released. That is why the National Farmers Union and other bodies have called for a proportionate debate in this area. It will be necessary in certain circumstances to release agricultural land, but that must clearly proceed on the basis of national planning policy.
In the event that spatial development strategies do not meet the requirements in the NPPF, the Bill gives the Secretary of State a range of intervention powers to ensure consistency with national policies. For those reasons, I am confident that there is adequate planning policy and guidance already in place to describe requirements for development on different types of land tenures.
New clause 104, in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, also focuses on green-belt developments. It seeks to prevent development on green-belt land for 20 years or more after a green belt review has been completed. As hon. Members know, the Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another. That remains the case.
I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking. Not only did the green belt expand between 1979 and 1997—it almost doubled to just over 1.6 million hectares—but we saw a significant amount of green-belt land release, in what I would argue was a completely haphazard manner, under the last Government. It is not the case that this Government have introduced green-belt land release for the first time, and through the changes to national policy we are trying to introduce a strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release so that we release the right parts of the green belt first. Our revised national planning policy framework maintains strong protections for the green belt and preserves the long-standing green-belt purposes. It also underlines our commitment to a brownfield-first approach.
However, we know that there is not enough brownfield land in this country, and not least brownfield land that is viable and in the right locations to meet housing demand and needs. That is why we ask local authorities who cannot meet their needs through it to review their green-belt land to identify opportunities to create more affordable, sustainable and well designed developments. In doing so, we expect authorities to prioritise the development of brownfield land and low quality grey-belt land in the first instance.
High performing green-belt land and land safeguarded for environmental reasons will still be protected, and our new golden rules will ensure that development that takes place on the green belt benefits communities in nature, including the delivery of high numbers of affordable housing. That is a really important point to stress once again. Given the value that the public attribute to the green belt, the Government clearly expect that through our golden rules the communities that see development take place on it will benefit in a way that is slightly different from other forms of development.
The framework is clear that where it is necessary—only in exceptional circumstances—to alter green-belt boundaries, that must be done using the local plan process of public consultation and formal examination by planning inspectors. The framework is clear that development can be committed in the green belt only in specific prescribed exceptional circumstances. Beyond that, it can happen only in very special circumstances. That is a high bar.
Given that statutory plans secure the designated status of green-belt land and that planning policy already demands the rational and evidence-based application of green-belt protection for plans and decisions, I do not consider amendment to be necessary. In the same way as I have politely asked Opposition Front-Bench Members to withdraw their amendments, I hope the hon. Member will feel content to withdraw this amendment, for the reasons that I have outlined.
Paul Holmes
As always, I appreciate the Minister’s very detailed response. However, we tabled these amendments to set a precedent. We welcome the Minister’s clear words about how there is an anticipation and a want from the Government’s policy agenda, particularly through the NPPF, for a brownfield-first strategy. He therefore has nothing to fear from allowing some of these new spatial development strategy boards to have that precedence underlying how they are acting and operating.
The Minister is absolutely right that those boards do not allocate sites, but there is an argument to be made about where those boards, in their constitution through the national legislation that is being set up, are guided by precedence that is overwhelmingly backed, as he clearly said, by other legislation and guidance from his Department. He therefore has nothing to fear from amendments 72 and 75.
On amendment 82, I completely understand the Minister’s point. It would be churlish for any politician to stand up and say there should be absolutely no development on agricultural land. That is a fair challenge, and that is not what the amendment’s parameters seek to establish. He was right that development will be needed on such sites on occasions, but again, the amendment would clearly set out that the most valuable productive agricultural land—not in terms of financial value—would have precedence in the guidelines of these new boards.
Again, the Minister should not fear the intentions of the amendment. He clearly set out that he agrees—much more than I thought he would—with some of the aims and aspirations behind the amendments. Apparently, his Government agree with those intentions and will cover them through other means. He should not fear the amendments. I politely ask him to accept them, although I know that he will not change his mind.
Paul Holmes
That does not mean to say that once they are reviewed again after 20 years, those sites might not be allocated, but that is the choice of the local authority and the local people that are leading that piece of work.
I say to the hon. Gentleman that he would have our support for new clause 104 if he decided to press it to a Division. However, there is a clear precedent and reason why we have tabled our three amendments. I say to the Minister that we must go for a brownfield-first approach, with an acceptance that we must protect green-belt land when urban development is not possible. We must also protect the most valuable and productive agricultural land in the country through the planning system and Government regulation. We intend to press amendments 72, 75 and 82 to a vote. I hope that the Liberal Democrats also press theirs to a vote.
Gideon Amos
I rise simply to confirm that we will press new clause 104 to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
I will be brief because I can see that the hon. Members opposite are intent on pressing the amendments to a vote. I have a couple of things to say, at risk of eroding the fondness that hon. Members opposite have expressed for me in recent days. That is troubling, but I will continue none the less.
What can I gently say to the shadow Minister? I think he must have forgotten—because I am sure he has not overlooked it—that it is not the case that the Government have been converted to the Opposition’s view on the subject. From day one, we have been clear about the stipulations in terms of a brownfield-first approach, and the approach to green-belt release that I have outlined. They were clear in the NPPF changes, and they remain the case. I gently challenge the hon. Members by asking them to think again.
SDSs are intended to be high-level plans for housing growth and the allocation of infrastructure investment. They are not big local plans; they do not need to do everything in national planning policy. The logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley is that we transcribe all national planning policy into SDSs and have requirements. The requirements are already there, they apply, and regard will need to be given to them in the development and production of SDSs. For those reasons, I do not think that the amendments are necessary. I humbly ask hon. Members to give a final thought about whether we need a Division.
David Simmonds
Again, at the risk of a political love-in taking place, I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with all of the debates extremely courteously, and he has responded in detail. However, there is a genuine point of principle. I gently respond to him on a point that I raised earlier. We have had a lot of assurances that there is a shared direction of travel around the protection of the green belt.
However, the first significant decision that has been taken by the Secretary of State, in line with the planning practice guidance from February 2025, has driven a coach and horses through the expectations that were set about how that protection will operate. I think that that has stiffened the resolve on this side, so that we are now saying that we need to press the issue, because it is clear that whatever undertakings appear to be made, the reality is that decisions to develop on the green belt, in places that constituents reasonably expect to be protected, are being taken. Therefore, we need to ensure that, as far as possible, we secure those protections in the legislation.
Matthew Pennycook
As I have already said, I will not speak about two individual decisions that have been made. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that the concern that he outlines—that is, a particular decision that he does not agree with—will not be resolved by trying to transcribe national planning policy into the SDS process. National planning policy remains in force, and I do not think it is necessary that in order to achieve the aims that are set out, which the Government agree with—in terms of brownfield first and a strategic approach to green belt release—for the amendments to be agreed. I ask hon. Members to think again, but reading the room, I think they are certain about pressing the amendment to a vote. The Government will resist it.
The Chair
No, because the debate was now, but the votes on amendments 75 and 82 and new clause 104 will come later.
The Chair
This afternoon, probably, after lunch. [Hon. Members: “Why?”] They are in that sequence on the amendment paper.
Gen Kitchen (Wellingborough and Rushden) (Lab)
I know we vote on new clause 104 later. But will we vote on amendments 75 and 82 now?
The Chair
If you look at your amendment paper, page 7 has got amendment 75, but we are only on page 2 now.
Gen Kitchen
Is it not that they are grouped together, so we vote on them as a group?
Paul Holmes
On a point of order, Dr Huq. I am not questioning the Clerk, who has been fantastic, or you as Chair, but I simply do not understand. It may be that I am being thick and stupid. All week we have had votes on the amendment paper listed by grouping, which I have been following. We have votes on amendments in the order they have appeared in the selection list.
I understand that new clauses are slightly different, but the precedent from the previous sessions is that we have voted on Opposition and other amendments tabled in the order they appear in the groupings. Can you explain why, on this occasion, we have voted on Opposition amendment 72, but amendments 75 and 82 come later? I am not challenging your decision; I am just seeking your clarification.
The Chair
The Clerk will talk to you afterwards. We want to go to Prime Minister’s Question Time—there are Members in the Committee Room who have questions at PMQs. As I said, amendment 122 was another example of an amendment where the debate and the vote were separate—I said that it had been previously debated.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 47, page 65, line 36, at end insert—
“(2A) A spatial development strategy must have regard to the need to provide 150,000 new social homes nationally a year.”
This amendment would require spatial development strategy to have regard to the need to provide 150,000 social homes nationally a year.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 73, in clause 47, page 66, line 8, after “describe” insert
“(subject to the conditions in subsection (5A))”.
Amendment 17, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert
“; (c) a specific density of housing development which ensures effective use of land and which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.”
This amendment requires strategic planning authorities to include a specific housing density in their plans which ensures land is used effectively where it is considered strategically important.
Amendment 35, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert—
“(c) the particular features or characteristics of communities or areas covered by the strategy which new development must have regard to in order to support and develop a sense of belonging and sense of place;
(d) a design style to which development taking place in part or all of the area covered by the strategy must have regard;
(e) any natural landmarks or features to which development should be sympathetic.”
Amendment 74, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert—
“(5A) Where a spatial development strategy specifies or describes an amount or distribution of housing, the strategy must not—
(a) increase the number of homes to be developed in any part of the strategy area by more than 20%, or
(b) reduce the required number of homes to be developed by more than 20% in area part of a strategy area which is an urban area, when compared to the previous spatial development strategy or the amount of housing currently provided in the relevant area.
(5B) In subsection (5A) “urban area” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”
This amendment would place limits on changes to housing targets in a spatial development strategy.
Amendment 94, in clause 47, page 67, line 11, leave out from “means” to the end of line 14 and insert
“housing which is to be let as social rent housing.
(15) For the purposes of this section, “social rent housing” has the meaning given by paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 and paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023.”
This amendment would define affordable housing, for the purposes of spatial development strategies, as social rent housing, as defined in the Directions on Rent Standards.
Amendment 85, in clause 47, page 67, line 13, after “2008,” insert—
“(aa) housing provided by an almshouse charity,”.
Gideon Amos
Amendment 29 would give effect to the Liberal Democrat target of building 150,000 new social homes per year by introducing such a requirement into spatial development strategies. It is a commitment set out in our manifesto, alongside a funding commitment of £6 billion per annum of capital investment—above current levels of affordable housing programme spending—to get to that level of provision over the course of a Parliament.
In contrast, the Government’s commitment of £2 billion in affordable housing programme funding for 2026-27, for up to 18,000 homes, is welcome but, in our view, does not go far enough. For too many people, a decent home has crept out of reach. The National Housing Federation and Shelter both make it clear that at least 90,000 new social homes are needed per year, given the loss of 20,500 social homes in 2023-24. According to the New Economics Foundation, 2 million council and social rent homes have been lost to right to buy since the 1980s, but only 4% of those have been replaced—a massive sell-off, leaving far too many people out in the cold when it comes to their housing aspirations.
A bath cannot be filled if the plug has been taken out. We need to end the current system of right to buy and allow councils the power to do so. As the University of Glasgow has shown, the building of private homes—even at the rates the Government advocate—will not mean any significant reduction in house prices. We should not rely on the private sector to build those low-rent and social rent homes we need. Private sector homes are built for profit. We need private market housing, and we have consented to thousands of new homes in my Taunton and Wellington constituency. However, those homes will never be released on to the market at a rate that will diminish prices or bring rents down to the levels that most people can afford. For all those reasons, we need to build 150,000 social rent homes per year, and that is the target that this amendment seeks to install into spatial environment strategies.
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I rise to speak to amendments 17 and 94. Can you clarify this is the correct time to do so?
Ellie Chowns
Marvellous! These amendments have been tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), and I speak to them as probing amendments. Amendment 17
“requires strategic planning authorities to include a specific housing density in their plans which ensures land is used effectively where it is considered strategically important.”
In our previous debate, we discussed questions of housing density. This amendment would help ensure land is used as effectively and efficiently as possible and prevent urban sprawl by encouraging strategic planning strategies to specify the optimal level of housing densities. It is not about specifying particular levels of housing densities but making sure that, in the preparation of strategic plans, adequate attention is given to the question of housing density.
That has a couple of benefits. First, it prevents unnecessary encroachment on green spaces, which, as I think we all agree, are so important—not just for nature protection but human wellbeing. It is also about ensuring that developments themselves have the life they need to succeed. The hon. Member for Barking made the point about the facilities, size and density of communities being at the critical mass to generate liveable communities. That means enough people to provide transport infrastructure and services, for example.
That is particularly relevant, as obviously our vital targets for decarbonisation require a modal shift away from short car journeys and towards active travel and public transport. Those forms of transport are especially supported by increasing housing density, so I would very much welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
Amendment 94 is concerned with the definition of affordable housing in clause 47, and suggests that, for the purposes of the clause, “affordable housing” should be considered to mean “social rent housing.” In our debate yesterday, it was pointed out that so-called affordable housing should be done only with air quotes around it, because so often it is not anywhere close to being affordable. We have, however, already set out in existing legislation and guidance what social rent housing means.
The reality is that in our housing market, social rented housing is the most affordable form of housing by far. In the context of a housing crisis and an increasingly and incredibly unequal housing market, it is crucial that when we set strategic plans to create affordable housing, that housing must be genuinely affordable. That has to mean social rent. I very much look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Olly Glover
I shall keep my remarks brief, because we had a rich discussion during yesterday afternoon’s session about the need for social and affordable housing. I wish to say a few words in support of amendment 29, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington, which would stipulate within a spatial development strategy the need to provide 150,000 new social homes a year nationally. It is notable that all members of the Committee made clear their support for social and affordable housing, but we had a very valid debate yesterday about how to get there.
As per the evidence I gave from my constituency, and as is the case in many others, it has become clear that leaving it to the market and hoping that that leads to sufficient affordable and social housing is not an approach that has hitherto succeeded. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches therefore very much support mandating targets and far more social homes as part of the mix, rather than just hoping it happens organically via developers and local council regulation.
Paul Holmes
On a point of process, Dr Huq, I wish to move amendments 73 and 74. Do I speak to them now and move them formally?
Paul Holmes
Okay, I just wanted to double check. The Opposition have tabled amendments 73 and 74 to limit increases and decreases in the allocation of housing targets when being assessed by spatial development strategies. The Minister should not be surprised by this approach. We have been very clear from the beginning that we disagree fundamentally with how the Minister and the Secretary of State have decided to assess housing targets and algorithms since they took office last July.
We fundamentally disagree with what we think is a politically gerrymandering housing algorithm, as we can quite clearly see through the evidence. We believe that in the rural areas where there is a lack of infrastructure—notwithstanding that we agree that infrastructure needs to be built, although, as the Minister has said, there is no actual mechanism in the legislation to insist on an infrastructure-first approach—the housing targets outlined by the Government are political gerrymandering. In very rural areas, housing targets can sometimes be doubled, tripled or quadrupled, but in urban centres and particularly in cities, those housing targets have been reduced.
We have tabled our amendments because we believe there needs to be some guidance on spatial development strategies. There should be national guidance and regulation for the Government’s approach to housing allocation: on how much they should be allowed to uplift, but also on how much that they can decrease, particularly in the amount of housing they can deliver in urban areas.
There is precedent for why we have done this. If we take my constituency of Hamble Valley as an example, there are two local authority areas. Under the Minister’s proposals, Fareham borough council has gone from a yearly housing target of 470 houses to one of more than 800. Eastleigh borough council, which is already over-delivering on its annual housing targets, currently has a target of around 623. They are building 1,200 homes a year themselves because of their debt levels, which is clearly a massive overreach and increase in an area that does not have the necessary infrastructure. The doubling of that requirement for house building, including on junction 7 of the M27—I do not expect the Minister to know the geography—is leading to huge amounts of bad effects with increased traffic because of the lack of infrastructure delivered alongside the housing targets.
If the Minister looks at neighbouring Southampton city council, which is controlled by the Labour party and has delivered only 200 homes a year, whether they are affordable or for private purchase, its targets have been reduced from 1,200 a year to 1,000 a year. That is the same in nearly every urban authority that the Minister has put forward—[Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but if he looks at the evidence from the House of Commons Library, housing targets in urban council-centred areas are generally being reduced. It is happening in Southampton, and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Barking—her targets have gone down.
Need I remind the Minister that it is also happening in London? The Government’s targets in London are being reduced, while the mayor has announced just this week that he wants to build on the green belt. If he is so keen to build, he should be looking at the densification of his city. He should be looking to build on brownfield sites first, as we have just discussed, and he should not be given political cover for failure by a Minister and a Secretary of State who are reducing housing targets in predominantly Labour council areas in urban cities.
That is an argument that we have rehearsed before. I know the Minister will come back and say that he disagrees, and I expect him to do that, because he is defending his algorithm, but he cannot defend it to the people in this country. It is a politically gerrymandering algorithm that damages. It targets the failure of predominantly Labour councils in urban areas, and targets the success of predominantly rural authorities that struggle, and it punishes them. Those are the areas that have challenges that urban areas do not have in trying to match those housing targets.
We have tabled amendment 74 in such detail—to ensure that there cannot be an increase in the number of homes in any strategy area of more than 20%, or a reduction of the required number of homes in urban areas by more than 20%—to try to mitigate some of those politically motivated measures that the Government have undertaken in other areas through the national planning policy framework. That is why we are putting forward these amendments.
We have a fundamental disagreement with the Minister over the housing algorithm. He knows that we have a fundamental disagreement over housing targets and the way in which they deliver them, because we think that, where there are hugely increased housing targets, that places a burden on local authorities. The algorithm also reduces the quality of housing provided, because there is a rush to try to meet housing targets for fear of Government repercussions, but the quality of builds, the quality of the developments and the associated infrastructure and community investment goes down. Believe me, I have seen that in my local authority, and I invite the Minister to attend my constituency at any time he wants. On its boundaries, Eastleigh borough council has been building double the number of homes that are required. The financial decisions that it has made mean that the quality of development has gone down and resentment among the public has gone up. The infrastructure that has not been delivered means that people in my local area—and areas across the locality in Hampshire, just outside my constituency—suffer.
So I say to the Minister: that is why we are tabling these amendments. I know that he is going to come back to me very strongly—
Paul Holmes
Well, the Minister says “facts”, but he should read the House of Commons Library document on the housing targets that he proposed. He cannot deny that the rural uplift in housing targets under his algorithm is an exponential rise, but the increase under his housing algorithm for urban centres is much smaller. That is delivered by the fact that for many urban centres in cities across the United Kingdom, the number of houses required under his Government’s targets has reduced.
I look forward to the Minister’s “facts”. I hope that he knows that we have a fundamental disagreement on this; I have said that repeatedly in the Chamber, on Second Reading, and in many Westminster Hall debates, where housing targets have been a topic of concern for many Members of Parliament across the country. As I say, I look forward to his “facts”, and I look forward to his reading the House of Commons Library document that backs up the arguments that we are making. We will press this amendment to a vote.
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Dr Huq. May I seek your guidance? My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley, the shadow Minister, has spoken to two amendments tabled in my name, which we intend to push to a vote. It is a departure from Committee procedure to vote on one amendment but not on the others, when a vote has been expected, and to set them aside. When, in the Committee proceedings, will we return to the amendments discussed earlier to vote on them?
The Chair
It goes according to the sequence in the amendment paper. At the moment we are at amendment 29, on page 3 of the amendment paper. When will we reach amendment 73, on page 5? How long is a piece of a string? We intend to reach it today, but perhaps not before the sitting is adjourned at 11.25. This was all decided in a Programming Sub-Committee at the beginning of our Committee proceedings; someone put matters in this order.
Gen Kitchen
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. Opposition Members are very interested in their amendments, but I am keenly and acutely interested in Government amendment 48 and schedule 3. Government amendment 48 is on page 10 of the amendment paper. We have been going through the groupings of amendments on the selection list, and in previous sittings, when we have voted on amendments, we have voted on the groupings, rather than following the amendment paper. I am concerned that if we are now following the amendment paper, we should have voted today on amendments 5, 21, 22, 76, 122, 4 and 72.
Gen Kitchen
So therefore we have been going through the groupings, rather than the amendment paper.
The Chair
The learned Clerk tells me that he can ventriloquise an explanation but it would be easier for him to explain after the sitting is adjourned.
Gideon Amos
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I echo the comments of other members of the Committee. We have so far followed the groupings on the selection list, and within each group we have voted on each amendment that has been pushed to a vote. New clauses may be a different matter, but that is what has happened in the Committee to date.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I do not wish to exacerbate the conversation, but the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Wellingborough and Rushden, is correct, and I am concerned that if we entertain the new way of working, even though it may be challenged, that we will lose the efficiency and rhythm that this Committee has had.
I am open to challenge by the Clerk, but in previous sittings we have followed the groupings on the selection list, which has meant that we were prepared—though of course we are always prepared—and know the sequence that we are following. That was so for the whole of the Committee proceedings. This approach, following the amendment paper, has not been in action for the previous sittings of the Committee. I wholly endorse the comments made by the Government Whip. I believe that, if we could follow the groupings and vote on the amendments in order, as we take them, that would assist the Committee in getting through the process, and business of the day.
The Chair
I have been on these Committees for 10 years, and chaired them for the last five years, and as far as I understand, this is the way we always do it. We often say a measure “was debated earlier”. It just seems to be coincidence that the decisions fell as they did yesterday—or whenever it was. This is, I have been told, non-negotiable.
David Simmonds
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I return to the question: can you indicate when in the Committee proceedings we will return to vote on those amendments?
The Chair
That depends on how succinct or verbose people are. I am not Mystic Meg. The Committee will decide on those amendments whenever it gets to them in the amendment paper.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I know you want to discuss this matter with the Clerk after the sitting adjourns. I wholly welcome that. Perhaps we should all attend, so that we can learn. It must be the case, Dr Huq, that you can give us an indication. I get the point about the verbosity and speed of colleagues on the Committee, but it would benefit Committee members if we knew whether we will vote on the various amendments that we have tabled at the end of the discussion of clause 47, or whether those votes could come at a later stage, after the discussion of the clause. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is seeking that guidance and would appreciate a general steer.
The Chair
These things are often negotiated by the two Whips: they make it happen at a certain time. Any vote on amendment 73 will come after the debate on amendment 88—that will be today—and amendment 74 will come after that.
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Dr Huq. The groupings have been negotiated by the Whips. The Chair’s selection of amendments is in that order, and votes have followed that process.
The Chair
The Clerk helpfully suggests that we could suspend the sitting to give members a primer on this matter.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Thank you, Dr Huq; it is a delight to serve under your chairship. Listeners to the debate have missed out on an entertaining discussion of the procedure of voting on amendments and clauses. I rise to comment briefly to amendment 29.
I do not think that anyone on the Government Benches disagrees with the notion that we need to build more genuinely affordable homes and social rent homes, but I do not think that the amendment fully accounts for the cost of 150,000 additional social homes. A generously low grant rate for a social home is around £183,000 a year, and that would be just over 30,000 homes a year, so there is a significant gap between what the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington proposes and what can be afforded through the amount of money that is being suggested.
I also gently remind Opposition Members that the largest cut to the affordable homes budget occurred in 2010, under the coalition Government. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and I have debated that previously. That was a 66% cut in the affordable homes budget, and we would not be in this situation had such a significant cut not been enacted.
Matthew Pennycook
Amendments 29, 73, 17, 74 and 94 would introduce additional requirements for spatial development strategies in relation to housing. They seek to specify or describe what spatial development strategies must include across a range of areas, such as housing target limits, affordable housing definitions and housing density requirements.
I thank hon. Members for their interest in the Bill’s spatial development strategy provisions. However, the Government believe that these amendments are not productive in achieving the Bill’s objectives. I will attempt to be succinct rather than verbose, given the time we have lost and the need to make progress on the Bill. In general terms, we think that introducing further requirements for SDSs would limit their effectiveness and operability, as well as the purpose and effect that the clause seeks to achieve.
Amendment 29, moved by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would make specific provision for strategic planning authorities to have regard to the provision for new social rented homes. The Government are clearly committed to delivering more social housing, and I hope the Committee recognises the steps that we have taken over the past 10 months, including an £800 million in-year funding top-up to the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme; £2 billion of bridging support—I think the hon. Gentleman made a mistake in referring to it as £2 million—that will bring forward up to 18,000 new social homes; and in the multi-year spending review, the Government will set out the full details of a new grant funding programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. In that, we are looking to prioritise the delivery of social rented homes, which is a Government priority.
Proposed new section 12D(5)(b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 makes provision for a spatial development strategy to specify or describe an amount or distribution of affordable housing, or any other kind of housing that the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area. SDSs can therefore already play an important role in the delivery of social and affordable housing, if the strategic authority in question considers it necessary. Amendment 29 is therefore not necessary, and I request that the hon. Member withdraws it.
The shadow Minister tempted me into a much wider debate on the Government’s revised standard method for assessing housing need, which was introduced in the updated NPPF late last year. I will not go into too much detail, but the point of difference is that, under the previous Government, a 35% urban uplift was applied to the most populous local planning authority within the country’s 20 largest cities and urban centres. We have removed that urban uplift.
Matthew Pennycook
Because it was a completely arbitrary number that bore no relation to objectively assessed housing need. We have replaced it with a standard method and with targets under which city regions, as a whole, will see their targets increase by 20%, on average, compared with the previous planning period. We have increased targets across those city regions, and the new method directs housing growth to a wider range of urban centres across England. We have introduced a more ambitious, credible and objective method of assessing housing need in any given area.
On average, that gives rise to a 20% increase in city regions. The previous Government said that the 35% urban uplift applied not to London’s most populous local authority but to the whole of London, which is out of kilter with all the other arrangements that they made across the country. That left London with a fantastical target that was impossible to deliver. We have rightly revised down the target, but the shadow Minister will know that we are being very clear that London needs to increase delivery quite significantly. The Mayor has taken steps in recent days to ensure that happens.
Amendments 73 and 74 would apply limitations to the extent that spatial development strategies can redistribute housing requirements over a strategy area. The distribution of housing requirements is likely to be a key role for most, if not all, spatial development strategies. It would be overly prescriptive to apply an arbitrary restraint on the ability to decide the most appropriate location for new housing. I hope that hon. Members recognise that, in many of the debates I attend, this is what their parties call for: a smarter and more strategic way for local authorities in sub-regional groups to come together and select locations for housing growth that help to absorb some of their housing target numbers in a more sensible way, where that is applicable. We do not want to be prescriptive and constrain their ability to do so in whatever way works for the sub-region in question.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Member for Basingstoke invited me to go down memory lane to what was happening in 2009, 2010 and so on. I am happy to do so. The Liberal Democrats went into coalition at that point. They were 9% of the Members of Parliament, but prevented a great deal of the worst excesses of the Conservative Government over that time, and continue to stand by that achievement. In fact, there was a 25% increase in affordable housing starts based on £15 billion of additional funding on affordable social housing under the coalition. In contrast, in 2009, a Labour Chancellor proposed cuts in the pre-Budget papers that he called “deeper and tougher” than anything Margaret Thatcher did in the 1980s, and began a £22 billion cut in capital expenditure, which was greater than the—
Gideon Amos
I will not give way. I need to get back to the present day, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. It is important to dwell not on the proposed cuts of £22 billion to capital expenditure from 2009-10 onwards that the outgoing Labour Government were proposing, but on the reality of the situation that faces people who need social homes today. That is what amendment 29 is all about.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke suggested that the amount required per social home is £183,000. Figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research suggest that that is actually £131,000 a home. I do not doubt his sincerity in looking at the costs of each social home, but those are our figures. Against that, our proposed investment of £6 billion would be on top of the existing affordable homes programme of £2.3 billion.
In passing, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, we recognise and respect the £2 billion investment that the Government have put into the affordable housing programme for up to 18,000 affordable homes. It is worthwhile. Our amendment simply asks the Government to go further and faster. Our commitment of £6 billion per year in our suggested budget—funded by the taxation proposals we set out there—added to the £2.3 billion of the existing affordable homes programme, would be sufficient to get us to a delivery level of 150,000 social homes per year in the course of a Parliament, according to figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research.
Our proposals are therefore founded on some consideration of the financial costs involved and of the priority that the Government need to give to the delivery of social homes. I reiterate simply that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage pointed out, relying on the private sector to provide low-cost social housing or even to bring down the price of housing has not worked to date and is extremely unlikely, to say the least, to happen in future.
Matthew Pennycook
An important point to make is that, through the revised standard method for assessing housing need and the housing targets that flow from that, we are asking local authorities to do more to meet the housing crisis. We expect more social and affordable homes to come through under section 106 agreements.
I take issue, gently, with the assertion that I think is implicit in some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman: that we are just leaving everything to the private market and doing nothing ourselves. The fact that we have topped up the affordable homes programme by £800 million and brought forward this bridge of £2 billion in anticipation of the future grant funding to come is very much at odds with his description of leaving it all to the market. The Government are not leaving it all to the market; we are providing grant funding over and above what we inherited from the previous Government.
Gideon Amos
We have always accepted and we support that allocation of funding to social housing, but a theme in Government thinking seems to be that the delivery of more homes through the private sector will bring prices down. If the Minister wishes to correct me, he should feel free to do so. That was my central point: we cannot rely on private housing to do that. The delivery of social homes needs to be done by Government. I was pleased with the Minister’s passion for delivering social homes, which he expressed clearly, and I therefore expect him to accept the amendment. It would simply increase the targets to deliver social homes to a reasonable level of 150,000 per year.
The delivery of social homes is a priority. We need to fund that to make it happen. If we really want to deliver more homes in this country, however, there are two big blockers, and they are not people, wildlife or the communities who will lose their voice in planning committees. The blockers are the funding for social housing and for infrastructure. If those two things were brought forward, I suggest that we would be able to build almost unlimited numbers of new homes.
For all those reasons we moved our amendment, which would simply take the Government’s rightful ambitions and laudable objectives of delivering social homes a little further and faster, and would set a target for the first time for the delivery of social homes. We do not have such a target, but one is desperately needed if we are to address the housing crisis, as organisations across the board have attested we should, including the National Housing Federation, Shelter and so many others. On that basis, I have moved this amendment.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)
Wednesday 14th May 2025
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 May 2025 - (14 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 73, in clause 47, page 66, line 8, after “describe” insert
“(subject to the conditions in subsection (5A))”.
Amendment 17, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert “;
(c) a specific density of housing development which ensures effective use of land and which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.”.
This amendment requires strategic planning authorities to include a specific housing density in their plans which ensures land is used effectively where it is considered strategically important.
Amendment 35, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert—
“(c) the particular features or characteristics of communities or areas covered by the strategy which new development must have regard to in order to support and develop a sense of belonging and sense of place;
(d) a design style to which development taking place in part or all of the area covered by the strategy must have regard;
(e) any natural landmarks or features to which development should be sympathetic.”.
Amendment 74, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert—
“(5A) Where a spatial development strategy specifies or describes an amount or distribution of housing, the strategy must not—
(a) increase the number of homes to be developed in any part of the strategy area by more than 20%, or
(b) reduce the required number of homes to be developed by more than 20% in area part of a strategy area which is an urban area,
when compared to the previous spatial development strategy or the amount of housing currently provided in the relevant area.
(5B) In subsection (5A) ‘urban area’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”.
This amendment would place limits on changes to housing targets in a spatial development strategy.
Amendment 94, in clause 47, page 67, line 11, leave out from “means” to the end of line 14 and insert
“housing which is to be let as social rent housing.
(15) For the purposes of this section, ‘social rent housing’ has the meaning given by paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 and paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023.”.
This amendment would define affordable housing, for the purposes of spatial development strategies, as social rent housing, as defined in the Directions on Rent Standards.
Amendment 85, in clause 47, page 67, line 13, after “2008,” insert—
“(aa) housing provided by an almshouse charity,”.
Good afternoon and thank you all for coming to this afternoon’s line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I apologise to the Minister and anybody who felt that I was going so quickly through the agenda yesterday morning that they felt interrupted—that was not my intention. I think everybody has understood that the agenda is very long. I will try to make sure that I do not interrupt anybody today, but please remember that we need to move through at pace.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 88, in clause 47, page 66, line 1, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would create a requirement that spatial development strategies specify infrastructure of strategic importance for the purposes set out in subsection (4).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 89, in clause 47, page 66, line 5, leave out first “or” and insert “and”.
This amendment would create a requirement that infrastructure of strategic importance specified in a spatial development strategy have the purposes both of mitigating and adapting to climate change.
Amendment 79, in clause 47, page 66, line 7, after “area” insert
“, including through the provision of social infrastructure.
(4A) For the purposes of this section, ‘social infrastructure’ means the framework of institutions and physical spaces that support shared civic life.”.
Amendment 123, in clause 47, page 66, line 7, at end insert—
“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4), ‘infrastructure and public services’ must include—
(a) primary and secondary healthcare provision, including mental health provision;
(b) social care provision;
(c) education, skills and training provision;
(d) infrastructure for active travel and public transport;
(e) sufficient road capacity;
(f) access to such commercial amenities, including shops, as the strategic planning authority deems necessary to support residents of the strategy area; and
(g) recreational and leisure facilities;
(h) publicly accessible green spaces.
(4B) A spatial development strategy must include targets for the provision of strategically important infrastructure and public services which are—
(a) considered to be appropriate by the relevant planning authorities and delivery bodies;
(b) periodically amended to account for changes in population size or dynamic within the strategy area;
(c) annually reported against with regard to the strategic planning authority’s performance.”.
This amendment would clarify the meaning of strategically important infrastructure and public services, require targets for such provision to be set, and for performance against such targets to be annually reported.
Gideon Amos
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise to speak to amendments 88 and 89, which together relate to spatial development strategies and their content. The important point is that spatial development strategies should provide properly for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Currently, the Bill says that they “may” provide for those matters. From the Liberal Democrats’ point of view, spatial development strategies must provide for tackling climate change.
Amendment 89 seeks to change the Bill’s current wording so that instead of saying that spatial development strategies may consider mitigation “or” adaptation, it says that they must consider mitigation “and” adaptation. It seems perverse that it should be one or the other. That may not be the intention, and no doubt the Minister will have a lengthy explanation as to why the Bill is drafted as it is, but our position is that climate change must be tackled in spatial development strategies. It is not an either/or in terms of adaptation and mitigation: it needs to be both.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I speak in support of the amendments tabled by my colleague, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, and also in support of amendment 79, on social infrastructure.
Amendment 79 is a probing amendment, emphasising the importance of social infrastructure such as parks, libraries, community hubs and sports facilities. These elements of the public realm are so important for community cohesion and strong communities. There are many communities that are doubly disadvantaged: they are economically disadvantaged and they lack the social infrastructure that is a key catalyst for development, social cohesion and wellbeing locally. We have a real opportunity in the Bill to specify the importance of social infrastructure—the elements of public space that enable people to come together to make connections and strengthen communities, and that act as the springboard for prosperity.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mrs Hobhouse. On your comments about the speed with which you handled things yesterday, that is to your credit as a Chair, rather than the other way around.
I rise to speak to Lib Dem amendments 89 and 123. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. Climate change mitigation and adaption are needed. Mitigation is about preventing climate change and adaptation is about dealing with the effects of climate change that we have not been able to prevent.
Amendment 123 relates to our earlier amendment on infrastructure delivery plans, and is intended to achieve something similar. House building is essential, as the Committee has discussed, to provide the homes that people need, but there are significant problems with our current approach to planning. We have targets for building homes, but we do not have the same targets or focus for all the things that come alongside housing.
My Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage has seen population growth of 35% in 20 years, which is why the boundaries of the predecessor constituency of Wantage shrunk considerably ahead of the 2024 general election. The single biggest issue I hear on the doorstep is that our services are struggling to cope. People cannot get doctor’s appointments, their children cannot access vital special educational needs and disabilities services, roads are often at a standstill and residents are not happy with the amount of amenities provided.
We must invest more in local infrastructure, particularly where there has been considerable housing and population growth, and support our local authorities to deliver it. Local authorities often do not have the powers or funding to deliver some of the most important infrastructure, particularly in respect of health, which is administered at a more regional level, and major transport schemes, as I will to illustrate. Nor does anyone within local authorities have the power to hold the bodies responsible to account—at least not fully.
For example, a new housing estate in my constituency has a bare patch of land designated to be a GP surgery. There is money from the developer in the section 106 agreement, to put towards the build, but the body responsible for delivering healthcare is the regional integrated care board, and although the development has been finished for a number of years, the land for the GP surgery still sits undeveloped. Fortunately, the district council is working with the ICB, and the GP surgery now has planning permission. But if the ICB had chosen, it may not have been delivered at all—there are no targets as part of the planning process that say the ICB has to deliver it. I am sure that is not the only case and that the same thing is replicated across the country.
Another example from my constituency is that of a new railway station at Grove to support the enormous population growth we have seen at Wantage and Grove. Local authorities do not have the power to insist that funding is allocated to that station on the Great Western main line, and are dealing with significant problems in accessing facilities in Oxford, as well as access to London and beyond. By not delivering the services that people need, we are undermining public support for housing growth, which is essential, as the Committee has discussed.
Gideon Amos
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister’s supportive comments about the delivery of infrastructure, how it will unlock housing and how it needs to come forward to do so mean that he must be lending his support to the reopening of Wellington station in my constituency, which would unlock several thousand new homes? It was ready and construction was starting when it hit the review in July, when the Chancellor had said that such stations would go ahead.
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend makes the case persuasively for a new station at Wellington. I note that it is not responsibility of the Minister’s Department, but I hope he is aware that railway and station re-openings in recent years have seen vastly more use than even the most optimistic forecasts and models predicted.
Without delivering the services that people need, we are undermining public support for the housing that we all know we need. The issue of housing targets not being supported by accompanying targets for—and commensurate investment in and focus on—infrastructure, amenities and public services needs to be rectified. That is essential for happy and well-functioning communities, and for ensuring that there continues to be public support and consent for more housing.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Let me take each of the amendments in turn, beginning with amendment 88. I fully agree that it is essential to consider and identify infrastructure needs when planning for new development, including through spatial development strategies. I do not agree, however, that amendment 88 is needed to achieve that outcome, as the Government intend to set a strong expectation in national policy that key strategic infrastructure needs should be addressed in spatial development strategies. Furthermore, the Bill grants powers to the Secretary of State to intervene where she considers that spatial development strategies are inconsistent with national policies, as we discussed in relation to previous amendments.
On amendment 89, although I appreciate the desire of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for clarity on the matter, I do not agree that any changes are needed to clarify the provision. Proposed new section 12D(4)(b) already enables spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for both mitigating and adapting to climate change. It does not need to be one or the other.
Gideon Amos
I appreciate that the Minister is hoping that spatial development strategies will make provision for that, but does he accept that the wording in the Bill is that they will provide for either mitigation or adaptation? That is the wording on the face of the Bill, is it not?
Matthew Pennycook
No, I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. As I have said, proposed new section 12D(4)(b), as drafted, enables spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for both mitigation and adaptation. The Government are very clear that we need to have concern for both. As I have said, it does not need to be one or the other. I am more than happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with further detail—in writing, if he wishes—as to the operation of that subsection.
On amendment 79, I recognise that the provision of social infrastructure is also an important consideration. Proposed new section 12D(4)(c) already allows spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for the purposes of promoting or improving the social wellbeing of the area. I therefore do not consider that additional provision is needed in order to enable SDSs to describe social infrastructure.
On amendment 123, I agree that, as we have discussed in relation to previous clauses, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage noted, sufficient provision of health and education facilities, and other forms of essential infrastructure listed in the amendment, is critical in supporting and facilitating new development, and in ensuring that the needs of existing communities are met. I hope that I gave the hon. Gentleman, in relation to a previous clause, some reassurance about the Government’s intent in this policy area. I also recognise that in some cases, for a variety of issues, it can be related to whether sufficient developer contributions have been secured and so on, but in many cases there is an issue of co-ordination with bodies like ICBs. I think the Government could potentially do more in this area.
I note the plea from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for his local railway station, which I will ensure is passed on to the relevant Minister in the Department for Transport but, in terms of amendment 123, I do not agree that it is necessary to enable spatial development strategies to contribute to such an outcome. Proposed new section 12D(4), as drafted, already gives strategic planning authorities the scope to specify in their strategies a wide range of infrastructure types, including those listed in the amendment.
On the issue of specifying infrastructure targets, I do not think it is appropriate for spatial development strategies themselves to set infrastructure targets. Again, that is because SDSs will not allocate specific sites, and therefore they are not likely to give sufficient certainty about the precise level of infrastructure needed at that stage. That is a role for subsequent local plans, which will need to consider infrastructure needs at a more granular level when sites are allocated and, as I have said before, need to be in general conformity with other plans. Spatial development strategies will, however, be able to specify the key infrastructure needs for the development that they identify.
For the reasons that I have outlined, and because we do not want to fetter the production and development of spatial development strategies—it is for the areas that bring them forward to have a measure of discretion about their infrastructure and housing tenure needs—we do not think the amendments are necessary, and I request that hon. Members withdraw them.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful for the Minister’s response, but I remain concerned. The Bill states:
“A spatial development strategy may specify or describe infrastructure the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance”.
Particularly if the Government will not accept the amendment discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, on the provision of infrastructure, surely spatial development strategies must specify or describe that sort of infrastructure.
Matthew Pennycook
On that I point, as I have said, the Bill sets out that SDSs
“must be designed to secure that the use and development of land in the strategy area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.”
We could spend many hours debating the implications of “and”, “or”, “may” or “must”—I have spent many an hour in Bill Committees doing that, when we were trying to string out the Bill for various reasons. I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and reflect on the point he makes about the wording and whether further clarity would help.
Gideon Amos
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 123, in clause 47, page 66, line 7, at end insert—
“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4), ‘infrastructure and public services’ must include—
(a) primary and secondary healthcare provision, including mental health provision;
(b) social care provision;
(c) education, skills and training provision;
(d) infrastructure for active travel and public transport;
(e) sufficient road capacity;
(f) access to such commercial amenities, including shops, as the strategic planning authority deems necessary to support residents of the strategy area; and
(g) recreational and leisure facilities;
(h) publicly accessible green spaces.
(4B) A spatial development strategy must include targets for the provision of strategically important infrastructure and public services which are—
(a) considered to be appropriate by the relevant planning authorities and delivery bodies;
(b) periodically amended to account for changes in population size or dynamic within the strategy area;
(c) annually reported against with regard to the strategic planning authority’s performance.”—(Olly Glover.)
This amendment would clarify the meaning of strategically important infrastructure and public services, require targets for such provision to be set, and for performance against such targets to be annually reported.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) A spatial development strategy must—
(a) list any chalk streams identified in the strategy area;
(b) identify the measures to be taken to protect any identified chalk streams from pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage; and
(c) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the protection and enhancement of chalk stream habitats.”
This amendment would require a special development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm, and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 30, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) Where a strategy area includes a chalk stream, the spatial development strategy must include policies on permissible activities within the area of the stream for the purposes of preventing harm or damage to the stream or its surrounding area.”
This amendment would ensure spatial development strategies include policies to protect chalk streams.
Amendment 28, in clause 47, page 66, line 41, at end insert—
“(11A) A spatial development strategy must—
(a) take account of Local Wildlife Sites in or relating to the strategy area, and
(b) avoid development or land use change which would adversely affect or hinder the protection or recovery of nature in a Local Wildlife Site.”
This amendment would ensure that spatial development strategies take account of Local Wildlife Sites.
Ellie Chowns
I am delighted to move amendment 1 on chalk streams, which was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff).
Clause 47 introduces spatial development strategies to provide a new strategic layer to the planning system. That creates a real opportunity to create new planning protections for strategic but threatened natural resources, such as chalk streams. We have talked about these matters in the Chamber throughout my time here, so I think we all know that the south and east of England are home to fresh waters that rise on chalk soils, whose filtration qualities result in crystal-clear, mineral-rich waters teeming with aquatic life. They are truly beautiful.
A handful of chalk streams occur in northern France and Denmark, but the majority are found in England, so this globally rare ecosystem is largely restricted to our shores. We have a huge responsibly to protect it, and a huge opportunity with the Bill. Sadly, however, we are currently failing to look after this natural treasure adequately for the world. These rare habitats are threatened like never before due to development and other pressures. Some 37% of chalk water bodies do not meet the criteria for good ecological status, due in large part to over-abstraction of water to serve development in inappropriate locations. This spring is the driest since 1956, and there is a risk that some vulnerable chalk streams will dry up altogether, which would be terrible.
Amendment 1 would equip the Bill to address those risks and reduce the impact of development on chalk streams. It would direct the Secretary of State to create new protections for chalk streams and require spatial development authorities covering areas with chalk streams to use those protections to protect and enhance them within the SDS. The affixing of chalk stream responsibility to spatial development strategies would allow the protections to be applied strategically and effectively across entire regions where chalk streams flow. Water bodies, rivers and streams do not respect our administrative boundaries, so we need cross-boundary co-operation to ensure effective protection in the whole catchment. That would also allow the protection requirements to be fairly balanced with development objectives, furthering the wins for both nature and development that Ministers say they are so keen to see from this Bill.
Successive Governments have failed to bring forward the planning reforms needed to address the development pressures that are eroding some of England’s natural crown jewels, and chalk streams are absolutely in that category. There is significant cross-party support for this amendment and for action—I have heard many Members speak about this matter in the Chamber—so I hope the Minister listens, accepts the amendment and delivers a timely new protection for one of our most threatened habitats.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship Mrs Hobhouse. I do not agree that this is the right place to make such an amendment to the Bill, but I agree with the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about chalk streams and I want to put on my record my appreciation for those rare and irreplaceable habitats.
In Basingstoke and Hampshire, we are blessed with the River Loddon and the River Test. During the election campaign, I enjoyed—or was subject to, depending on your point of view—a sermon from Feargal Sharkey about chalk streams, and I learned much. As the hon. Lady says, they are very rare and irreplaceable, and they mean a lot to many people.
Although I do not believe this is the place to put this amendment into legislation, I would be grateful if the Minister can set out the Government’s position on how to protect these rare and special habitats. I also pay tribute to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Natural Basingstoke and Greener Basingstoke for their outstanding work and campaigning to protect these much-loved rare habitats.
Gideon Amos
I rise to support amendment 1 and speak to amendment 30, which my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage will talk about, and amendment 28, in my name, which relates to local wildlife sites.
Amendment 28 would require spatial development strategies to take account of local wildlife sites and include policies that would avoid development on them. Local wildlife sites are some of the country’s most valuable and important spaces for nature. They are selected locally using robust scientific criteria. Those critical sites for biodiversity create wildlife corridors that join up other nationally and internationally designated sites, improving ecological coherence and connectivity. It is a misconception to think that all the best sites for nature conservation are designated sites of special scientific interest—that is not true. SSSIs cover only a representative sample of particular habitats, which means that only a certain number of sites are covered by the national selection. Local wildlife sites, in contrast, operate by a more comprehensive approach, and all sites that meet the criteria are selected. Consequently, some local wildlife sites are of equal biodiversity value to SSSIs.
Where there is little SSSI coverage, local wildlife sites are often the principal wildlife resource for the area, as well as an important place for communities to access nature on their doorstep. In my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, there are 213 local wildlife sites covering almost 23.5 sq km, compared with 16 sq km of land designated as sites of special scientific interest.
In the interest of time, I will cut short my remarks, but it is important to say that the current protection for local wildlife sites in the national planning policy framework is not strong enough, and 2% of sites have been lost or damaged in recent years. My amendment would improve the recognition of local wildlife sites and provide clarity to allow plan makers and decision makers to make the appropriate provision to protect and enhance local wildlife sites within spatial development strategies.
Olly Glover
I rise to support amendments 30, 28 and 1. Chalk streams, such as Letcombe brook in my Didcot and Wantage constituency, are a precious habitat, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire eloquently articulated. The Letcombe Brook Project, set up in April 2003, has done a huge amount of work—mostly through volunteers—to enhance and protect its natural beauty. It is important that the Bill is amended to specifically protect chalk streams and local wildlife sites. That is not just my opinion as a humble Liberal Democrat Back Bencher; in the oral evidence sessions and the written evidence we heard from organisations such as the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the National Trust, the Woodland Trust and Butterfly Conservation, who are all gravely concerned that the Bill does not include enough safeguards.
In addition to the Letcombe Brook Project in my constituency, in Oxfordshire, organisations such as the Earth Trust have, in just 40 years, created precious wildlife sites that are useful for training and educating local people and children. It is important to protect those sites, which is why these amendments have been tabled, and the Bill does not go far enough.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse, and echo the comments about your chairing yesterday being absolutely excellent. I am sure that, as the afternoon goes on, the Government Whip will be looking for you to be as stern as you were yesterday.
I rise to speak briefly in favour of amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire, on the importance of chalk streams. I know about this issue personally, as I spent five years as the Member of Parliament for Eastleigh, which had another chalk stream in the River Itchen. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke mentioned, Hampshire has a unique ecosystem and a huge array of chalk streams.
I also pay tribute to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, which is vociferous in making sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Hampshire constituencies know about the importance of chalk streams. I will refer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth North as well, because she is a very welcome part of our Hampshire family—even if many of my constituents would not accept that Portsmouth exists. She also knows how much the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust does in the local area and for us as parliamentarians.
It is important for chalk streams to be protected. We support this well intentioned amendment, because it does no harm to have guidance to make sure that spatial development strategies refer to the unique and important ecosystems that need to be protected. I do not think it is anti-development or that it would harm or hinder activating development if needed. It is a useful step and guideline to make sure that developers take into account the areas that need to be protected.
The River Hamble, which is not a chalk stream, runs through the middle of my constituency. In that river, too, we are seeing the adverse effects of development in the parameter of the river, with water run-off and the pollution that is naturally created by the building process. The current regulatory framework is not doing enough to protect those rivers.
We are seeing our river ecosystems die. That was a heavily political subject at the last general election, and we need to do more on that issue. There are provisions in the Environment Act 2021 that give chalk streams some protection, but even though I am a Conservative who does not believe in over-regulation, I do believe that having that guidance for local authority decision makers would be helpful, which is why we support amendment 1.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank members of the Committee for so eloquently outlining the intent of these amendments. I will first deal with amendments 1 and 30. I very much accept the positive intent of these proposals and would like to stress that the Government are fully committed to restoring and improving the nation’s chalk streams. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire made clear, 85% of the world’s chalk streams are found in England. They are unique water bodies, not only vital ecosystems, but a symbol of our national heritage. This Government are committed to restoring them. We are undertaking a comprehensive set of actions outside the Bill to protect our chalk streams; in the interests of time, it is probably worthwhile for me to write to the Committee to set those out in detail.
We do not believe it is necessary to include amendment 1 in the legislation, as existing policy and legislation will already achieve the intended effect. Local nature recovery strategies are a more suitable place to map out chalk streams and identify measures to protect them. Proposed new section 12D(11) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already requires spatial development strategies to
“take account of any local nature recovery strategy”
that relates to a strategy area.
Strategic planning authorities will also be required to undertake habitats regulations assessments, subject to a Government amendment to the Bill. That places a further requirement on them to assess any adverse effects of the strategy on protected sites, which, in many cases, will include chalk streams. The point I am trying to convey to hon. Members is that strategic planning authorities will already have responsibilities in relation to their protection.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
This is an important and much debated issue. I would be grateful if the Minister could share with the Committee whether he has given consideration to bringing this issue within the remit of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, specifically in respect of species that are unique to those particular habitats. This is very much an area of cross-party interest; I am conscious of my own constituents, who have the Colne Valley, which has a chalk stream. I work closely with my hon. Friends the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), whose constituencies this affects as well.
This issue often goes significantly beyond the scope of a local nature recovery strategy, simply because pollution discharge or run-off in one part of a river ecosystem results in a problem elsewhere. While I am sure the Minister will say he welcomes the measures that we passed in the Environment Act during the previous Parliament—which, for the first time, introduced comprehensive monitoring for issues such as sewage discharges—I believe there is still an opportunity to do a bit more to protect these unique habitats.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that point. We will come on to discuss our approach to development and the environment more generally when we reach part 3 of the Bill. In response to his specific question, it is probably best dealt with in the letter I will send to the Committee on this matter, where I can pull together a range of points. The important point I am trying to stress, for the purposes of amendment 1, is that if a strategic planning authority considers the identification and protection of chalk streams to be a matter that should be included in its SDS, proposed new section 12D(1) already makes clear that an SDS must include policies relating to the
“development and use of land in the strategy area, which are of strategic importance to that area”
so that it can be taken into account. There is nothing to prevent strategic planning authorities from including such policies in their spatial development strategies if they consider them to be of strategic importance.
As I said, we have an ongoing debate about when centralisation is appropriate or not; I assume the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will tell me that it is, in this instance, in her view. But for those reasons, we do not consider these amendments necessary to achieve the desired effect.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is absolutely right on this occasion. I just want to probe his comment. He outlined perfectly how, under the proposals he is bringing forward, spatial development strategies can include and incorporate the protection of chalk streams—I perfectly accept that. However, does he not accept that there is a risk that, if any of the decisions arising from the SDS are later challenged under the appeals procedure, without the national guidance that the amendments might provide, those protections might not have the full weight that they would if national regulation ensured the protection of the site? I hope he gets my gist.
Matthew Pennycook
I think I do, and I am happy to expand on the point. What I have been trying to convey is that local nature recovery strategies are a new system of spatial strategies for nature and the environment, which will map out the most valuable areas for nature, including chalk streams, and identify measures to protect them. Proposed new subsection 12D(11) requires spatial development strategies to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to any part of the strategy area.
For the reasons I have given—I am more than happy to expand on these points in writing—I think that the well-founded concerns, which I understand, are unfounded in that respect. We believe that the amendments are not necessary to achieve the desired effect that the hon. Lady has argued for.
I turn to amendment 28. As outlined previously, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary as existing provisions in this legislation will already achieve the desired effect. Again, proposed new subsection 12D(11) already requires spatial development strategies to take account of any local nature recovery strategies that relate to any part of the strategy area. Local nature recovery strategies are required to identify areas of particular importance for biodiversity, and statutory guidance published by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs is clear that they should include all existing local wildlife sites. Strategic planning authorities are therefore already required to take account of local wildlife sites in relation to the strategy area.
Similarly, existing policy already affords protection from development that would adversely affect local wildlife sites. The current national planning policy framework is clear that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should reject applications where significant harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for. We therefore do not consider the amendments to be necessary.
Ellie Chowns
Although I take the Minister’s point that there is nothing to prevent strategic planning authorities from making provision for protecting chalk streams, there is not anything to ensure that all the strategic planning authorities in which chalk streams exist will definitely take those measures.
I am going to be tabling further amendments later about irreplaceable habitats. I am not in the habit of proposing amendments about every single specific ecosystem, but chalk streams specifically have global significance and are cross-border in nature, and the spatial planning strategies offer a huge opportunity to tackle the issue head-on.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) Where a spatial development strategy includes a Smoke Control Area or an Air Quality Management Area, the strategy must—
(a) identify measures to reduce air pollution resulting from the development and use of land in that area, and
(b) outline the responsibilities of strategic planning authorities in relation to the management of air quality.”
This amendment would require spatial development strategies which cover Smoke Control Areas or Air Quality Management Areas to consider air pollution and air quality.
This amendment would require that, where a spatial development strategy includes a smoke control area or an air quality management area, the strategy must identify specific measures to reduce air pollution from the development and use of land, and must outline the responsibilities of strategic planning authorities in managing air quality.
Currently, over 10 million people in the UK live in smoke control areas: zones where restrictions are placed on burning certain fuels or using specific appliances to reduce particular emissions. Likewise, more than 400 air quality management areas have been declared by local authorities under the Environment Act 1995 in locations where air pollution exceeds national air quality objectives. These are places where we are really not doing well enough on air pollution. Despite the formal recognition of these zones, they are often not meaningfully integrated into spatial development strategies, so this legislation gives us an opportunity to ensure that new housing, transport and infrastructure projects, when approved, must fully account for their cumulative impacts on already poor air quality.
Construction and land development are direct contributors to air pollution through increased traffic volume, emissions from building activity and the removal of green space that helps to filter pollutants. In many cases, strategic planning authorities are not required to take those factors into account when drafting or approving development strategies. The amendment would close that gap by ensuring that air quality is treated not as a secondary consideration, but a fundamental part of sustainable planning. Perhaps I should declare an interest as an asthmatic, like huge numbers of people in the UK.
The amendment also strengthens the accountability of strategic planning authorities, by requiring them not just to assess air quality impacts, but to work out what they are going to do—to define their roles—in addressing them. That would help to prevent the recurring issue where the responsibility for mitigating air pollution falls between Departments or different levels of government, central and local. It would ensure that development strategies are consistent with the UK’s broader legal commitments to air quality, including the targets that we set under the Environment Act 2021 and the national air quality strategy.
From a public health perspective, the case for the amendment is clear. Air pollution is linked to an estimated 43,000 premature deaths annually in the UK. That is a huge number and contributes to a range of serious health conditions, particularly among children, older adults and those living in deprived areas. The economic cost of air pollution, including its impact on the NHS, is estimated at a whopping £20 billion a year. Embedding air quality considerations directly into spatial planning is a proactive and cost-effective way to address the crisis before further harm is done to human health.
I believe that the amendment provides a clear, proportionate mechanism for ensuring that planning strategies support our clean air objectives. I strongly urge the Minister to consider warmly the amendment.
Gideon Amos
I very much sympathise with the amendment. Indeed, I have air quality management areas in my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, including two that breach the lawful limits of air pollution. We desperately need the bypass for Thornfalcon and Henlade, which would solve that particular issue.
In brief, I feel that the approach in amendment 93 is not quite right, because it would be better directed at local plans. As I understand it, spatial development strategies are not site-specific or area-specific in their proposals. We do not feel that the amendment is quite the right approach, but we are very sympathetic to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire’s motivation for tabling it.
Matthew Pennycook
Once again, I understand the positive intent of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire’s amendment. Of course, improving air quality is a highly important issue in many parts of the country, not least in my own south-east London constituency. It is part of the reason why, many moons ago now, I established the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution. It is a public health issue and a social justice issue, and the Government are committed to improving air quality across the country. Amendment 93, however, is another example of trying to ask SDSs to do things that they are not designed for, and replicating existing duties and requirements that bear down on authorities in an SDS.
Ellie Chowns
Does the Minister not recognise that the fact that we have such huge problems with air pollution means that existing regulation is not working well enough?
Matthew Pennycook
I am more than happy, in the interests of time, to set out what the Government are doing on this agenda through ministerial colleagues, but I return to this fundamental point: what are we introducing spatial development strategies for? They are high-level plans for infrastructure investment for housing growth. They need not replicate every existing duty and requirement in national policy.
Local authorities are already required to review and assess air quality in the area regularly, setting air quality management areas where national objectives are not being met. National planning policy is clear that opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impact should be identified at the plan-making stage to ensure a strategic approach. Again, I make the point that SDSs have to ensure that local plans are in general conformity with them. Planning decisions should ensure that any development in air quality management areas and clean air zones is consistent with the local air quality action plan.
Placing responsibilities—this is the fundamental point, which also applies to other amendment—on strategic planning authorities in relation to air quality management would replicate existing duties, and we therefore do not think the amendment is necessary. The hon. Lady may feel strongly and wish to press it to a vote. However, although it is entirely laudable that hon. Members with amendments are taking an opportunity to make points about the value of existing national duties and requirements, or the ways those may need to change, I hope that I have clearly outlined why the provisions on introducing an effective layer of strategic planning across England are not the place to have those debates.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister for his response. We will have to agree to somewhat disagree on this matter, but in the interests of time—and because I can count—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 47, page 69, line 37, leave out from “must” to the end of line 4 on page 70 and insert “consult—
(a) residents of the relevant area;
(b) businesses located in the relevant area; and
(c) representatives of those that the authority considers may have an interest in any relevant area.”
This amendment would change the existing requirement in the Bill for a strategic planning authority to notify specified parties to a requirement to consult local residents, businesses, and representative organisations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 90, in clause 47, page 70, line 2, leave out “and”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 91.
Amendment 91, in clause 47, page 70, line 4, at end insert “, and
(e) persons who experience disability.”
This amendment would require strategic planning authorities to consider notifying disabled people about the publication of a draft spatial development strategy.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful to have been promoted to shadow Secretary of State, Mrs Hobhouse, but as soon as my colleagues and leader find out, I am bound to be sacked.
This important amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner; we have pushed the Minister on this issue on Second Reading and other occasions. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Minister has made clear his strength of feeling about the measures and the amendments that he has tabled on the planning system, and about the radical reforming zeal that they will deliver to people across the country, through a centralised national approach to amending our planning system.
However, the Minister does not want the scrutiny for local people that goes with that. Proposed new section 12H(3) states that
“the strategic planning authority must consider notifying (at least) the following about the publication of the draft spatial development strategy—
(a) voluntary bodies some or all of whose activities benefit the whole or part of the strategy area”,
as well as a number of other organisations. We agree with the Minister that the development strategies will be wide-ranging in their impact on local communities, but if the Minister believes that, he should also believe that the people affected by them should be consulted. He should believe that those people should have their say on whether the development strategies have been drawn up in the right way, whether they contain what they should contain and whether they perhaps contain too much.
We just discussed the importance of chalk streams, and the Minister said that there is nothing to stop authorities from putting protections for chalk streams in a strategy. However, the Bill states that these organisations “at least” have to be notified—there are people who do not have to be notified. We believe that there should at least be some consultation exercise on the detail of the draft spatial development strategy put forward by the strategic planning authority. Something as important as that should be consulted on.
In discussing chapter 2, the Minister has outlined that local people are important and that spatial development strategies are vital to ensuring that development and planning are delivered in a radical, efficient and much more concrete way. That is why we tabled this amendment. We believe that the Minister should be bold. If he thinks that the measures in the Bill are as radical as he says and that they will wholeheartedly deliver on the infrastructure and the local base-led planning system he so wants, he should be confident in allowing the people that the Bill affects to have their say and be able to share and bask in the glory of the radical agenda he is bringing through. We believe that consultation is a good thing and, as we have said on previous amendments, constituents and local people should be able to shape what they want and do not want within them.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The shadow Minister is making important points about how we consult the public, but we heard clearly from him this morning that that was the role of local councillors. I refer him to new section 12I to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which provides that any spatial development strategy must be examined by the public. Another layer of consultation would be an unnecessary addition when there is already in-built public consultation in the Bill.
Paul Holmes
I genuinely thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. She has clearly examined the Bill, which is such a big piece of legislation—in the right way. I simply say that an examination of and consultation on the creation of a spatial development strategy would not always have what people want in it, or do not want in it, as its ultimate end goal once the draft has been put together. When a draft spatial strategy has been put together, people should be able to have their say on it.
The hon. Lady will know from her previous career, as I do from mine, that when people want to have their say on something in a consultation that an authority proposes, some will be happy—maybe they are getting what they want from it—but some will never be happy. They will always want to grumble; we have all had a few of those in our inboxes. However, we believe it is right that once something as key and new as these strategies is brought together, local people should be able to have their say.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is a requirement on strategic planning authorities to consult prior and during. We are saying that once the draft strategy is put forward, it is crucial that local people have their chance to have a say. If a strategic planning authority is confident that it has made the right decision on a local development based on the consultations it has already done, it should not be scared or hindered by a consultation to see what happens in respect of the finished product.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The shadow Minister is making some eloquent points. Does he agree that if the Government are intent on bringing in a national scheme of delegation, and changing the role of the planning committee and how councillors interact with the planning process, even more consultation should be done at the stages he is describing so that we can ensure that residents still get their say over development in their area?
Paul Holmes
Yes. We had a significant debate yesterday on what I said was the Government’s centralising zeal in taking powers away from locally elected politicians. Many Opposition Members agree with me. The Opposition tabled an amendment that would not have allowed to go ahead something as large-scale being put together by a strategic planning authority, created by the Government, but the Minister won. We believe people should be consulted.
As I said to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, it is vital that when there is a democratic deficit—we fundamentally believe that one is being created by other aspects of the Bill—local people should have the right to be consulted on the end product. That is why I say this to the Minister, slightly cheekily, but with a serious undertone. As I said in a Westminster Hall debate, he is the forward-looking planner of our time, and I know he gets embarrassed about these things—he is blushing—but nobody in the House of Commons is more deserving of the role of Housing Minister. He worked hard on the role in opposition, and he comes from a space of wanting to reform the system. We accept that, but sometimes his reforms have consequences, and if those reforms are so good, he should not be afraid to allow the people who elected him to his place and the Government to their place to have their say on something as radical as this change.
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak to amendments 90 and 91—hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I will be brief. We have significant concerns about community involvement in consultation and about many of the points that have just been made. I have more to say on all that for the next group, in which we have tabled an amendment to make those points.
Amendments 90 and 91 would simply ensure that disabled people are consulted in the preparation of spatial development strategies. The Equality Act 2010 includes a public sector equality duty: a duty on public authorities to advance equality and eliminate discrimination. That implies that disabled people should be consulted on spatial development strategies in any case. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report on disabled people in the housing sector said:
“Despite the cross-government effort to ‘ensure disability inclusion is a priority’…we have found little evidence that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is treating disabled people’s needs as a priority in housing policy.”
We need to make sure that the voices of disabled people are heard in the preparation of spatial development strategies.
Ellie Chowns
I rise, briefly, to support the substantive point about the necessity of public consultation on something as important as a spatial planning strategy. As new section 12H of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is entitled “Consultation and representations”, it is disappointing that there is actually no provision for consultation. There is provision only for the consideration of notification, which is inadequate for strategies that will be as important as these. I urge the Minister to consider going away and aligning the text of his clause with the title of his clause.
David Simmonds
When we were drafting amendment 78, we gave a good deal of consideration to the direction of travel set out by the Government. The concerns that underlay the drafting were reinforced in the evidence sessions, where the Committee heard from a cross-party panel of local government leaders that the consultation process in planning was an opportunity to get things right, and for a public conversation about the impact of any proposed development, large or small, in order to forestall, through the planning process, objections that might later arise, by designing a development that would meet those concerns.
We have heard today a number of examples from Members that fall within that category. We have heard cross-party concerns about the impact on chalk streams, where consultation would allow effective parties with an interest to bring forward their views—for example, on the impact of run-off. A developer would therefore have the opportunity to build those concerns into the design of their proposed scheme to mitigate the impact and address the concerns.
We heard about the impact of air pollution on asthmatics—including, for the record, me. If a developer says they are planning to use biomass or wood burning as the heat source for a development, and the stoves are on the DEFRA exempt list—that is, if the Government consider that they produce little or no environmental pollution—that might be acceptable to people with that concern. However, if it will simply be up to the developer to install whatever they wish, that will have a significant negative impact and there is no opportunity for mitigation. The consultation is therefore critical.
There is a direction of travel: it feels very much that the Government’s view is that consultation and democracy are a hindrance to getting new units built. It is very clear from the views expressed by many Members—from all parties, in fairness, but certainly in the Opposition amendments that have been put forward—that we are keen to retain a sufficient element of local democracy and local voice to ensure that the kinds of concerns I have described are properly addressed. I invite the Minister to consider accepting the amendment, which would not in any way derail the intentions that he sets out in the Bill, but would achieve the opportunity for consultation, which is critical.
Matthew Pennycook
I take on board the strength of feeling that has been expressed. As with all the debates we are having, I will reflect on the arguments that hon. Members have made. However, we do not think the amendments are necessary. As I have sought to reassure the Committee on previous occasions, each SDS will have to undergo public consultation and then be examined by a planning inspector. Once a draft SDS is published, it is open for anyone to make representations about that SDS. For those reasons, I hope that, in dealing with the specific amendments, I can reassure the Committee that they are unnecessary.
Turning first to amendment 78—
Ellie Chowns
I have been reading the clauses very carefully. As I read the Bill, it provides that a draft SDS can be produced without any public consultation whatsoever—in other words, a draft SDS can be produced by somebody in a cupboard with access to the internet. New section 12H, which deals with consultation and representations, provides an opportunity for consultation on the draft, preparatory to the examination and then the finalisation.
The problem is that new section 12H does not provide for consultation; it provides only for the consideration of notifying various local bodies. According to the Bill, it provides that
“the authority must also publish or make available a statement inviting representations to be made to the authority”.
Without any clarity on what that involves, an authority can just put something on a website that says, “If you’re interested in this, send us an email,” and nobody in the local area would have a clue that it was happening. The point of consultation is that it is an active process of engagement with those who have a legitimate interest in the matter. I think the Bill’s drafting does not reflect that.
Matthew Pennycook
May I press the hon. Lady, so that I understand her carefully made point? A draft SDS will be published and it will be a requirement, under clause 12H, that the strategic planning authority either notifies or consults, and that will then be open for comment or representations. I want to understand the hon. Lady’s point, because I will go away and reflect on it. In what way does she think that is different from the consultation process on, for example, a local development plan?
Ellie Chowns
New section 12H(3) says that the authority
“must consider notifying…the following”,
so there is no specification that it must notify; it must only consider notifying. The person in the cupboard could consider notifying them and decide, “No, I’m not going to notify them.” The only hard requirement is that
“the authority must…publish…a statement inviting representations”.
As I have just outlined, that is not the same as consultation. I taught this subject at university: according to Arnstein’s ladder of participation, consultation is at a higher level than notification. Will the Minister take that away and consider improving the provisions for consultation?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Lady cut me off early in my remarks, so let me develop them somewhat and deal with the specific point that, by our reading, the amendment deals with. The list of public bodies detailed in new section 12H(3) sets out that strategic planning authorities must consider notifying community and interest groups that a draft of their spatial development strategy has been published. In subsection (3), it is very clear who the strategic planning authority must consider notifying—I have it in front me. That list is by no means exhaustive or exclusive. Indeed, new section 12H(4) requires strategic planning authorities to invite representations, as I have said, about their draft strategy. That invitation is open to all, including residents and businesses within the strategy area.
The purpose of new section 12H(3) is to ensure that strategic planning authorities consider a broad range of opinion when they consult on their draft strategy. There is nothing in the Bill, or elsewhere, to prevent residents or businesses from participating in the consultation, or to prevent strategic planning authorities from notifying them of the consultation specifically. For those reasons, we do not think—
Matthew Pennycook
In the interests of making progress, let me say that I have understood the hon. Lady’s point, and will happily go away and reflect on it, but we do not think the amendment is necessary. For the reasons I have set out, we will resist the amendment if she presses it to a vote. As I said, I am more than happy to reflect on her point; she has made it very clearly and it has been understood.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is being very clear in his position on the amendments, but I have extreme sympathy for, and agreement with, the hon. Member for Hereford north.
Paul Holmes
I am sorry about that. I am not very good at geography; I did not teach it at university.
I hope the Minister takes these concerns in the spirit in which they are intended. I say that a lot, but there is genuinely a huge concern about the difference between notifying and consulting, and about what he has said in Committee today. The minimum wording in the Bill—I guarantee that strategic planning authorities will look at it and follow it to the letter, given the work they have to do—is that the strategic planning authority
“must consider notifying (at least) the following about the publication of the draft spatial development strategy”.
New section 12H(4) outlines that the planning authorities should publish the draft spatial strategy
“as required by subsection (1)(a)”,
or make
“such a strategy available for inspection”,
but there is a vast difference between “notifying (at least)” and consulting.
Paul Holmes
I will, but then I want to ask the Minister a question to see whether he will answer, in which case we might not press the amendment to a vote.
The Chair
Can I make sure that this is a speech and not an intervention on the Minister? Minister, had you sat down and made all the points you wanted to make to all the amendments being debated?
Matthew Pennycook
I sat down because I saw the hon. Member for Hamble Valley rising. We do have another amendment to respond to, if he wants me to.
The Chair
I would like the Minister to speak to the three amendments we are debating, including amendments 90 and 91. I will then invite the hon. Member for Hamble Valley to respond and he can take an intervention from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth.
Matthew Pennycook
In the interests of brevity, Mrs Hobhouse, I will make one final comment, then I will go away and reflect and we can return to the matter on Report, where there will be time for consideration.
Again—it has felt like this a lot today—I think we are conflating different things. The process for an SDS is different from the process for the development of a local development plan. They are different things.
Matthew Pennycook
The shadow Minister says he knows, but in a sense the legislative underpinning that we have looked at for this measure, and the most obvious and comparable example, is the London plan. Broadly similar provisions exist in the London plan, and when it is put out to consultation it gets tens of thousands of responses to the notification, which are taken into account. I say gently that I do not think we are talking about an arrangement here much different from what applies there. To make the point again, this is a very different strategy that we are asking strategic authorities, or boards in those cases, to bring forward.
David Simmonds
One question that frequently arises when there is a challenge to a development through the process of judicial review is about whether the processes of consultation have been correctly followed. Removing a requirement for consultation and replacing it with a discretion to notify dramatically lowers the ability of people who are very concerned that developments are brought forward within their strategic plans that would not have been acceptable and would have failed to meet the proper consultation standard—for example, on issues such as air quality or environmental impact. In fact, it would be in the interests of the development industry for proper consultation to take place, rather than its being forestalled in this way.
Matthew Pennycook
I come back to the point I have made several times now: SDSs cannot allocate sites. There is a role for local plans underneath SDSs, which must be in general conformity with them. We would have failed if we simply ensured that SDSs were big local plans with the level of detail required on site allocation for a local plan. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that SDSs will not opine on whether a particular development on a particular plot of land is acceptable. They may outline the areas of general housing growth that the strategic authority or constituent member authorities want to be brought forward in that sub-region.
Again, I am more than happy to go away and set out in chapter and verse the way we think the clause might operate—if we ever get to clause stand part, I might be able to outline it in a little bit more detail—but I think that when hon. Members grasp the full detail of what we want these strategies to do and how we think they should be prepared and developed, they may be reassured. If not, we can come back to the matter on Report.
Rachel Taylor
This really is a semantic point about language. I fully appreciate that there is a massive difference between notification and consultation, but new section 12H(5) is very clear that that notification is also required to contain an invitation to the relevant person to make representations. Surely an invitation to somebody to make a representation is a consultation?
Matthew Pennycook
I did not teach the subject, so I do not know. I am content to be schooled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire on the philosophical meaning of a consultation versus notification. As I read it, the relevant strategic planning authority has a duty to produce and then publish a draft SDS, and they are required to notify all the groups under subsection (2). It is not exhaustive; they can add additional groups if they want to consult further. They must include, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth rightly says, an invitation to those persons to make representations, which will be considered.
Strategic planning authorities have the discretion to go further. There is nothing stopping relevant authorities undertaking wider or different forms of consultation if they wish to inform their strategy. I think what we are talking about is somewhat a semantic difference. I will leave it there. I have spoken enough about this and the reasons why the Government do not think the amendment is necessary. If hon. Members feel strongly enough, they can either press it to a vote in Committee or we can return to it on Report.
The Chair
I call the shadow Minister to respond, but I also would like to know whether he wishes to press his amendment to a vote.
Paul Holmes
I cannot yet tell you that, Mrs Hobhouse, because I want first to respond to what the Minister has said, and then hear his response in an intervention I will invite him to make. The Minister and I are obviously fairly jaded about the length of time that this is taking. I feel exactly the same as he does, but this is a serious concern from all parties, as he has accepted. He outlined his belief that the wording in the Bill is substantive enough to ensure that there is an invitation to make representations.
The process established by the Bill says that the authority must “consider notifying”—that could be, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, in a very small advert on a distinct web page that is not very accessible somewhere—“(at least) the following” people. It then publishes a strategy and asks for representations, which must be in a prescribed form and manner and within a prescribed period. That is fine, but nowhere in the Bill does it outline what happens to those representations once they are received. There is no obligation on the development organisation to look at those representations.
Paul Holmes
The Minister can make that face, but that is true. Nowhere does it say that the authority has to look at the representations, give any feedback on them or do anything about them. All we are saying in amendment 78—it was addressed in other Members’ speeches as well—is that local people should be consulted on what they think about the proposals.
The Minister is, as I have said repeatedly on this Committee, a man of integrity and he has listened to our case, but nowhere under proposed new section 12H, particularly in subsections (3) and (4), does it require authorities to do anything with the representations. There is nowhere where those representations could feasibly make the proposals and draft plan better or fundamentally change their contents. I will invite the Minister to intervene—
Paul Holmes
—when I have posed this question. We are seriously concerned about this element of the Bill. The Minister said in Committee yesterday that they have the numbers. We accept that, and we can look at this on Report. We will look at this on Report, because it is a substantial area in which the Bill falls short.
If the Minister commits to meeting all interested parties and look actively at how, in subsection (3), we can remove “consider notifying (at least)” and include not just notifying, but consulting, and we get a clear, proper commitment to that in Committee this afternoon, then we will consider not pressing the amendment to a vote. I know the Minister has the numbers, but I hope, in the spirit in which our amendment is intended, he understands that people who will be impacted by these decisions will want to have that consultation. I ask the Minister to intervene to hear if he is willing to do that. If he is not, we will press this amendment to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
I will intervene in the interest of trying to bring this discussion to a close, because I feel I have outlined the Government’s position in quite some detail. I have understood the points that Opposition Members have made. I have committed to reflecting on them.
I have also committed to writing to the Committee, which I will do, and it might be useful for the debates on Report if I outline, because I have made reference to the London plan, as the prime example of an existing spatial development strategy, how consultation works under that plan; how generally, in terms of the principles of good plan making, consultation operates across the system; and how we think the approach outlined in clause 47 in reference to spatial development strategies will operate. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley is more than welcome to press the amendment to a vote—I do not mind in any sense—but if I give hon. Members that detail and they still feel strongly enough on Report, we can continue the debate then.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful to the Minister and I know he is doing his best in this regard. I am challenging not to be obtuse or difficult, but because, as I have said, there is clear concern about the wording in the Bill, and his interpretation, which is the really important thing, is an interpretation of language in the Bill that we just do not feel is tight enough. I know he has committed to writing to the Committee, and we would like him to do that. I did ask whether he would consider looking at the consultation element in relation to proposed new section 12H(3).
On his reference to the London plan, that is fine—we can compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges—but let us look at the fact that this is a provision in legislation that will be new. I think that he should be looking at this afresh, aside from what happened before. Just because something has happened before does not mean it is correct or right, and we want the language in the Bill tightened up as much as possible. I really regret to say to the Minister—
Ellie Chowns
I plead with the hon. Member not to press the amendment to a vote, in the interests of time and also because I cannot vote for his amendment proactively, because I think it is even more poorly written than the text it is trying to replace, so can we—[Laughter.]
Paul Holmes
After I was so kind to the hon. Lady! Actually, we agree on this issue, and it is not my amendment; it was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, so it is his fault. But whether she thinks it is poorly worded or not has no bearing on my inclination to press the amendment to a vote or not, because I think the principle is what matters. I think we both have a principled stance on what we want to achieve in the Bill, which is consultation.
Whether the hon. Lady thinks that the amendment is worded wrongly or not—I say that with all due respect, genuine respect, to the hon Lady—what I was saying to the Minister was that he has made a number of commitments, but I fear that coming back to this on Report and not—[Interruption.] I am coming to a close, Mrs Hobhouse, but other people have had their say on this and it is important that we have our say on our amendment. The Minister has been very clear on what he wants to do, but I do not think he has gone far enough, so we will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 120, in clause 47, page 70, leave out line 40 and insert—
“(5) A strategic planning authority must prepare and consult on a statement of community involvement which provides for persons affected by the strategy to have a right to be heard at an examination.”
I want to discuss participation in and consultation on spatial development strategies. I appreciate that this will be a long day as we are going on until 7 pm, but this is a really important part of the Bill, and the level of public involvement that is allowed in spatial development strategies is really important. It is vital that the Bill gets that right.
The amendment provides that strategic authorities would have to prepare a statement of community involvement, which would set out the people who had a right to be heard on a spatial development strategy. That approach recognises that spatial development strategies are different from local plans. This debate was had, probably in this room, during debates on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The Labour Government did not intend to include any right to be heard in local development plans, but they changed their mind and accepted the wisdom of the arguments that were put forward. A right to be heard on local development plans was enshrined in that Act.
I recognise that spatial development strategies are different, that a right to be heard is more challenging in a strategic context, and that the London plan does not have a right to be heard. However, the provisions on spatial development strategies in this Bill do not even go as far as those in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which set out the London spatial development strategy. That Act has a duty to take account of consultation, and there is no such duty in this Bill.
I have some sympathy for the amendment that the shadow Minister proposed—the points made were valid—but we did not feel the drafting was quite right. Picking out particular businesses and interest groups was not how we would do it. We propose that strategic authorities should develop their own statement of community involvement. After all, that is what local councils are expected to do on their local plans, so why should a mayoral authority not be required to do that on a much more overarching, much more strategic and much more powerful document that would follow as a result?
In another respect, the Bill provides for even less consultation than there is on nationally significant infrastructure projects in the Planning Act 2008. In that Act, there is a statutory duty to take account of consultation—I believe it is in section 50, if memory serves me correctly. In this Bill, there is no duty to take account of consultation. There is a difference between considering notifying parties and consulting them and being required to take their views into account.
Matthew Pennycook
This is an important point, and perhaps some of the confusion arises from the stages of the process. Let me draw his attention to proposed new section 12K(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. That makes it very clear:
“The strategic planning authority must…consider any representations received in accordance with regulations under section 12H(7)”—
which we have just discussed—
“and decide whether to make any modifications as a result”.
A strategic planning authority cannot, as I think the shadow Minister asserted, bin all the representations that it receives in a cupboard—I think that was how the hon. Member for North Herefordshire phrased it. It does have to have regard to them. I just address that point, in terms of the examination, about what is required to come via submission to the Secretary of State before adoption.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for correcting me on that point. He is absolutely right that there is a provision stating that consultation responses must be taken into account, but there is no duty to consult and no requirement, and it is the same for community involvement. In fact, the Bill explicitly states that there will not be a right to be heard in the examination in public.
We should be clear that what is called a public examination of the strategy does not mean that the public are allowed to take part. They are allowed to watch and listen to it—that is what it means—but they are not allowed to take part. A clause specifically states that there should not be a right to be heard, so those affected—members of the public, landowners, businesses and so on—will not have a right to take part in that examination. There is effectively no right to take part in any of the process.
We propose a modest approach that is less onerous than what is required of local planning authorities: a statement of community involvement, in which mayoral authorities would establish for themselves what categories of persons have the right to be heard in examinations of their plans. I believe that is a sensible measure that would provide a different level of involvement, which is appropriate given that a strategic authority obviously covers many more people and it would be difficult to provide a right to be heard to every member of the public. A provision to allow mayoral authorities to set out their own consultation and involvement standards seems eminently sensible to us, and that is why we have tabled the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for clearly setting out his intent. Again, I preface my remarks by saying that, given the strength of feeling that has been expressed this afternoon, I will certainly reflect. As a point of principle—I will repeat this clearly, so that it is on the record—the Government of course want local communities to be actively involved in the production of a spatial development strategy for their area. All persons have the right to make representations on a draft SDS. However, we do not think it is necessary to be overly prescriptive about how strategic planning authorities should go about seeking the views of their communities, or to require them to demonstrate how they are doing so.
As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, following the implementation of changes made in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, local planning authorities will no longer be required to produce a statement of community involvement setting out how they are engaging with their community. I do not think it would be appropriate to place a similar requirement on strategic planning authorities.
Similarly, I do not think it is necessary to give people the right to be heard at examination. It is true that, unlike for local plans, there is no formal right for persons to appear and be heard at the examination of a spatial development strategy. As I have said several times, it is the Government’s intention that spatial development strategies should act as high-level documents that set the context for subsequent local plans that must be in general conformance with them. Notably, unlike local plans, spatial development strategies do not allocate specific sites for development. Therefore, it is more appropriate for people to have the right to appear at local plan examinations and for examinations of spatial development strategies to be kept proportionate to their specific role.
I say that having heard very clearly the hon. Gentleman accept and understand the difference between what the Government are trying to achieve via SDSs vis-à-vis local development plans, for example. Experience shows that planning inspectors go to lengths to ensure that a broad range of relevant interests and views are heard at examinations of the London plan, which, while not identical in legislative underpinning, is the most comparable SDS that is out there. For reference, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows given his background and experience, the most recent spatial development strategy examination—that of the London plan in 2019—took place over 12 weeks and the list of participants ran to 27 pages.
For those reasons, we do not think the amendment is necessary, and I kindly ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Gideon Amos
We wish to press the amendment to a vote, because we believe in the right to be heard and, in general, we are highly concerned about the potential erosion of the democratic planning system by the Bill.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 124, in clause 47, page 74, line 10, leave out “from time to time” and insert “annually”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 48.
Schedule 3.
Gideon Amos
The Committee will be delighted to hear that I will be extremely brief on this topic. Simply put, there is no provision for how often a spatial development strategy should be reviewed, and our amendment proposes that it be done annually. It may be that annually is not be the appropriate timeframe, but there should be regular reviews. That is the spirit of the amendment, although I will not seek a vote, to enable the Committee to make progress.
Matthew Pennycook
I will start by responding to amendment 124 moved by the hon Member for Taunton and Wellington. I will then speak to clause 47 stand part, Government amendment 48 and schedule 3.
In reference to amendment 124, it is true that, unlike local plans, which must be reviewed at least every five years, there is no set timescale in which spatial development strategies must be reviewed or replaced. Spatial development strategies are intended to be long-term strategies that provide greater certainty for investment and development decisions. The areas producing them will vary greatly in their size, the scale of development that they require and the changes over time which they must respond to. This light-touch review requirement gives strategic planning authorities greater discretion to review their strategy as and when they feel it necessary to do so.
By way of comparison, the London plan, which has the same review requirement, has been fully replaced twice, and another version is now under way; it has also undergone several interim reviews and updates. I hope that strategic planning authorities will exhibit similar diligence in maintaining their SDSs. In the event that a strategic planning authority fails to adequately keep its strategy under review, the Secretary of State will have the power under the Bill to direct the authority to review all or part of its strategy. For those reasons we do not think that this amendment is required.
The Government firmly believe that housing and infrastructure needs cannot be met without planning for growth on a larger than local scale, and that new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning are essential. A nationally consistent system will underpin the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament, help to deliver better infrastructure, and boost economic growth. For those reasons I hope that the hon. Member will understand what we are trying to achieve with this clause and withdraw the amendment.
Government amendment 48 makes consequential changes to regulation 111 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to add spatial development strategies drawn up under the Bill to the definition of “land use plan”, and update the definition of “plan-making authority” and the references to
“giving effect to a land use plan”
to reflect the introduction of the new spatial development strategies. The amendment will bring the new spatial strategies into line with the spatial development strategy for London, along with local and neighbourhood plans. It ensures that strategic planning authorities will also be bound to carry out habitats regulations assessments. A habitats regulations assessment will identify any aspects of the spatial development strategy that may have an adverse effect on special areas of conservation, special protection areas and Ramsar sites. That will ensure that the impacts of development on protected habitat sites are appropriately considered.
Finally, on clause 47 stand part, as we have discussed at some length, the clause reintroduces a system of strategic plan making across England. The recent period has been something of an aberration, as throughout most of the past 50 years, England has had a strategic tier of plan-making. We have had structure plans at county level, regional planning guidance from central Government and regional spatial strategies prepared at regional level. The past 14 years, without any formal planning since the abolition of regional spatial strategies, have been anomalous, and this Government’s firmly held view is that that has led to suboptimal outcomes. Over the last 40 years, development levels have consistently failed to meet the country’s needs, resulting in a housing crisis and significant affordability gaps across the country. Additionally, the number of local plans being adopted or updated has continued to decline, with only about 30% of plans adopted in the last five years.
As is generally accepted by hon. Members, the planning system is in dire need of reform. A system of strategic plans is central to our efforts to get Britain building again. The duty to co-operate introduced by the Localism Act 2011 was intended to replace strategic planning, but it has failed. Instead, it created a bureaucratic system and significant uncertainty, led to numerous local plan failures, and ultimately failed to deliver the kind of joined-up thinking and co-operation across local authority boundaries that was intended. Indeed, the failure of the duty was such that the previous Government legislated for its repeal in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023. I can assure the Committee that this Government will honour the previous Government’s intentions and commence the relevant provisions of the 2023 Act to repeal the duty. Our goal is to establish a system of strategic planning that garners support from all sides of the House, and so create a stable and consistent framework for planning the growth that this country so desperately needs.
Gideon Amos
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Section 47: minor and consequential amendments
Amendment made: 48, in schedule 3, page 146, line 4, at end insert—
“Habitats Regulations
11A (1) Regulation 111 of the Habitats Regulations (interpretation of Chapter 8) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (1), in the definition of ‘land use plan’—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘(the spatial development strategy)’ substitute ‘(the spatial development strategy for London)’;
(b) after paragraph (a) insert—
‘(aa) a spatial development strategy as provided for in Part 1A of the 2004 Planning Act;
(ab) a spatial development strategy of a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, not being a spatial development strategy within paragraph (aa);
(ac) a spatial development strategy of a combined county authority established under section 9 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, not being a spatial development strategy within paragraph (aa);’.
(3) In paragraph (1), in the definition of ‘plan-making authority’—
(a) in paragraph (a), after ‘replacement’ insert ‘of the spatial development strategy for London’;
(b) after paragraph (a) insert—
‘(aa) a strategic planning authority (within the meaning given in section 12A of the 2004 Planning Act);
(ab) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 when exercising powers in relation to a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ab) of the definition of “land use plan”;
(ac) a combined county authority established under section 9 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 when exercising powers in relation to a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ac) of the definition of “land use plan;”’;
(c) in paragraph (c), before sub-paragraph (ii) insert—
‘(ia) section 12P or 12Q of the 2004 Planning Act (Secretary of State’s powers in relation to spatial development strategy);’.
(4) In paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (c), after ‘strategy’, in both places, insert ‘for London’;
(b) after sub-paragraph (c) insert—
‘(ca) the adoption or approval of a spatial development strategy or of an alteration of such a strategy under Part 1A of the 2004 Planning Act;
(cb) the adoption or alteration of a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ab) of the definition of “land use plan”;
(cc) the adoption or alteration of a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ac) of the definition of “land use plan”;’.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment revises the Habitats Regulations 2017 so that the new kind of spatial development strategy (see clause 47 of the Bill) counts as a “land use plan”. The effect is that an assessment under those Regulations will be required in certain cases before the strategy is adopted.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48
Overview of EDPs
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 48, page 83, line 2, after “to” insert “significantly”.
This amendment would require that conservation measures undertaken within Environmental Delivery Plans (EDP) should significantly protect environmental features.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 77, in clause 48, page 83, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) An environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document.
(1B) Where an environmental delivery plan is prepared by a local planning authority, references in sections 48 to 60 to Natural England should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority.”
Clause stand part.
Clause 49 stand part.
Gideon Amos
I am sure we can hardly contain our excitement about moving on to another clause. Amendment 12 would require that conservation measures undertaken within environmental development plans should “significantly” protect environmental features.
Clause 48 is definitional, introducing the concept of environmental delivery plans and setting out briefly what they should contain. Amendment 12 would strengthen the second of the four main functions of an EDP in subsection (1)(b), which describes the purpose of any conservation measures, including an EDP, as merely to protect the environmental features in question. “To protect” is not adequate or strong enough. The amendment would have the relevant text read, “significantly protect” the features, which would provide stronger protection.
We heard oral evidence from various environmental groups at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill. They rang alarm bells about the level of protection that EDPs would offer and said that it would not be strong enough. This is a specific change to the test of what those environmental measures should deliver, and it would go some way to address the environmental concerns that have been raised.
Paul Holmes
I apologise, Mrs Hobhouse, for the length of my speech on the previous clause; this one will not be as long. I will take your steer and cut my remarks to a more suitable length. [Interruption.] I did not hear what the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said from a sedentary position, but she is making my speech longer.
Amendment 77, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, is an attempt to elaborate on the Opposition’s arguments about Natural England. The Minister will know where this amendment is coming from. He was open to some of the challenge from Members and witnesses in the Committee’s evidence session in which concerns were repeatedly raised about the functionality, ability and readiness of Natural England to play the role expected of it by the Secretary of State and the Minister in the parameters of this legislation.
I was initially concerned about Natural England because I have had involvement with it in my constituency, and some of its response times and ability to react in what I consider to be a satisfactory manner are sometimes compromised. That is by no means a criticism of the chief executive, who I thought gave very honest and able testimony in our evidence session. I will précis her words, as I did not make a note, but essentially she said, “We are going to wait for the spending review, but there is a lot of work that we need to do. We have been assured that the Government are going to resource us, and there are added responsibilities, but we hope, we see, we think.” I am afraid that, when we are looking at such monumental changes to development and nature recovery planning, we need better than that.
The Minister was really open when we cross-examined him in the evidence session. He said that I was tempting him to give an answer ahead of the spending review. I will not do that this afternoon; I know that he is but a small cog among the many Ministers asking the Chancellor for more money to resource their Departments. I understand that, having been through it myself. None the less, we are concerned about Natural England’s ability and whether it is the right organisation to take these responsibilities forward.
Amendment 77 to clause 48 would remove the reference to Natural England and provide that an environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document. The second part of the amendment, proposed subsection (1B), would provide that where an EDP is prepared by a local planning authority, the references to clauses 48 to 60, which essentially outline Natural England’s responsibilities, should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority.
We believe that local planning authorities have the wherewithal to develop local environmental delivery plans. They have experience of doing so. I know that there is some challenge, given the resourcing of planning departments, but the Minister’s record on that issue, as well as the actions that he is taking through this legislation, which we wholeheartedly support, make me confident that that challenge will be met.
As I say, I am concerned to ensure that local authorities can develop environmental delivery plans. After my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has spoken, will the Minister elaborate on that in his winding up? I hope that since the evidence session, he has taken a look at some of the legislation and recommendations for Natural England, or discussed them with Natural England to reassure himself that Natural England is resourced for the actions that he and Secretary of State will require it to undertake, although I realise that he will say this is a slow-burn development going through. Those are the parameters of our amendment, and we hope that the Minister will look on it favourably. If he cannot, we hope he can give us some reassurance that Natural England is still the best fit to undertake these responsibilities.
David Simmonds
For the Opposition, support for the recovery of nature and the natural environment is a high priority. Amendment 77 and the arguments we will advance later are about ensuring that the additional capacity the Government are bringing to the process of nature recovery through their changes to the planning system is focused in a way that delivers.
As we have heard, both in evidence and in the general debates around the comparison with the section 106 process, for example, where financial contributions are sought, they are accumulated until the point when the delivery of a plan—for school places, road improvements or whatever it may be—is viable. Clearly, the Government intend environmental delivery plans to work in the same way.
As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister has ably set out, during the evidence sessions we heard concerns about the capacity of Natural England, as a further part of this already complex system, to deliver on that objective. In his rebuttal remarks earlier, the Minister relied on the proposed new section on chalk streams, saying that it was an example of something that could be dealt with through a local nature recovery strategy. That is one alternative to Natural England seeking to create a much larger process, but there are many others.
In my constituency, we have the Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust, which might well be able to deliver a very substantial project in this respect. All of those bodies have a very direct relationship with the local authority, which is the planning authority. Rather than create an additional element of complexity, we should streamline the process so that a local authority becomes not only the planning decision maker, but is able, through its direct engagement with the developer and its detailed local knowledge of the environment in which the development is taking place, to take on that responsibility. Should it feel that Natural England is the best delivery partner for that, okay. I am sure we would all accept that, but there will be other options available, especially when the impacts the EDP is intended to mitigate are quite specialist or quite local in their effects. That is the thinking behind the amendment.
I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley in that I do not consider the Minister to be a small cog in this wheel. I am sure that his will be a significant voice in discussions with the Treasury, given the priority given to growth. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration, because this is an opportunity to step away from the previous delays, which were frequently cited in evidence on the role of Natural England, and to ensure that additional capacity goes into the part of the planning system that we know is already delivering at scale—the part that is under the control of local authorities.
Matthew Pennycook
Excellent. I wanted to make sure, given previous confusion on other clauses.
Before I speak to clauses 48 and 49 and respond to the points made, I hope you will indulge me slightly, Mrs Hobhouse, as I take a few moments to set out the Government’s overriding objections to amending this really important part of the Bill, which I know will be subjected to rigorous scrutiny by the Opposition.
As set out in our plan for change, this Government are committed to reforming the planning system to build the homes and critical infrastructure our country needs. The reforms in this Bill are critical to meeting our ambitious targets of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes, and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. However, we have been consistently clear that meeting those objectives need not, and should not, come at the cost of the environment.
By pursuing smart planning reforms, we can unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country, delivering a win-win for development and the environment, and building a future where nature and the economy flourish together. The new approach that the nature restoration fund will facilitate will allow us to use funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in terms of driving the recovery of protected sites and species, thereby delivering more for nature, not less. The fund will move us away from an unacceptable status quo. I think there is recognition in Committee that not only does the status quo deters and constrains development, but all too often it fails to improve our environment.
David Simmonds
The Minister mentioned moving to a cost recovery basis. Earlier, I mentioned a weakness of section 106: by the time funds are accumulated, maybe over a five or 10-year period, costs have risen and the delivered outcome is significantly less than was envisaged to mitigate the original impact. Could the Minister set out the process for establishing the relevant costs, with reference for example to the much-mocked £115 million HS2 bat tunnel, which came up in the evidence sessions? That has been hugely costly. We could end up with a very substantial bill that the developers and the promoters of the project had never expected in the first place, but that was judged necessary as a result of this process, despite it being entirely out of the view of the planning authority determining the original application.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman is more than welcome to come back to me on that point, but we will deal with the mechanism by which fees are set under the EDPs in a later clause. I hope that, at that point, I will provide him with more clarity, but perhaps we could defer that particular discussion, because I think it would be more appropriately dealt with then. For the reasons I have given, I commend these clauses to the Committee and ask for the two amendments to be withdrawn.
Gideon Amos
We are concerned about this issue. Our set of amendments in these areas is small; they are in the spirit of the Bill and of what the Government want to do with environmental delivery plans. They are designed to provide the strengthening that environmental groups are calling for clearly and strongly. We will not push the Committee to a vote, but we remain concerned and we will return to similar points, which are also in the spirit of the Bill, on later amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 77, in clause 48, page 83, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) An environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document.
(1B) Where an environmental delivery plan is prepared by a local planning authority, references in sections 48 to 60 to Natural England should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority.”—(Paul Holmes.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 50, page 84, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) An environmental feature identified in an EDP must not be—
(a) an irreplaceable habitat;
(b) ecologically linked to an irreplaceable habitat to the extent that development-related harm to that feature or the surrounding site would negatively affect the irreplaceable habitat.
(2B) For the purposes of this section, ‘irreplaceable habitat’ means—
(a) a habitat identified as irreplaceable under The Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Irreplaceable Habitat) Regulations 2024, or
(b) an ecologically valuable habitat that would be technically very difficult or impossible to restore, create or replace within a reasonable timescale.”
This amendment would mean that an Environmental Delivery Plan cannot be created for irreplaceable habitats, and would maintain existing rules and processes for the protection of irreplaceable habitats, including under the National Planning Policy Framework.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 13, in clause 50, page 84, line 32, leave out “an” and insert “a significant”.
This amendment would require that an improvement made to the conservation status of an identified environmental feature within environmental delivery plans should be significant.
Amendment 33, in clause 50, page 84, line 33, at end insert
“, and deliver new nature-based solutions to flooding and sustainable drainage systems in the area covered by the EDP.”
Amendment 148, clause 50, page 84, line 38, at end insert—
“(4A) Subsection (4) does not apply where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site and is—
(a) a chalk stream;
(b) a blanket bog.”
Government amendments 95 and 96.
Clause stand part.
Ellie Chowns
I rise to speak in very strong support of amendment 18 to clause 50, which is one of a number of amendments I have tabled to part 3. I have significant concerns about part 3—concerns clearly shared by a wide range of environmental organisations, the Office for Environmental Protection and by many prominent scientists.
Amendment 18 seeks to ensure that irreplaceable habitats, those rare and exceptional ecosystems that, once lost, cannot be recreated, are explicitly excluded from being subjected to environmental delivery plans under the Bill. In simple terms, it provides a critical safeguard for our most ecologically valuable places by ensuring that EDPs, tools designed to offset and manage environmental harm from development, cannot be applied to irreplaceable habitats or to features whose degradation would harm such habitats. It is not possible to offset an irreplaceable habitat; it is, by definition, irreplaceable.
Luke Murphy
I rise to speak to clause 50. The Government and the Minister deserve complete praise for their attempt to thread the needle of building more homes while protecting and restoring nature. We must recognise that the system we inherited was failing on both counts. The innovative approach outlined in this part of the Bill, including in clause 50, is to be applauded.
I have one question for the Minister. In evidence to the Committee, there was a difference of opinion between Natural England and Wildlife and Countryside Link about whether the mitigation hierarchy would still apply under the Bill. As the Minister is aware, the Office for Environmental Protection has also expressed concerns about the undermining of the mitigation hierarchy. Here we have a disagreement between Natural England and the OEP on the loss of the mitigation hierarchy, and whether developers can indeed get away without avoiding harm.
I have also seen written evidence from Arbtech, the leading ecological consultancy in the UK and a major employer in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). In its representations on the issue, it also expressed concerns on behalf of developers about the complexities that could be created for them. I ask the Minister, how can we clear up the discrepancy? It is absolutely clear that the Government want to avoid harm for habitats that cannot be easily replaced, and that the Government want to restore and protect nature and achieve our housing goals. How can we give the OEP and others the confidence that the Government’s intentions will be made a legal reality?
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak in support of amendment 13, which would require that the conservation measures undertaken within environmental delivery plans should significantly protect environmental features. It is one of a number of similar amendments that I will not speak to at length. Together, they would strengthen the thrust and strength of environmental delivery plans.
I say gently to the Government that if none of these strengthening opportunities is taken, we will end up with a Bill that provides environmental delivery plans that do not have the confidence of environmental bodies in this country or those who represent our environment. I hope that the Minister will consider that as we debate these amendments, which may seem to concern minor matters of wording but could really strengthen the structure of EDPs.
We look forward to hearing what the Government have to say about amendment 18, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. We are concerned about irreplaceable habitats, and we look for some reassurance on that topic before considering how we respond to that amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
Before I start, let me make a point that I think has been well conveyed, but that I will make again for the sake of clarity: I hope that Opposition Members who have dealt with me in the past know this, but when I say that I am reflecting and listening, I am. I will take all the comments about these clauses away. As I said in respect of the opinions that have been shared with us by the Office for Environmental Protection, we are already thinking about how we might respond to allay some of those concerns.
Environmental delivery plans will ensure that the environmental impact of development is addressed through the delivery of effective, strategic conservation measures. The conservation measures will not only address the impact of development, but go further to provide a positive contribution to overall environmental improvement, delivering the win-win that we have spoken about.
Clause 50 is central to establishing the new approach that I have outlined. It introduces requirements for the environmental delivery plan to identify and set out information on three of the key concepts that it deals with. The first is the environmental features that are likely to be negatively affected: either a specific protected feature of a protected site, or a protected species. Those protections stem from the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. I will come back to that point, which is relevant to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.
The second concept is the relevant environmental impact of development, and the third is the conservation measures that will be put in place to address the negative impacts and contribute to an overall improvement in the environmental feature. For example, where an environmental feature is a type of plant that is a notified feature of a protected watercourse, and the environmental impact is nutrient pollution from housing development, the conservation measures will address the nutrient pollution from the housing development but will go further to improve the conservation status of that type of plant in that watercourse.
In designing conservation measures, Natural England will consider the lifespan of the development and the period over which conservation measures need to be secured and managed. EDPs will be able to include back-up conservation measures that could be deployed, if needed, to secure the desired environmental outcomes. That is not only important for nature, but part of ensuring that the Secretary of State can be confident that EDPs will deliver conservation measures that outweigh the impact of development. This shift from the status quo towards active restoration is a key feature of the nature restoration fund.
A draft environmental delivery plan will also contain information on the expected cost of conservation measures to ensure that conservation measures are adequately funded. The cost of the measures will be relevant to making sure that the levy is set at a reasonable level for development, while allowing us to be confident that the conservation measures will be delivered.
As well as setting out further detail as to what an environmental delivery plan will contain, clause 50—with clarification from Government amendment 96—establishes the ability of Natural England to request that a planning condition be imposed on development as a conservation measure. Those pro forma conditions will allow avoidance and reduction measures to be secured up front, alongside wider conservation measures. It could be, for example, that as part of an environmental delivery plan dealing with the impact of water scarcity, a planning condition requires development to achieve a certain standard of water efficiency.
Although it has always been the case that those conservation measures would be maintained, Government amendment 95 introduces a requirement that an environmental delivery plan sets out how they are to be maintained and over what period, such as through conservation covenants or land agreements. I commend the clause and the Government amendments to the Committee.
I turn to the amendments tabled and spoken to by Opposition Members. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire set out, amendment 18 seeks to prevent irreplaceable habitats, or habitats linked to irreplaceable habitats, from being included in environmental delivery plans. I should first set out clearly that the provisions in the Bill will not reduce protections for irreplaceable habitats.
Existing protections for irreplaceable habitats under the national planning policy framework will continue to apply. Those protections provide that where development results in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, development should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. That policy is set out in the NPPF and applies to those particular habitats.
Matthew Pennycook
If the hon. Lady wants to intervene, she is more than welcome to.
The Chair
Order. Does the hon. Lady want to intervene, or shall I call her to speak at the end?
Ellie Chowns
I want to say something further, but not specifically as an intervention.
The Chair
The shadow Minister would like to speak to that amendment. Can I call him first?
Paul Holmes
I apologise to the Minister and to you, Mrs Hobhouse, because I did not register that amendment 148 was in this group—that is my fault.
Paul Holmes
It is getting late, and I have been thinking about chalk streams all day. I will speak briefly to amendment 148, which is in the name of the shadow Environment Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). Clause 50(4) states:
“Where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site, the EDP may, if Natural England considers it appropriate, set out conservation measures that do not directly address the environmental impact of development on that feature at that site but instead seek to improve the conservation status of the same feature elsewhere.”
The amendment would add two important carve-outs through an extra subsection (4A), whereby subsection (4) does not apply where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site and is a chalk stream or a blanket bog—[Laughter.] The Minister was laughing. We have carved out those two things in the amendment—well, the shadow Environment Secretary thought it was very important, obviously, and I have researched what a blanket bog is—because of what we discussed earlier.
In particular, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined perfectly that our chalk streams in this country are exceptionally special, are unique ecosystems and are unique in most ways to the UK, particularly Hampshire and certain other parts of the country. Therefore, we think there is scope to create subsection (4A) to exempt those two specific protected characteristics from subsection (4).
That is the reason why we tabled amendment 148: chalk streams obviously cannot be moved—I am not being facetious; I promise the Minister that we are not at that stage of the day—and they are incredibly rare, so it would not be appropriate to try to create that environmental protection elsewhere. We could do it from one chalk stream to another, but chalk streams are so rare that we would not want to harm, inadvertently or purposefully, the country’s chalk streams.
I hope the Minister sees that those very small additions to the text of clause 50 would strengthen the Bill. I commend the amendment, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
Just to clarify, for Hansard more than anything, I laughed only at the shadow Minister’s delivery of the term “blanket bog”. I was not in any way questioning the importance of that type of peatland.
David Simmonds
For the edification of the Committee, they are also known as featherbed bogs.
Matthew Pennycook
Indeed. I look forward to seeing how Hansard tidies up that exchange.
As the shadow Minister said, amendment 148 would prevent chalk streams and blanket bogs from being an environmental feature for which conservation measures can be put in place that address the harm from development at a different location from the impacted site. Where the feature to which an EDP relates is an irreplaceable habitat, such as a blanket bog, it would not be possible for impacts on that feature to be compensated for elsewhere. That is the nature of their being irreplaceable.
The Bill is clear that impacts must be adequately addressed for an environmental delivery plan to be made by the Secretary of State. Moreover, as I just set out in relation to a previous amendment, both chalk streams and blanket bogs are protected by the national planning policy framework. They are not environmental obligations that can be discharged through the nature restoration fund, so they would not be the focus of an environmental delivery plan.
The NPPF makes it clear that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Those protections will continue to apply. On that basis, I hope the shadow Minister will not press the amendment.
Due to the slightly muddled way in which we have debated these amendments, I have not had the chance to respond to amendment 13, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, so I will do so now. As he set out, it would require environmental delivery plans to go further than the current requirement to contribute to an “improvement” in the conservation status of an environmental feature to contributing to a “significant improvement”. The Government have always been clear that they would legislate only where we could secure better outcomes for nature, and that is what we have secured through these clauses by moving beyond the current system of offsetting to secure an improvement in environmental outcomes.
Clause 50 requires that an environmental delivery plan must set out not only how conservation measures will address the environmental impact of development, but how they will contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the environmental feature in question. That reflects the commitment that EDPs will go beyond neutrality and secure more positive environmental results.
That commitment ties into the crucial safeguard in clause 55(4), which ensures that an EDP can be put in place only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the delivery of conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development. That means that environmental delivery plans will already be going further than simply offsetting the impact of development.
However, requiring environmental delivery plans to go even further, in the way that the amendment proposes, risks placing a disproportionate burden on developers to contribute more than their fair share. In effect, I am arguing that EDPs already go beyond the status quo. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member will not press the amendment, not least because we will discuss these issues in more detail in the debate on clause 55.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister and other hon. Members for their comments; I would like to push the amendment to a vote. I agree with the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on the importance of including the word “significant”, but as the Minister says, we will come on to that later. I recognise the importance of chalk streams and blanket bogs, but they are not the only habitats that should be protected, which is why I think my amendment is clearer and more comprehensive. It incorporates the issues that were raised by the hon. Member.
The Minister argued that my amendment is not required because there are existing protections for irreplaceable habitats, but he indicated that there could be some grey areas, for example where certain features of irreplaceable habitats, such as particular creatures or aspects, are considered as part of EDPs. That creates an unhelpful greyness and is concerning.
The Minister mentioned the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection. That advice has caused me considerable concern. The OEP is worried by several aspects of the Bill and states:
“In our considered view, the bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law”,
so it would undermine protections that are currently in place. The OEP states:
“As drafted, the provisions are a regression. This is particularly so for England’s most important wildlife—those habitats and species protected under the Habitats Regulations.”
That says very clearly that changes are urgently needed to part 3 of the Bill. If we cannot amend part 3 to protect irreplaceable habitats, what hope do we have of tackling other issues? This is very important, and I would like to push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
For clarification, there was no further debate on amendment 148 because amendment 18 was the lead amendment in that particular group.
Amendments made: 95, in clause 50, page 85, line 4, leave out from “cost” to “likely” in line 5 and insert “, and
(b) how the conservation measures are to be maintained,
over the period covered by the EDP or, if longer, the period for which the conservation measures are”.
This amendment additionally requires an EDP to state how the conservation measures will be maintained, such as through conservation covenants or land agreements.
Amendment 96: in clause 50, page 85, line 7, leave out
“requirement for Natural England to request”
and insert “request, by Natural England,”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment makes a minor drafting change to remove the reference to “a requirement for Natural England” which is unnecessary.
Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51
Nature restoration levy: charging schedules
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 52, page 86, line 12, at end insert—
“(10) An EDP must include a schedule setting out the timetable for the implementation of each conservation measure and for the reporting of results.
(11) A schedule included under subsection (10) must ensure that, where the development to which the EDP applies is in Natural England’s opinion likely to cause significant environmental damage, the corresponding conservation measures result in an improvement in the conservation status of the identified features prior to the damage being caused.
(12) In preparing a schedule under subsection (10) Natural England must have regard to the principle that enhancements should be delivered in advance of harm.”
This amendment would require Environmental Delivery Plans to set out a timetable for, and thereafter report on, conservation measures, and require improvement of the conservation status of specified features before development takes place in areas where Natural England considers development could cause significant environmental damage.
Clause 52 stand part.
Matthew Pennycook
In establishing this new approach, we recognise the need to ensure that developers have clarity around the required levels of contributions to benefit from an environmental delivery plan. This transparency will ensure that developers can factor in the cost of the levy, should they choose to use the EDP.
Clause 51 establishes clear, understandable charging schedules with each environmental delivery plan, including one or more charging schedule. These schedules will set out how much developers will be required to pay to discharge their environmental obligations through the EDP and will reflect the environmental impact that the EDP is seeking to address. This may vary depending on the nature and size of the development, with the charging schedules being bespoke to each particular environmental delivery plan. In addition, the charging schedule will be regulated in accordance with clauses 62 to 69, which will allow regulations to be made setting out requirements for how these rates will be determined.
I think this is probably the appropriate point to respond to the shadow Minister’s previous point. Those regulations would allow for fees to be index-linked to account for inflation, which is part of what he raised, but he mentioned build costs as well. Those regulations allow that scope.
David Simmonds
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. There is a combination of indexation, which is always the relevant consideration. For example, we have been through the recent experience of covid, which unleashed a huge wave of construction inflation. If the EDP were to be negotiated at a certain point, the envisaged outcome of that might be a substantial investment in, for example, a chalk stream environment or the creation of a new habitat.
There might be significant construction inflation between the point at which that EDP is first negotiated, the point at which sufficient contributions have been accumulated from the various parties that might have been involved in the development—which gives rise to the need for it—and the point at which that money is available to be spent. How will the level of the EDP be appropriately calculated so that we do not end up with what we already see in the section 106 system, whereby a contribution is secured from a developer, but by the time it comes to be spent, it is insufficient to pay for the mitigations that were necessary when it was negotiated?
Matthew Pennycook
I understand the shadow Minister’s point, and I will offer to write to him. His point about the sequencing of an EDP and the conservation measures that it would give rise to is valid. How can we essentially, through the fee and charging schedule process, ensure that those measures can be carried out on the basis of that fee? I will write to the shadow Minister with more detail on how we envisage that particular part of the Bill working. While later clauses set out further detail on the framework governing charging schedules, EDPs cannot function without them, and this clause ensures their inclusion and proper regulation.
Let me turn to clause 52. As well as clear charging schedules, it is important that EDPs include a range of other matters. Clause 52 supplements clauses 50 and 51 in setting out further detail on the information that Natural England must include in an EDP, ensuring that EDPs are transparent and robust.
As with all environmental matters, it is vital to understand the underlying environmental condition, which is why an EDP must describe the current conservation status of each identified environmental feature. This is crucial to set the baseline against which improvements can be measured. Flowing from that baseline, Natural England must set out why it considers the conservation measures to be appropriate, including details of alternatives considered and why they were not pursued, as well as listing the plans and strategies to which Natural England had regard in preparing the EDP in question. Like the assessment of the baseline, the consideration of alternatives is an important step that ensures that the best approach is taken forward and justified.
The EDP must also include an overview of other measures being implemented, or likely to be implemented, by Natural England or another public body to improve the conservation status of the environmental feature. This will provide confidence that the EDP is properly targeted and that the conservation measures are additional to other ongoing actions to support the relevant environmental features.
To ensure clarity in respect of protected species, EDPs must also specify the terms of any licences that will be granted to a developer or to Natural England. A further important element of the clause is that Natural England must set out how the effects of an EDP will be monitored, which will be critical to ensuring that further action can be taken, if necessary, across the life of an EDP. Natural England is under a duty to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in doing that.
The clause also provides a power for the Secretary of State to stipulate further information that must be included in an EDP. It may be used for various purposes, for example, to require an EDP relating to a protected species to set out how relevant licensing tests are met. For those reasons, I commend both clauses to the Committee.
I would like a chance to respond to amendment 3 if it is spoken to in due course.
Ellie Chowns
I rise to speak to amendment 3, a crucial amendment relating to timing. The current wording in clause 52 opens the door to conservation measures in EDPs coming long after the environmental features that they relate to having been damaged. Such a delay could be fatal to some habitats and species that have already suffered decline, so the mitigation could come too late. That is what the amendment aims to address. The absence of direction on the timing of EDP measures has been highlighted by the Office for Environmental Protection as one of its key concerns about part 3. The OEP’s advice to the Secretary of State observed:
“The bill is silent as to when conservation measures must be implemented and by when they must be effective. This gives rise to the possibility of significant impacts on the conservation status of protected species or sites arising before the successful implementation of conservation measures.”
That is the exact concern at the heart of amendment 3.
I want to illustrate the point with the example of the hazel dormouse. This rare, beautiful species has declined in number in England by 70%. Populations have become extinct in Hertfordshire, Staffordshire and Northumberland in the last few years. In places where they are clinging on, EDPs could be the final nail in the coffin. Hazel dormice are reliant on woodlands, travel corridors, established hedgerows and scrub. If an EDP permitted the destruction of those habitats on the basis of replacement habitats being provided some years down the road, it could be too late. It takes seven to eight years for hedgerows and scrub and significantly longer for woodland to become established, but a dormouse’s life span is three to five years, so there are several generations of dormice that could be affected by the destruction of habitat. Without their home, the populations would quickly die off, causing irreversible damage to the species before the replacement habitat came into effect.
Amendment 3 would deliver on the OEP recommendation to rectify that part of clause 52 and prevent such harm before mitigation, which is not intentional, I hope, but could arise accidentally if we do not adopt amendment 3. It would require Natural England, when setting the content of an EDP, to set a timetable for the delivery of conservation measures, guided by the principle that gains for nature should come in advance of harm from development. When Natural England is of the opinion that harms to an environmental feature are irreversible, it would have to ensure through the timetable that a boost to conservation status had been achieved before harm from development occurs.
I stress that the irreversible harm element would likely only apply in a small minority of cases when the most threatened habitats or species populations face possible destruction from harm coming before mitigation. In most cases, the amendment would simply mean that Natural England would be required to show careful consideration of how it would be ecologically best to sequence conservation measures when drawing up an EDP, prioritising up-front environmental gains. In sum, the amendment is a constructive effort to resolve a key threat to nature identified by the OEP itself. I very much hope the Minister will accept it.
Matthew Pennycook
I recognise that the amendment is a constructive attempt to highlight an issue that the OEP highlighted to us. I make the broad point again: we are carefully considering the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection and will continue to work with the sector and parliamentarians to deliver on the intent of the Bill in this area. We have been very clear on the intent of this part.
The amendment seeks, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire has just outlined, to require Natural England to produce a timetable for the delivery of conservation measures and additional requirements to secure environmental improvement in advance of development coming forward. While recognising the good intentions behind the amendment, the Government are confident that the legislation strikes the right balance in securing sufficient flexibility around the delivery of conservation measures, alongside safeguards that ensure conservation measures deliver an overall improvement for nature.
Ellie Chowns
How can the Government have that confidence when the OEP says that they should not?
Matthew Pennycook
It is worth reading the OEP’s letter in full. It broadly welcomes the overall thrust of the Bill in this area. We will reflect on and respond to the concerns it has highlighted. We want to ensure there is confidence that this part of the Bill can deliver on those objectives—that win-win for nature. If the hon. Lady will let me set out how different elements of the Bill might provide reassurance in this area, she is more than welcome to follow up and intervene.
The legislation is clear—we will come on to debate this—that the Secretary of State can make an EDP only when they are satisfied that the conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development. That test would not allow irreversible or irreparable impact to a protected site or species. It would allow Natural England, the conservation body for England, to determine what the appropriate measures are for bringing forward an EDP and how best to bring them forward over the period of the delivery plan.
We will come later to Government amendment 97, which in part deals with this issue by introducing a timeframe to the overall improvement test. It would mean that in applying that test, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the negative effects of development will be outweighed by the conservation measures by the end date of the EDP.
Ellie Chowns
The Minister has tabled amendments 95 and 97, but is that the sum total of the Minister’s response to the OEP’s advice? Those amendments do not, by any means, address the thrust and specifics of that advice. What further response does the Minister intend to make in response to and recognition of the OEP’s advice?
Matthew Pennycook
I do not think I could have been any clearer that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s letter and the points it has set out. I will not issue the Government response to that letter today in Committee; I am setting out the Government’s position on the Bill as it stands, but we will reflect on those concerns. If we feel that any changes need to be made to the Bill, we will, of course, notify the House at the appropriate point and table any changes. We are reflecting on whether they are needed to ensure that the intent of this part of the Bill, which we have been very clear must deliver both for the environment and for development, is met.
I will finish by making a couple of more points, because there are other provisions of the Bill that pertain to this area. There is already a requirement in clause 57 for Natural England to publish reports at least twice over the environmental delivery plan period, which will ensure transparency on how conservation measures are being delivered. That requirement is a minimum, and it may publish reports at any other time as needed. The reports will ensure that Natural England can monitor the impact of conservation measures to date to ensure that appropriate actions are taken to deliver the improved outcomes.
In establishing an alternative to the existing system, the Bill intentionally provides flexibility to diverge from a restrictive application of the mitigation hierarchy. We will come on to that again in clause 55. That, however, will only be where Natural England considers it to be appropriate and where it would deliver better outcomes for nature over the course of the EDP. The status quo is not working, and we have to find a smarter way to ensure there is that win-win. The alternative is to say that the status quo remains as it is, and we do not get those more positive outcomes for nature, but as I have said, we are reflecting on the OEP’s letter.
Luke Murphy
The Committee should hear exactly what the Minister has said: he and the Government are reflecting on what the OEP has said. It is only seven working days since the OEP sent its letter, so to rush forward with a full response now would be foolhardy. It is right that the Government reflect on it and we should accept the Minister at his word, given that he has strongly made clear that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s advice.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is only seven days. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire might expect Government to move quicker than they do, but they do not. It is right that we take time to reflect properly on whether the Government agree that some of the points the OEP has made are valid—we are allowed to have a difference of opinion—and that we should respond in an appropriate way, or whether the Bill as drafted on the particular points made is sufficient. We are reflecting on those points.
Ellie Chowns
I have seen comments from a number of environmental NGOs that were upset with how their previous comments had been taken out of context and used to indicate support for the Bill in a part of it that they do not feel so strongly supportive of. I have also heard feedback from environmental and nature protection NGOs that are frustrated with the fact that there was not a huge amount of consultation, or the formality of consultation that there could have been.
I genuinely do not want to get into a “He said, she said” debate or anything like that. I encourage the Minister gently to recognise the seriousness of the critique and the concerns that have been expressed. The Minister has said that the status quo is not working and that we need to change it. Amendment 3 proposes a further improvement; it is not a wholesale chucking out of absolutely everything in the Bill. A genuine attempt to strengthen this particular aspect of the Bill is being proposed in respect of the timing of measures under EDPs, recognising that given how nature works, it is important that the improvement comes before the destruction. That is all the amendment is about.
Matthew Pennycook
I say it once again for the record: I have understood the hon. Lady’s point. I will reflect on it, in the spirit of this Committee as a whole. I have sought to take points away when they are well made, and to give them further consideration.
Gideon Amos
The Minister is being characteristically generous with his time; I wish we had more. There are genuine concerns about the timetabling of the measures. I invite him to confirm that the Government are considering how to tackle the issue of ensuring that measures are taken in a timely fashion. That appears to be what he is saying, and I am encouraging him.
Matthew Pennycook
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am not going to provide the Committee with a running commentary on the Government’s internal deliberations in response to the OEP’s letter. I will not do that today. I totally understand why hon. Members are trying to draw me on the point, but I am not going to do that. I have set out the Government’s position, and I have made it very clear that we will reflect on the letter and on the points made today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Other requirements for an EDP
Amendment proposed: 3, in clause 52, page 86, line 12, at end insert—
“(10) An EDP must include a schedule setting out the timetable for the implementation of each conservation measure and for the reporting of results.
(11) A schedule included under subsection (10) must ensure that, where the development to which the EDP applies is in Natural England’s opinion likely to cause significant environmental damage, the corresponding conservation measures result in an improvement in the conservation status of the identified features prior to the damage being caused.
(12) In preparing a schedule under subsection (10) Natural England must have regard to the principle that enhancements should be delivered in advance of harm.”—(Ellie Chowns.)
This amendment would require Environmental Delivery Plans to set out a timetable for, and thereafter report on, conservation measures, and require improvement of the conservation status of specified features before development takes place in areas where Natural England considers development could cause significant environmental damage.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I am conscious that the Government have asked to extend the sitting beyond 5 o’clock, and we have already reached that point. I am also conscious that there will be votes in the main Chamber. Since you have been sitting here for three hours, I am minded to give you a short break. The votes are coming at about 6.20 pm, so I suggest a 10-minute break. Come back here for 5.15 pm.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting)
Thursday 15th May 2025
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 May 2025 - (15 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk and to switch electronic devices off or to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings, but bottled water is available.
Clause 55
Making of EDP by Secretary of State
Amendment moved (14 May): 97, in clause 55, page 88, line 6, leave out from “if” to “on” in line 8 and insert—
“, by the EDP end date, the conservation measures are likely to be sufficient to outweigh the negative effect of the EDP development”. —(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment makes it clear that the “overall improvement test” (required by clause 55(3)) will be passed only if the conservation measures are likely to be sufficient to outweigh the negative effect of the development on or before the EDP end date. It also makes a drafting change to clause 55(4).
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 119, in clause 55, page 88, line 7, leave out “are likely to” and insert “will”.
This amendment would mean that an EDP would only pass the overall improvement test if it is certain that the proposed measures will outweigh any negative environmental effects caused by the development.
Amendment 14, in clause 55, page 88, line 7, after “sufficient to” insert “significantly”.
This amendment would require that conservation measures within Environmental Delivery Plans significantly outweigh any negative effects of development.
Amendment 20, in clause 55, page 88, line 9, at end insert—
“(4A) An EDP does not pass the overall improvement test—
(a) where the environmental features affected are qualifying features of a European site, European marine site, European offshore marine site or a Ramsar site, unless—
(i) the Secretary of State is satisfied that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the relevant site from the delivery of development to which the EDP applies, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, with the same standard of confidence as if the EDP were being assessed as a plan or project under Regulation 63(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017;
(ii) it has not been possible for the Secretary of State to be satisfied under sub-paragraph (i) but the provision of measures to offset any unavoidable harm to the relevant features significantly outweighs the negative effect of the development;
(iii) there is an overriding public interest in permitting the EDP to be made and no alternative approaches to meeting the public interest that would result in less harm to the relevant site;
(b) unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that Natural England has demonstrated that all reasonable opportunities to avoid or minimise negative effects caused by development within the scope of the EDP have been taken;
(c) unless Natural England has demonstrated that—
(i) any measures to avoid or mitigate negative effects caused by development will be delivered and functioning prior to any such negative effects occurring, and
(ii) any proposed compensation measures will be delivered to prevent any irreversible harm to the conservation status of relevant ecological features.”
This amendment outlines when the Secretary of State must find that an EDP does not pass the overall improvement test.
Government amendment 98.
Clause stand part.
Clause 56 stand part.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Dr Huq.
I was speaking to this group of measures at the tail-end of yesterday’s sitting. I discussed clause 55, I spoke to the purpose and effect of clause 56, and I mentioned Government amendments 97 and 98. I will now turn to the other amendments in this group, beginning with amendment 119, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, which seeks to amend the threshold for when the Secretary of State may make an environmental delivery plan.
Amendment 119 speaks to the shift from site-by-site assessments to our strategic approach. In developing an alternative to the existing system, we need to recognise that a strategic approach that covers a potentially large amount of development over a number of years is a materially different proposition from assessing the impact of a single development. We must therefore approach that proposition in a different way. Put simply, we cannot be as unequivocal about outcomes as we would be on a site-by-site assessment basis.
The drafting of the clause reflects that, as it would not be appropriate to replicate the approach applied to assessments of individual sites. Instead, the Bill provides a wider package of safeguards, such as appropriate monitoring, the ability to deploy back-up measures and the ability to amend environmental delivery plans, to ensure that plans deliver the positive outcomes over the plan period.
That is also why clause 50 requires that an environmental delivery plan must set out not only how conservation measures will address the environmental impact of development, but how they will contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the environmental feature in question. It is also why clause 52(2) requires a draft environmental delivery plan to set out why the conservation measures selected are “considered appropriate” to meeting that goal.
As we have said since the Bill’s introduction, it is about delivering more for nature, not less. As I said in a previous sitting, we are therefore carefully considering the advice of the Office for Environmental Protection and its support for the intentions of the reforms. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Lady will in time agree not to press amendment 119.
Amendment 14 seeks to introduce a new threshold for when the Secretary of State may make an environmental delivery plan. Again, in developing the new approach, we have always been clear that the nature restoration fund will deliver more for nature, but that is not a substitute for wider action to support nature recovery. While it is right that we seek to do more and to outweigh the impact of development, we must ensure that we are not asking developers to contribute more than their fair share. That is not a check on ambition, but an acknowledgment that positive results can be realised only if environmental delivery plans are a viable option for developers.
The test in clause 55(4) ensures positive outcomes, but it cannot be set at a level that would make it impossible to bring forward an operable environmental delivery plan—that would be a lose-lose situation for the economy and for nature. Again, on that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will not press amendment 14.
Finally, I turn to amendment 20, also tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. This amendment seeks to amend the operation of the overall improvement that the Secretary of State must consider before making an environmental delivery plan. As I have already clarified for the Committee, the nature restoration fund will provide a different route for developers to discharge existing environmental obligations. In establishing this new approach, it is necessary to depart from existing process.
As I have outlined, the new approach will go further than the existing system, which requires measures only to offset harm to achieve neutrality. By taking this new approach we will deliver more for nature, not less. Although the Bill does not require a restrictive application of the mitigation hierarchy, we believe it nevertheless effectively maintains that hierarchy, as does the chief executive of Natural England, who gave oral evidence to the Committee.
Moreover, the flexibility that the Bill provides in respect of the hierarchy will be used only where Natural England considers it appropriate, in line with the overarching objective of delivering better outcomes for the relevant environmental feature over the course of the environmental delivery plan. The hon. Lady’s amendment would remove that flexibility and tether the nature restoration fund to the existing status quo that we know—I emphasise that again—is not working for our sites and species.
I also emphasise, however, that I understand the importance of ensuring that the flexibility is used only where it needs to be, and that everyone can be confident that harm is being avoided. I very much understand the concerns about the certainty of outcomes. We want everyone to be confident, so I am open to considering ways to underpin that confidence in a way that still allows the model to work as we want it to and as it needs to; my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke also asked yesterday what more the Government might consider in that regard. With that explanation, although I know further debate is forthcoming, I hope that the hon. Lady will consider not moving her amendment.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Dr Huq. I thank the Minister for his comments. He emphasised that his intention in the Bill is to continue to protect nature at the same level, but differently. He emphasised a different but not worse approach. I share his desire to ensure that even if it is different, it is not worse, but I am concerned about the way the Bill is framed.
In clause 55, we are really getting to one of several cruxes of the matter. The Secretary of State’s environmental statement on the front of the Bill states:
“the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law.”
A completely different opinion is expressed, however, in the letter from the Office for Environmental Protection, whose people know about this issue. I am glad that the Minister said yesterday that he is considering very seriously what the OEP said; I read the letter again in detail this morning—it is really hard-hitting.
The Minister points out that Natural England thinks there is no problem with the application of the mitigation hierarchy, but that is not the opinion of the Office for Environmental Protection. Given that Natural England will effectively have a conflict of interest under the Bill’s provisions, we need to pay serious attention to what the OEP says. I very much look forward to his promised comprehensive response to the OEP’s advice.
Amendment 20 is essential to ensure that the overall improvement test applied to EDPs, which is mentioned in clause 55, is robust, scientifically grounded and consistent with domestic and international environmental law. It is about making sure that when we talk about overall improvement, we really mean it—not on paper, not in theory, but in reality.
Amendment 119 makes a simple but essential change. Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, as set out in the OEP’s advice, there is a high degree of certainty established in statute and case law that environmental standards will be maintained beyond reasonable scientific doubt. In the overall improvement test in clause 55, however, conservation measures need only be “likely” to ensure that the environment is maintained. That leaves huge leeway for ministerial subjectivity, and it opens the door to damaging development. It is a clear regression in environmental law. Again, that is emphasised very clearly by the OEP, which states that the test in clause 55
“would be considerably more subjective and uncertain than under existing environmental law.”
How is that compatible with the statement on the front of the Bill? It cannot be.
Given that the Minister has assured us that it is not the Government’s intention to weaken environmental protections, amendment 119 would fix the loophole by replacing the words “are likely to” with the word “will”. That would mean that an EDP would require an objective test that conservation measures will achieve an overall improvement.
This amendment is not about gold-plating; it is simply about matching the level of certainty that currently exists in law and assuring the House that environmental protection will be maintained. I would be deeply worried if the Bill passed as it stands, with the weakening in certainty, because that would clearly be contrary to the Government’s statement on the front of the Bill.
Amendment 20 sets the minimum legal and scientific thresholds that must be met before an EDP can be said to pass the overall improvement test. Again, the advice from the OEP is very robust—there needs to be scientific certainty. Amendment 20 would specifically introduce safeguards when protected nature sites are involved, such as European sites, Ramsar wetlands and other internationally important conservation areas.
Amendment 20 would ensure that the Secretary of State must apply a standard of evidence equivalent to the rigorous integrity test under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. This is not new law; it is a reaffirmation of the protections that have guided habitat conservation for decades, ensuring that there is no regression, as per the Environment Act 2021. The amendment is absolutely necessary, otherwise clause 55 risks watering down the existing protections.
Let us not forget what is at stake here. The UK has 658 designated special areas of conservation, special protection areas and Ramsar sites across the four nations. They include places of global ecological importance— the Norfolk broads, the Severn estuary and the north Pennines—and places that are very dear to my own heart, such as the River Wye and its catchment. These places support rare and endangered species, and are central to our commitments under the Bern, Bonn and Ramsar conventions. However, many of them are already in unfavourable condition. Natural England’s latest data shows that only 38% of England’s sites of special scientific interest are in favourable condition and many of those overlap with European sites.
This amendment would provide three layers of safeguards. First, it says that an EDP cannot be approved if it would harm the “integrity” of a European or Ramsar site, unless that harm is either fully avoided or meets the high bar set under existing habitat regulations. Secondly, it would require Natural England to demonstrate that “all reasonable opportunities” to avoid or minimise harm have been taken.
Thirdly, the point about the mitigation hierarchy is really important—we will discuss it again when we debate a future clause. It is a key concern for the Office for Environmental Protection and all who care about nature. The mitigation hierarchy means that we avoid environmental harm before we go to mitigation or offsetting. The problem with EDPs, as they are set out under part 3 of the Bill, is that they shift straight to offsetting. As I tried to explain yesterday, some things cannot be offset; irreplaceable habitats cannot be offset.
In addition, unless we are certain that offsetting is done in advance and that the habitat is linked to the one being destroyed, that could lead to the inadvertent destruction of species—for example, dormice, as I said yesterday. It is important that the Bill strengthens the commitment to the mitigation hierarchy and that that strengthening is written into the Bill, as well as ensuring that the overall improvement test is compatible with the existing level of protection under existing environmental law.
The expert advice of the OEP directly supports the points that I am making. It concluded that the overall improvement test, as currently drafted, would weaken existing legal protections, and has consequently called for amendments to ensure that the test aligns with environmental law and principles.
We also need to ensure that the UK remains compliant with international and trade obligations. Under the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, we are bound not to weaken environmental standards in ways that affect trade or investment. Removing or diluting protections for SACs and SPAs through a vague or permissive improvement test could fall foul of that requirement and expose the Government to legal challenge.
Fundamentally, the amendment also reflects the will of the public. More than 80% of people support strong legal protections for nature sites, even when development is proposed. I fully agree with the Minister’s articulation of the view that development does not have to come at the expense of nature—it is absolutely possible to build the houses that we need in a way that respects and indeed improves nature protection—but we can do that only if the legal framework ensures that development takes place in that way. Otherwise, there is a serious risk that the clear weakening of environmental protections, as outlined in the current drafting of the Bill, will lead to the opposite of what the Government say they want to do on the front of the Bill.
These two amendments do not prevent development. They simply ensure that development is compatible with the integrity of our most protected sites, give effect to long-standing legal protections, uphold the Office for Environmental Protection’s recommendations, and ensure that the overall improvement test is not a loophole but a genuine environmental safeguard. I strongly urge hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to support both amendments if we are serious about development going hand in hand with nature protection.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. Some points have already been made on the underlying point of amendment 14, so I will be reasonably brief, but clause 55 goes to the heart of the overall improvement test and is crucial to the structure of the Bill.
In many ways, amendment 14 has a similar target as amendment 20, but I would argue that it is more in the spirit of the Bill and how the Government are going about it. Amendment 14 would require that the conservation measures within an EDP would “significantly”—it would add that word—outweigh the negative effect of development.
Clause 55 sets the overall improvement test that an EDP must pass before the Secretary of State can approve it. At the moment, in order to pass, the conservation measures in the EDP must be
“likely to be sufficient to outweigh the negative effect, caused by the environmental impact of development”.
As the Wildlife Trusts has argued:
“The lifting of the bar to ‘significantly outweigh’—
through this amendment—
“is needed to secure a level of gain for nature capable of meaningfully improving conservation outcomes.”
That approach aligns explicitly with the Government’s stated intentions for the nature restoration fund. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government factsheet describes the proposed system as being a
“marked change from the current approach which, at most, requires development to offset its impact and no further”—
on that, the Minister and I are agreed. Instead, the Government say the approach will deliver
“a positive contribution to nature recovery”,
but saying “likely” to outweigh simply will not deliver that marked change, as “likely” is neither a high bar nor a strong test.
The higher bar of “significant improvement” that we propose is also in line with well-established environmental law. The Environment Act 2021, for example, is notable; now four years from receiving Royal Assent, its use of the robust benchmark of “significant improvement” has not experienced a single legal challenge. There is no reason to expect that any would arise from applying that test in this EDP legislative framework.
An EDP that passes that high bar and is made by the Secretary of State would, by definition, be environmentally robust as a result, and less vulnerable to a legal challenge than one that passes only the lower bar currently in the clause. It is in everyone’s interest that the EDPs deliver the promise of positive contributions and that step change—that marked change—the Government have stated they intend to achieve.
Finally, if we are not raising the bar through this amendment, can the Minister explain, in his summing up, why the wording is only “likely” to outweigh? Why not use “will”, as the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire proposes, or “significantly” outweigh, as in our amendment? Those who are familiar with the habitats regulations will know that the test there is that “no reasonable scientific doubt” should exist. There is a marked difference between that established approach and the current wording in the Bill, which is not simply strong enough.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I acknowledge that this is an important part of the Bill and that some organisations have expressed concerns about the matter. I agree with the hon. Members for North Herefordshire and for Taunton and Wellington pointing out what the OEP has said about this part of the Bill, but we should acknowledge that what the Minister said yesterday and his speech today could not have been clearer: the Government are reviewing and reflecting on the OEP’s advice, and they have set out their incredibly clear intention to ensure not only that nature is not worse off, but that it is better off as a result of the Bill.
The Minister has been crystal clear that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s advice. The latter came through seven working days ago yesterday. We are now on the eighth working day since it provided its advice. I urge colleagues to take the Minister at his word and to allow the Government to respond to the OEP. If colleagues across the House are not content with their response, that can be dealt with on Report, but we should take the Minister at his word when he says that the Government are taking the OEP’s comments incredibly seriously and reflecting on them.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, although I do not expect hon. Members to just take me at my word; I think they should both interrogate the Bill and the provisions and reflect on my further comments. Although I caveat everything by saying that we are grateful to the Office for Environmental Protection for its recent advice and its support for the intention of these reforms—let us be clear: it supports the intention and we are carefully considering its advice —we are clear that this approach will deliver more for nature, not less. The important thing is that those improved outcomes—and they are improved outcomes; we are not talking about merely maintaining the status quo—can be achieved only if we are willing to do things differently. That is why the Bill establishes an alternative to existing processes, but only where that will lead to better outcomes.
I should make a brief comment about Natural England, as the other body that will be involved in the design and implementation of environmental delivery plans. It is slightly unfair, if I may say so, for the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to suggest that there is a stark conflict of interest here. As I have said in previous sittings, Natural England has the expertise and ecological skills to make the right judgments. It will put in place suitable propriety barriers to ensure that it can act effectively as both an advisory body and the body tasked with preparing, designing and implementing EDPs.
Ellie Chowns
I have a genuine question and concern. Under the Bill, Natural England has responsibility, as advisers, preparers, developers and deliverers, to implement the EDPs, and it is also judge and jury on the effectiveness of EDPs and whether they are doing the job that they are intended to do. That is a lot of functions to give to one body. There are not checks and balances within that system. This is no comment on the expertise and commitment of Natural England. I am certain that everyone working for that body shares my and the Minister’s desire to see the natural environment thrive and improve, but the reality is that the Bill’s structure and the responsibilities that it gives to Natural England span the full gamut, from implementing to checking, and that is effectively a conflict of interest, is it not?
Matthew Pennycook
I do not think it will be, for the reasons I have given: suitable propriety barriers will be put in place and the House will be able to take a view on whether those are sufficient. I would also slightly push back on the idea that Natural England is judge and jury when it comes to EDPs. The Secretary of State has responsibility for judging whether an EDP meets the outcomes test on the basis of advice from Natural England.
Matthew Pennycook
I will make a bit of progress, then I will be happy to give way.
Hon. Members may say that those safeguards are not sufficient, but we trust elected Members in ministerial capacities to exercise their judgment, in line with the ministerial code and taking into account their obligations under both international and domestic law. We trust them to do that. If hon. Members take issue with the basic fact that a Secretary of State can exercise judgment, then we disagree.
Ellie Chowns
I have two points. The first was raised by the Office for Environmental Protection in its advice. I was going to come to it when discussing clause 58, because it is specifically about the amendment of EDPs. Only Natural England and the Secretary of State get to decide if an EDP should be amended. There is not even any requirement for consultation. There is no mandatory requirement to assess whether an EDP is doing its job. If we are to trust Natural England and the Secretary of State to do that, when they will both have an in-built interest in declaring that an EDP is doing its job, there is no mechanism for ensuring that an EDP is actually meeting the outcomes that are envisaged.
The Minister asks us to trust in the good judgment of the Secretary of State, but I remind the Minister that previous environmental Secretaries of State—who would, under these provisions, have been expected to make these decisions—include Liz Truss from 2014 to 2016, Owen Paterson from 2012 to 2014, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), and Thérèse Coffey. Those are not people who necessarily share the Minister’s espoused commitments, and not necessarily people who everybody who cares about nature protection might automatically trust to make important and sensitive judgments about whether environmental protection is taking place.
The entire point of a Bill—we talked about this in a previous sitting—is that it sets out what has to happen and why, because we cannot simply trust whoever happens to be in the seat of Secretary of State to always do the right thing. That is why we have law. I beg the Minister to recognise that we cannot simply trust the judgment of whoever happens to be Secretary of State for the next however many decades. The Bill must be written correctly, so that it embeds environmental protections and does not leave the door open for activity contrary to the Minister’s stated aims.
The Chair
The Clerk is frowning at me and saying that the hon. Lady’s contribution was a little overlong for an intervention, which is usually on one point. It sounded a bit speech-like.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Lady tempts me down a path of commenting on past Secretaries of State—I would enjoy that, but I will not do it. She is absolutely right that we must ensure that this legislation can be exercised appropriately by any Secretary of State, whoever they might be, in years to come.
Where the hon. Lady and I slightly differ is on what legislation is required to do in all circumstances. We rely on Ministers to exercise their judgment in line with the relevant legislation and other obligations, for example on call-in decisions that the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers in my Department are asked to make. They are judgments. They are exercised on the basis of a recommendation by the Planning Inspectorate, and of the relevant material considerations, but a judgment is still exercised. We are saying that the Secretary of State has to exercise a judgment on the “overall improvement test” but on the basis of advice from Natural England, once consultation has been carried out.
As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington mentioned, clause 55 gets to the heart of this approach. We are reflecting on the points made in the letter from the Office for Environmental Protection. I want to set out why we feel our approach is right, and that the necessary safeguards are built in. I will deal briefly with the amendments in turn, starting with 119.
Changing “are likely to” to “will” would require a greater deal of certainty from the Secretary of State before they would be able to make an environmental delivery plan. That does get to the heart of the difference in approach. In moving away from a site-by-site assessment to trying to improve outcomes for nature in the round, over a wider geographic area, we have to move away from a time period in which those conversations, or offsets, can be delivered on those sites specifically. By its very nature, the approach requires a degree of, if you like, gazing into an as-yet-unknown future. The test of “likely” makes that difficult to achieve.
Matthew Pennycook
I will finish this point first.
That is why there are safeguards built into the process in terms of monitoring, the backup measures that can be taken in terms of amendment or revocation, and the ultimate judgment made by the Secretary of State on the basis of advice on whether the EDP is having the relevant outcomes. We cannot, unless we are determined not to attempt this approach in any way, apply near-impossible tests for an EDP to meet.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I have total sympathy with what the Minister is saying, and understand the point that the Member for the hon. Member for North Herefordshire is seeking to address. Does the Minister agree that one of the lessons from section 106 is that, in many cases, funds end up being returned to the developer, as it is impossible to spend on the mitigation because of the specificity for which it is provided?
The Opposition agree with the Minister that there will be occasions when, in the view of the Secretary of State or Natural England, it is impossible to build the specified badger, bat or newt mitigation on a specific site, and that it would be better to spend that money somewhere else to create a better overall environmental benefit. It is therefore important to provide for that flexibility in the legislation.
Matthew Pennycook
The shadow Minister makes my case for me, because we want to allow Natural England to have that flexibility.
Matthew Pennycook
If the hon. Lady will let me respond to this point, I will then address her point.
It is precisely that flexibility that we want to allow Natural England to use, because over that wider geographic area, it can look at which conservation measures, in the round, will have the most impact, rather than costly gold-plating, which happens now in certain circumstances— I will not repeat the individual cases, but we hear about them in the press a lot—and often leads to bad outcomes, and which flows from the site-by-site assessments that must take place.
What gets to the heart of the approach, and is the reason why some of these amendments are deeply problematic, is that, under this approach, we cannot be as unequivocal as we can currently on the basis of individual site-by-site assessments. There needs to be the opportunity to take a forward view as to what will have the likely effect of having an overall benefit for nature in the round across the EDP area.
Ellie Chowns
With respect, I do not think that the point made by the shadow Minister does make the Minister’s case for him, because it was about taking a site-by-site approach, which is not a good analogy here. We already have capacity under existing environmental law to take a district-wide approach—for example, district-level licensing for newts. I am not opposed to that at all; it is a very good idea. That is not the issue here; the issue is the degree of certainty.
If the Minister maintains his position that EDPs must only be subject to an “are likely to” test, how is that compatible with the absolute certainty on the front page of the Bill that it will not result in any decline in environmental protection? How can lots of “are likely tos” add up to the certainty that the Secretary of State sets out on the front page of the Bill? They simply do not.
Matthew Pennycook
We think the Bill provides that certainty, which is why the Secretary of State felt able to make that statement, but—this is really important— while the hon. Lady has clearly indicated that she, like us, is unhappy with the status quo, and while I think she recognises the limitations of the impact we can have in terms of beneficial nature outcomes using the current, individual site-by-site-assessment basis, her amendment 20 would, in practice, result in the continued need to assess development on a case-by-case basis and would require conservation measures to address the specific impacts of each development. It does not provide the necessary flexibility that will lead to better outcomes for nature, while at the same time unlocking development and allowing it to be accelerated.
Matthew Pennycook
I will give someone else a chance, but I am happy to come back to the hon. Lady.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister; I will give him an opportunity to move on to our amendment 14, which I hope he agrees is in the spirit of that approach. I sympathise with the point made by the shadow Minister, and I understand the qualitative difference with a site-by-site approach, in which outcomes may more easily be predicted than in a nation-wide or region-wide approach. Does the Minister agree that wording that retains “are likely to” but introduces “significantly” raises the bar in a way that is in tune with the Government’s approach in the Bill?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Without in any way denigrating the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, the hon. Gentleman’s amendment is a subtler way of attempting to constructively suggest how the Bill might be improved, but we still think it is problematic, for the following reasons. It would apply a higher threshold to the improvement test in clause 55 —namely, that measures are likely to be sufficient to “significantly” outweigh the negative effect of development.
The addition of “significantly” into the improvement test would mean that measures would need to be likely to significantly outweigh the negative impact of development, and that would require more than a marginal improvement. It would also introduce uncertainty as to what could be classified as “significantly” outweighing the negative impact—as well as, I might add, an associated risk of legal challenge.
In that sense, in seeking to press EDPs to deliver far in excess of the impact that arises from development, amendment 14 risks undermining the efficacy and placing an undue burden on developers, notwithstanding the legal risk I have just mentioned.
Gideon Amos
Does the Minister know that the same “significant” test under the Environment Act 2021 has not been subject to a single legal challenge?
Matthew Pennycook
I am not sure how comparable they are. We are very mindful—this is something I was aware of before becoming a Minister, but it has certainly been brought home to me since—of the impact of specific wording in legislation. It is incredibly important.
In the interests of moving on, Dr Huq, I will probably finish here. I think we have had an extensive debate.
Matthew Pennycook
I will give way to the hon. Lady one last time, then I will address the point made by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington.
Ellie Chowns
It is important: the whole point of Committee is to look at the detail and really get to grips with it.
Replacing “are likely to” with “will”, as my amendment seeks to do, would not make it necessary to conduct a site-by-site assessment. It relates to the wording that clause 55 applies to the EDP overall. It is about the degree of certainty that an EDP will deliver—that a habitat-wide approach to delivering environment improvements will deliver—as in subsection (5), in relation to
“the maximum amount of development to which the EDP may apply”.
With respect, the Minister said a few minutes ago that the amendment would effectively take us straight back to a site-by-site approach. That does not apply here.
The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim that this legislation will result in not just the maintenance of, but an improvement in, environmental protection while pursuing wording that explicitly and significantly weakens environmental protection. That is the point that the Office for Environmental Protection makes, it is the point that a number of nature protection non-governmental organisations have made, and it is contrary to the Minister’s stated intentions for the Bill, and contrary to what the public want. We can have development and nature protection together, but only if the legislation specifies that it must happen, not that it may possibly happen.
Matthew Pennycook
To be clear, in assessing that the amendment in question would result in the need for continued assessment on a site-by-site basis, I am referring to amendment 20. I am absolutely certain that that is what it implies. Amendment 119, which I think the hon. Lady has just spoken to—there is a slight risk of conflating the two—is problematic for other reasons. As I have said, it introduces an inappropriately high bar that will, in effect, make it incredibly difficult for the Secretary of State to meet the test.
There is, as I have said, a necessary degree of future gazing here, in terms of the change in approach. I certainly do not want to curtail debate, but I do want us to debate the other clauses in the Bill. I think I have firmly set out the Government’s position—why we think the Bill does achieve the very clearly stated intentions that we have set out—but I go back to the fact that we are very cognisant of the concerns in this area. We want to ensure that sectors have confidence in the operation of environmental delivery plans, and that is the reason— I am more than happy to debate it with the hon. Lady outside the Committee and at later stages of proceedings on the Bill—why we will reflect on the very specific points that the OEP has made on a number of clauses.
Amendment 97 agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 119, in clause 55, page 88, line 7, leave out “are likely to” and insert “will”.— (Ellie Chowns.)
This amendment would mean that an EDP would only pass the overall improvement test if it is certain that the proposed measures will outweigh any negative environmental effects caused by the development.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 126, in clause 57, page 88, line 31, at end insert—
“(c) at five yearly intervals, a report on an EDP covering the previous five-year period.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 127, in clause 57, page 89, line 24, at end insert—
“(h) what impact the EDP has had on the local economy and community of the relevant area.”
Clause stand part.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Dr Huq. I am also pleased to see everyone here this morning on the Committee.
Last night, after buying the Minister a coffee to keep us going, I promised to buy one for the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I declare that I did intend to stick to that promise—
Paul Holmes
—but the hon. Member was not in the café. He has nicked my joke; I was about to say that I hope that that does not go on a focus leaflet somewhere as a broken Tory promise. It takes two to tango.
Paul Holmes
Missing in action and not winning here. I know that the Minister is very keen that we expedite this Committee today because of the semi-final play-off with Charlton tonight. I hope that his team does well in that, because we would like to invite him down to the Den to watch a match between Millwall and Charlton, if Charlton are promoted. The Minister is always welcome down to the Den.
I turn to amendment 126, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). We absolutely agree with the Minister’s sentiments on EDPs, and we wholeheartedly agreed with the majority of what he said on the previous clause. We accept that EDPs will be a step change in environmental delivery across the United Kingdom.
One of our concerns, and the reason why we tabled amendment 126—I will come to amendment 127 in a minute—is that at the moment the legislation says that there will be two reviews into the EDP: one at the mid-point and one at the end. We simply want to see whether the Minister would entertain the idea of review periods at five-yearly intervals and a report on an EDP covering the previous five-year period. That is for a number of reasons.
First, with only two reports—one at the mid-point and one at the end—there could be long gaps during which important issues or shortcomings in implementation go unaddressed. In rapidly evolving environmental contexts, more frequent reporting would allow for timely adjustments and a greater responsiveness to emerging challenges. What would happen under the current proposals if a mid-term report showed a failure to deliver in conservation outcomes? Also, are the two required reports sufficient for long-term monitoring and public accountability?
We have a slight concern that the clause does not seem to specify the content or required level of detail in those reports. I hope that the Minister will be able to elaborate slightly on what he and the Secretary of State would expect in terms of the detail when a report is published. It is also important to state that although the Bill will have to meet equality legislation, it does not meet the standard for public accessibility or independent review. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about that. Without these safeguards, the report could become a box-ticking exercise rather than a meaningful tool for transparency and continuous improvement.
I turn briefly to amendment 127, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley. Given what the Minister said in our discussion of the last clause about the impact that the wording will have on legal definitions and measurements if those were to be challenged, I do not intend to press amendment 127 to a vote. We think that the wording
“the local economy and community of the relevant area”
is not defined enough, so we will have to look at whether we need to tighten it up, bearing in mind what the Minister said about the language in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. But I would like to press amendment 126 to a vote.
On amendment 127, I hope the Minister will say something about community benefits and the local economy in the relevant area. I hope he looks favourably on amendment 126, which stipulates more transparency and a clearer guideline for the process of reviewing EDPs. I look forward to his response.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me start by setting out our overarching intentions behind clause 57. Once an environmental delivery plan is made, it is crucial that Natural England can effectively monitor the performance of the conservation measures put in place and report on its progress. It is vital that key information, such as the performance of conservation measures and remaining development capacity under the environmental delivery plan, are made available. That is why clause 57 sets out that, as the shadow Minister just said, Natural England must publish reports at least twice over the environmental delivery plan period: once covering the period from commencement to its mid-point, then a second report covering the mid-point to the end date. The reports must be published no later than two months after the period the report covers, and Natural England may publish reports at any other time.
The reports are intend to demonstrate how an environmental delivery plan is progressing. They must cover specific topics—I hope this gives the shadow Minister some reassurance—including how much development has been agreed to, how that compares to the total amount of development that could be agreed to, what conservation measures have been implemented and the effect that they are having. The report must also specify the amount of money received through the levy and whether that is in line with expectations. That transparency will ensure that proactive steps can be taken if an environmental delivery plan is underperforming, and it will allow the Secretary of State to consider amending an environmental delivery plan to accommodate continued demand. I will come to clause 58 shortly.
Those reporting requirements are also important to ensure transparency as to whether delivery is aligning with the expected costs, and how the levy is being set and spent. By legislating for appropriate levels of reporting, we are ensuring that developers, local communities and environmental groups will be able to continue to engage with environmental delivery plans across their lifespan, ensuring they can be adapted as needed.
Amendment 126, tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, seeks to require Natural England to publish a report at five-yearly intervals that covers the previous five-year period of an environmental delivery plan. I very much share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to ensure that Natural England appropriately monitors the performance of the conservation measures put in place and reports on the progress of the environmental delivery plan. However, as drafted, clause 57(1)(a) and (b) already provide adequate safeguards by requiring appropriate levels of reporting. Under the existing drafting, Natural England is required to produce reports for each EDP. As I have set out, the first report will cover the start date to the mid-point, and the second will cover the mid-point to the end date of the plan.
As the maximum length of an environmental delivery plan is 10 years, the latest a report will be published is in year five, and then year 10. As such, the proposed requirement to provide a report every five years would not add further value. Where the duration of an environmental delivery plan is less than 10 years, a prescriptive timetable for reporting could create duplication. However, we recognise the need to ensure that Natural England can tailor reporting, which is why clause 57(3) allows it to publish a report at any other time.
On amendment 127, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, the Government share his desire to ensure that EDPs make a positive impact on the regions they cover, but we are clear that they should be judged first and foremost on their delivery of the environmental outcomes they are designed to achieve. That is why the legislation focuses on reporting on the environmental performance of EDPs. However, through subsection (6), the Secretary of State can publish guidance that Natural England must consider when producing a report. That gives the Secretary of State the ability to introduce new elements of reporting where appropriate.
The core focus of these reports is to provide the Secretary of State and the public with confidence that an EDP is providing the necessary environmental benefits to bring about an overall positive environmental outcome. Adding a new metric to cover the impact on the local economy and community, we believe, risks extending the scope of reporting and losing focus on the core objective of these reforms. Local economic benefits would, to a degree, be covered by the existing requirement to report how much of an EDP’s development capacity has been utilised. With that explanation, and the assurance that I always give the shadow Minister that I will go away and reflect on whether the wording is the best it can be, I hope he will withdraw the amendment.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister, as always, for his clarity on the amendments. He has said many times in Committee that he will be reflecting; I hope that he finds time to do things other than reflect. Given his assurances, I will have a word with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley so that he might have a proper look at where in the Bill the timescales are already set out; that may be a lesson for cross-shadow ministerial working in the future. Given the Minister’s assurances, I will not press the amendment; as I have said already, we are content with what he said on amendment 127. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Amendment of an EDP
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 58, page 89, line 38, at end insert—
“(2A) An EDP may not be amended if the amendment would reduce the amount, extent or impact of conservation measures that are to be taken to protect the identified environmental features.”
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could not amend an environmental delivery plan so as to reduce the measures to be taken to mitigate the negative environmental impact of a development.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 15, in clause 59, page 91, line 14, after “to” insert “significantly”.
This amendment would require that the actions of the Secretary of State must carry out when an Environmental Delivery Plan is revoked to significantly outweigh the effects of development in respect of which nature restoration levy have been committed to be paid.
Amendment 128, in clause 59, page 91, line 18, at end insert—
“(7A) Where the Secretary of State revokes an EDP, the Secretary of State must also seek to return any land obtained under a Compulsory Purchase Order for the purposes of the EDP to the original owner.”
Clause 59 stand part.
Government new clause 66—Compulsory purchase powers: Secretary of State.
Government new clause 72—Revoked EDP: powers of Secretary of State etc to enter and survey or investigate land.
Gideon Amos
It is with great excitement that we move on to another clause. I will speak briefly, but this is an important amendment. In the same way that protests from developers, in another part of the planning system, about viability end up affecting the outcomes of planning applications by, in particular, reducing social housing numbers, we are concerned that protests from developers could lead to calls to change EDPs. If EDPs are to be changed—this is a very simple point—that should not mean a reduction in the environmental protection therein.
Amendment 15, also tabled in my name, is in line with our amendments 14 and 11, to which I have already spoken, which were about strengthening the environmental tests. The Government have made it clear that they seek to achieve a win-win here, but in our opinion that will not happen without that additional wording and strengthening.
We have heard from the Minister that his point of reference, like ours, is to improve the status quo. At the moment, we are not convinced that the status quo will be improved. I am grateful to him for being extremely generous with his time on all the clauses by accepting numerous interventions, and for his assurances that he will reflect. I am sure that he will do so, but for such a, dare I say, common-sense amendment—that changes to an EDP should not mean a reduction in environmental protection—he might do even more than reflect: perhaps reflect positively on it. We feel that the amendment is entirely pragmatic, sensible and difficult to refute, although no doubt attempts will be made to do so.
Ellie Chowns
Will the Minister explicitly address the concerns expressed by the OEP, in its advice on clause 58, about the fact that there is no requirement to consult? The Secretary of State “may direct” Natural England to consult on an amendment, but does not have to. There is also no mandatory requirement to initiate a review or to update an EDP if there is evidence that it is failing to achieve its intended effects.
Paul Holmes
I rise to speak to amendment 128, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley—let us hope this one goes slightly better.
We understand the reason for clause 58 and for outlining the provisions for amending an environmental delivery plan. The clause clearly lays out the process the Secretary of State must go through to amend an EDP, which they may do either on their own initiative or at the request of Natural England.
The reason why my hon. Friend tabled amendment 128 is that, in some cases, the Secretary of State may choose to revoke an EDP. We will come to compulsory purchase orders later, but we would like to tighten up the wording of the Bill, so that when an EDP is revoked, the Secretary of State must seek to return any land obtained under a CPO for the purposes of that EDP to the original owner.
Will the Minister outline his thoughts on those proposals, which relate to cases where land has been CPO-ed and what happens to it afterwards? I hope he will see amendment 128 as a minor adjustment to the Bill and that he will give me some satisfactory answers, as he has this morning. We support the clause in general, but we just seek to tighten the language.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me set out for the Committee the intentions behind the clause, which gives the Secretary of State the power to amend environmental delivery plans in specific circumstances, where it is necessary to do so, and lays out the process that must be gone through.
The ability to amend may be required, for example, to reflect new environmental information or to extend an environmental delivery plan to accommodate additional development. The Secretary of State may amend on their own initiative or at the request of Natural England. It is right that environmental delivery plans can be amended, but our intention is that, where development has already contributed to the environmental delivery plan, any future amendment does not expose such development to requests for additional funding.
In providing a power to amend, we have also included proportionate requirements to consult on amendments. Crucially, however, in making an amendment to an environmental delivery plan, the Secretary of State will be bound by the same overall improvement test and will need to be satisfied that the conservation measures in the amended plan are likely to sufficiently outweigh the negative effect of development on the relevant environmental feature.
If the Secretary of State wishes to amend an environmental delivery plan, other than to amend only the charging schedule, they may first direct Natural England to consult on the environmental delivery plan as proposed to be amended. That allows environmental delivery plans to adapt and reflect changing circumstances, while ensuring that they are subject to sufficient scrutiny and oversight.
Turning to the amendments, I will begin with amendment 11, as set out by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I recognise the concern he highlights that, in a certain scenario, an amendment could be made that reduces the environmental outcomes and lowers the amount of protection. There are of course many important reasons why an environmental delivery plan may need to be amended, but we recognise that that ability to amend needs to be carefully considered. That is why existing clauses already offer a number of safeguards.
The central safeguard is that, where amended, an environmental delivery plan is still required to pass the overall improvement test. That means that, when amending an environmental delivery plan, the Secretary of State will not be able to reduce the amount of conservation measures without amending the scale of development that can rely on that environmental delivery plan.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
To clarify, if lots of environmental delivery plans are amended, who checks that Natural England and the responsible bodies in this process recommend the right things in the first place? I assume that we do not expect loads to be amended, but if plans consistently need amending because they are not producing the environmental benefits and the protection of nature they set out to, who will look overall at how many are amended in totality?
Matthew Pennycook
It will be for Natural England to determine what conservation measures are in place. There are reporting requirements on Natural England in terms of the overall body of EDPs. On the flexibility that is required—this speaks directly to the amendment from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington—it is unlikely that a Secretary of State would be able to reduce the number of conservation measures provided without reducing the development capacity of the plan, as that would not meet the overall development test. But there may be circumstances where the development capacity and the environmental conservation measures need to be reduced, and we need scope to be able to amend plans.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire pressed me to refer to the concerns highlighted by the OEP about there being no requirement to consult on amended EDPs. As I have said, amendments to EDPs could be for a variety of reasons and could be extremely minor. In such cases, it would not be appropriate to require a consultation in every instance. Instead, there is provision for the Secretary of State to direct Natural England to consult on an amended EDP where expertise is required to inform its decision on the overall improvement test—for instance, if there is a material change to the development included or the conservation measures proposed. We think that that is a more proportionate and tailored approach to different EDPs.
Ellie Chowns
Where in clause 58 does it specify that consultation should or should not happen? I cannot see it.
Matthew Pennycook
I will happily write to the hon. Lady on where that is set out but, as per previous debates, I will not pre-empt our reflections on the OEP- specific points.
I again make the general point that, through regulations and guidance, further detail on many aspects of the Bill will be brought forward. However, the central point is that we do not think that it is proportionate or effective to require consultation on every amendment to an EDP, which in some cases could be very minor.
The central safeguard here is the overall improvement test that an EDP is required to pass. That means that when amending an EDP, the Secretary of State would not be able to reduce the amount of conservation measures without amending the scale of development that can rely on the EDP in the first place.
Paul Holmes
I am just trying to be helpful. Clause 58(4) clearly sets out the process where a Secretary of State directs Natural England to consult, and the detailed consultation procedure is set out in clause 54. We have had a big debate on consultation procedures, which are not necessarily what we would like in other clauses of the Bill, but consultation is clearly set out in clause 58(4).
Matthew Pennycook
It is the Chair’s job to say so, but I do not think the hon. Lady can intervene on an intervention. I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. It would not be the best use of our time if I were to flick through the Bill while on my feet and attempt to find the relevant subsection. I will happily write to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to set out how the requirements in clause 58 operate.
In designing the legislation, we have sought to avoid situations where the Secretary of State would be forced to revoke an environmental delivery plan where it would still meet the test of securing better outcomes for nature. A practical example of where it would be right to allow such amendment is where an EDP has proposed conservation measures to cover more development than is subsequently expected to come forward. There may be instances where the level of development is reduced, and then it may be appropriate to amend the EDP. In such circumstances, it would be right to amend and to reflect the reduction in the scale of development covered and the corresponding conservation measures. Amendment 11 would prevent that and would force the Secretary of State to revoke the environmental delivery plan or to keep the inaccurate plan in place.
In the event of a substantive change to the environmental delivery plan, both a public consultation and approval by the Secretary of State would be required. That would give the opportunity for environmental groups and local stakeholders to have their voices heard, and for Natural England to present evidence that provides assurance that the overall improvement test would continue to be met. With that explanation, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Clause 59 establishes the process for revoking an environmental delivery plan, and the circumstances under which the power will be used. When the Secretary of State approves and makes an environmental delivery plan, they are taking a decision at a specific point in time. However, we recognise the need to retain the ability to revisit this decision if necessary and ultimately to revoke an environmental delivery plan if the overall improvement test is no longer met.
Lewis Cocking
On a point of clarity, if the nature recovery strategy includes land or a scheme that is not next to or near the development where the developer has paid into creating that nature recovery strategy, who does the Minister intend to consult when these plans are changed? The people where the proposed nature site is, the residents of the development that contributed to it or both?
Matthew Pennycook
As I set out, there is a requirement to go out to public consultation when significant amendments are made. That would be a general consultation, in the sense that we are moving beyond a site-by-site assessment. Again, it is for Natural England to set out how the EDP will function across the whole area. To return to the point raised by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, we do not think there is a requirement to consult in every instance, when some changes could be minor.
If an overall improvement test is no longer met, revocation is of course an option of last resort, and the Bill includes various safeguards to ensure that we do not reach that point. Those safeguards include the ability to deploy back-up conservation measures if monitoring indicates underperformance of the primary conservation measures, and the option to amend an environmental delivery plan or to reduce the capacity of development under the environmental delivery plan.
If, however, a decision is reached to revoke an environmental delivery plan, the legislation is clear on two fronts. First, development that has relied on the environmental delivery plan prior to revocation is not affected by the decision to revoke. Secondly, the Secretary of State will consider appropriate actions to ensure that the negative effect of development on environmental features, where a developer has already committed to pay the levy before revocation, is suitably addressed. That will provide certainty for developers that they can rely on environmental delivery plans, and certainty for local communities and environmental groups that the environment will be protected in all situations.
That links to Government new clause 66, which provides the Secretary of State with the power to make a compulsory purchase order in fulfilling their obligations when an environmental delivery plan is revoked. To deliver any appropriate conservation measures, it may be necessary to utilise powers of compulsory purchase. The new clause provides the Secretary of State with the necessary powers to ensure that they can fulfil that duty as part of the wider package of safeguards that underpin this new approach.
Similarly, Government new clause 72 ensures that the Secretary of State can take the steps necessary in the event of revocation, by granting them powers of entry when they are delivering conservation measures where an environmental delivery plan has been revoked. We recognise that such powers should be provided only with appropriate constraints, which is why the clause includes appropriate safeguards. With that explanation, I commend clause 59 and the new clauses to the Committee.
I should also touch on amendments 15 and 128. Amendment 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would raise the threshold for the actions the Secretary of State must take on revocation of an environmental delivery plan. The safeguards I have just outlined already ensure that we secure positive environmental outcomes. In seeking to require the Secretary of State to take actions to “significantly” outweigh the impact of development, the amendment, as per previous debates, would place an undue burden on the state to go beyond the overall improvement that sits at the heart of this new approach and that already delivers more than the current system. I hope the hon. Gentleman is sufficiently reassured on those safeguards and will not press his amendment.
Amendment 128 was tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, and I hope that, in this instance, it is at least coherent internally, even if it is not aligned with the measures in the Bill. It would require the Secretary of State to seek to return land obtained through compulsory purchase orders, in the event of an environmental delivery plan being revoked.
The important point to stress is that nothing in the legislation would preclude the return of surplus land to former owners, their successors or sitting tenants in accordance with the Crichel Down rules. However, it would not be appropriate to require the Secretary of State to return that land to its former owner whenever an environmental delivery plan was revoked. The land would not be surplus if it were needed to secure conservation measures that may be necessary in the event of revocation. The amendment would reduce the ability of the Secretary of State to use land already secured under the environmental delivery plan to fulfil their obligations in the event of the EDP being revoked. With that explanation, I hope the shadow Minister will agree not to press his amendment.
Gideon Amos
I appreciate the Minister’s explanation. He addressed a number of the points in our amendment, including that an EDP should not be amended to reduce the amount or extent of conservation measures. He explained that in circumstances in which there is a reduction in development, there might be a need to reduce the amount or extent of such measures. I do not feel that he addressed the need to make sure that the impact of conservation measures is protected. We feel that it is common sense that changing an EDP should not lead to a reduction in the impact of conservation measures proportionate to the amount of development going ahead.
The Committee will be delighted to hear that, in the interest of getting on to other clauses, I will not press the amendment to a vote, but we feel no less strongly that it is an important amendment, and we will reflect on its wording and maintain our interest in the topic. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
We now come to amendments 15 and 128 to clause 59, which have already been debated. Does anyone wish to press either amendment to a vote?
Paul Holmes
No, Dr Huq, but on the assurances that the Minister gave in relation to amendment 128, which he said he expected we would take in the spirit in which he intended them, let me say that we will seek further clarification from him on CPO.
Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60
Challenging an EDP
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The clause sets out the approach to challenging an environmental delivery plan. As the obligations discharged through an EDP will not be subject to separate consideration at the point of development consent, we recognise that it is important that EDPs are subject to appropriate scrutiny. Earlier clauses provided for consultation in respect of EDPs, and clause 60 provides a route to challenge them.
The route of challenge enables a claim for judicial review to be brought within a period of six weeks from the date that the EDP is published. The same six-week period for judicial review is available following any decision by the Secretary of State not to make an EDP or to amend or revoke one, or when the Secretary of State has decided not to amend or revoke an EDP.
The decisions of the Secretary of State and Natural England in preparing EDPs must be subject to scrutiny, and the clause sets out a clear, time-bound mechanism for parties to question those decisions. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for that explanation of the clause. We have tabled no amendments, but we do have some questions for him.
We welcome the Government’s recognition that there should be the right to challenge an EDP—that is perfectly sensible and we appreciate it—and we welcome the fact that an EDP can be challenged by judicial review. We have all seen examples in our constituencies of large-scale projects in the planning system; in my area, although I disagreed with the people who were against an extension of Southampton airport’s runway, they had the right to go to judicial review. We also see—I declare an interest given what I said on Tuesday about Hamble quarry —communities wanting to assess whether they can take cases to judicial review. We absolutely welcome that provision in clause 60.
However, we have a concern about the six-week window. The Minister will know—and we have all seen these cases, for good and bad—that people who may want to bring a judicial review, or at least investigate one, cannot always afford it. They are not always well-organised or large-scale businesses with the resources to afford that very expensive and complicated process. We are concerned that such a short window may hinder meaningful access to justice, particularly for local communities, smaller organisations, or individuals or charities, which may lack the resources or legal expertise to respond quickly enough. I know that this is in legislation, but is the Minister confident that the six-week window is sufficient, given the potential complexity of EDPs, and will he look at reviewing it or consulting interested parties on it?
We have been very clear that we expect robust public engagement and clear communication obligations. Especially on something as substantial as an EDP, and bearing in mind the charities or small activist groups that may be affected by it and that may, whether we back the principle of EDPs or not, have genuine disagreements, I invite the Minister to outline his thoughts on the six-week period.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate why the shadow Minister raises that point. I am confident, for the following reasons. A six-week timeframe to challenge an EDP is in line with similar legislation on plan making. For example, the statutory consultation period for local plans is six weeks, as set out in regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. We think it is an appropriate timeline, and there is precedent. We are trying to strike a balance between allowing sufficient time for an EDP to be challenged when it is made, amended or revoked—in all the circumstances that I set out—and not making the period so long that it will not allow for EDPs to be prepared and implemented as swiftly as possible, which is obviously the objective of the Bill. I hope that, on that basis, the shadow Minister is reassured.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)
Thursday 15th May 2025
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 May 2025 - (15 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I heard that we made good progress this morning. That is positive encouragement that we will get through the agenda at pace.
Clause 61
Commitment to pay the nature restoration levy
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 61, page 93, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) Natural England may only accept a request if Natural England is satisfied that the developer has taken reasonable steps to appropriately apply the mitigation hierarchy, including by seeking to avoid harm to any protected feature.
(2B) For the purposes of this section, the ‘mitigation hierarchy’ means the following principles to be applied by local planning authorities when determining planning applications—
(a) that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;
(b) that development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted, with the only exception being where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;
(c) that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and
(d) that development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported, while opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around developments should be integrated as part of their design, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity or enhance public access to nature where this is appropriate.”
This amendment outlines the occasions when Natural England may accept a developer’s request to pay the development levy rather than the developer having to go through existing processes under the Habitats Regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Schedule 4.
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mrs Hobhouse.
The amendment relates to the mitigation hierarchy. As previously, I refer to the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection, which called particular attention to the weakening of the mitigation hierarchy in the wording of the Bill. The OEP advice to Government mentioned that specifically in relation to clause 50. My amendment relates to clause 61, but it refers to precisely the same issue.
The mitigation hierarchy is a tool that delivers for nature and for development. It has done so for many years. The omission of the hierarchy from environmental delivery plans will therefore undermine their effectiveness as a means of delivering nature recovery and smooth development progression. The Minister has been at pains to reiterate his view that nature protection and development can happen hand in hand. I completely agree, but if the mitigation hierarchy is removed entirely—as, in essence, it is by the wording of the Bill—unfortunately that will not happen.
To be specific, the mitigation hierarchy directs development plans to prioritise actions to avoid harm to nature first, then to minimise harms and, as a last resort, to compensate for the impacts of development on biodiversity. The hierarchy is avoid, minimise and mitigate, and compensate or offset.
The “seeking to avoid damage first” principle is enormously important for nature. Natural habitats and species populations take a really long time to build up; some damage can take decades to be replaced or repaired by mitigatory action. I have already spoken about irreparable habitat damage. Such damage to what is known as irreplaceable habitat, and the species that rely on it, cannot be repaired.
For example, ancient oaks grow over hundreds of years to create complex ecosystems with species that have evolved alongside the oaks and need those ecosystems to thrive. Research suggests that 326 species in the UK can only survive on established and ancient oak trees, so the destruction of an ancient oak, such as the one tragically felled in Whitewebbs Park in Enfield a few weeks ago, or—even worse—of a whole swathe of ancient woodland, means the destruction of the only home possible for reliant species in that area, in effect signing their death notice. Any replacement woodland would take centuries to become an ancient woodland ecosystem, even if the conditions were perfect. That delay is so long that species cannot survive it, making the replacement effectively redundant.
Without the mitigation hierarchy, there is no decision-making framework to prioritise avoidance of such fatal damage to irreplaceable habitats such as ancient oak woodlands or to other habitats, and of threats to the future of reliant species. That gap in the framework causes problems for development as well as for nature. The famous bat tunnel, mentioned previously, in part stemmed from a High Speed 2 failure to apply the mitigation hierarchy properly at the start of the process, at the point of design. Had that hierarchy been applied early and in full, avoidance to damage to an ancient woodland, home to a large number of threatened species, including the extremely rare Bechstein’s bat, would have been prioritised—avoidance would have been prioritised—preventing the need for clumsy attempts at mitigation measures such as the tunnel.
Swift and effective use of the mitigation hierarchy at the start of a proposal can nip development problems in the bud. Given the effectiveness of the mitigation hierarchy as a development planning tool, therefore, it is deeply concerning that clause 61(3) will, in effect, disapply the mitigation hierarchy from environmental delivery plans. That was confirmed in a recent answer by the Housing Minister to a parliamentary question, where subsection (3) was described as enabling a “flexibility to diverge” from the mitigation hierarchy.
Departure from the mitigation hierarchy risks environmental delivery plans, permitting the destruction of irreplaceable habitats and causing damage to other habitats and reliant species. It also threatens bumps in the road for EDPs as a development progression mechanism and, if EDPs permit measures that would destroy irreplaceable habitats, they will lose the confidence of nature stakeholders and local communities and be more open to challenge, potentially to the extent of a replacement being required and development delayed across whole areas.
My amendment would head off those risks by applying the mitigation hierarchy to EDPs, just as it applies to other planning decisions under paragraph 33 of the national planning policy framework. It would instruct Natural England to accept an application to pay a nature restoration levy for a development only if the developer has first taken reasonable steps to apply the mitigation hierarchy.
The requirement to demonstrate consideration of the mitigation hierarchy created by my amendment would not be a heavy one. Compliance with the requirement could be demonstrated by the developer explaining how development proposals have been informed by efforts to prioritise the avoidance of harm to environmental features.
As part of the explanation, the developer could, for example, propose planning conditions being used to secure onsite measures to reduce harm, such as including green infrastructure; many developers will already be looking to integrate these features anyway because they recognise the wider health and wellbeing benefits that green infrastructure in developments can deliver. The use of the words “reasonable steps” in my amendment would also help to ensure that developers’ consideration of how to apply the mitigation hierarchy would not be onerous. The amendment has been drafted in an effort to reinforce commitment to the mitigation hierarchy without creating unreasonable expectations.
The consideration of the mitigation hierarchy would be a matter of factoring in environmental considerations and efforts to avoid irreparable damage into early development plans and demonstrating to Natural England that that has been done, rather than any lengthy assessment process. Much of the work should already have been considered and recorded as part of the initial process of identifying development sites, designing a development and assessing biodiversity net gain requirements.
The amendment also provides an extra degree of protection for the most precious sites and irreplaceable habitats, about which I have already spoken in this Committee, by allowing levy payment requests to be accepted for developments that would damage these rare sites and habitats only when there is an overriding public interest for the development to proceed. That would apply to only a very small number of developments, as the most precious sites and irreplaceable habitats are sadly small in number and, as I have emphasised, irreplaceable. There is a reason why the mitigation hierarchy has been used since the 1980s—almost my entire life—as a decision-making framework in UK planning and why it still has a central place in the revised NPPF: it works for nature and development alike.
The amendment would ensure that EDPs benefited from the mitigation hierarchy as other parts of planning do. It would ensure that they were able to catch and delay costly development mistakes before they happened and prevent EDPs from becoming a rubber stamp for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats. I call the attention of the Committee and the Minister to page 5 of the annexe to the Office for Environmental Protection’s advice to us. It emphasises that
“Mitigation hierarchies are an important component of existing environmental law”
and calls attention to its concern that the effect of the current drafting of the Bill could allow a protected site to be harmed in a way contrary to existing environmental law and the stated purpose of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will warmly consider my amendment.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a privilege to continue to serve the Committee with you back in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. The mitigation hierarchy is incredibly important. In fact, the Liberal Democrats were aiming to put down an amendment very similar to this one, but the hon. Member for North Herefordshire beat us to it—congratulations to her on that.
Clearly, the mitigation hierarchy is an important feature of the playing system, which has endured for a long time. One of the principal concerns with EDPs is that they will not ensure that oversight measures are taken first and foremost. The principle of “first do no harm” must guide everything we do in protecting the environment and in dealing with development that may affect the environment. We will support the amendment.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse; welcome back to the Committee. Good afternoon to all colleagues.
We are generally supportive of clause 61; I recognise the intent behind the amendment, but I would like to speak to clause 61 stand part. Although the clause introduces a streamlined mechanism for fulfilling environmental requirements, it raises several questions that I shall put to the Minister on some of the detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner may have some specific questions too.
First, the discretion given to Natural England to accept or reject a developer’s request lacks clarity. There are no outlined criteria or standards for decision making, which could lead to an inconsistent or opaque outcome. I ask the Minister: what criteria will Natural England use to accept or reject a developer’s request to pay the levy? Does he think there needs to be more specificity in the accompanying regulations, if not in the Bill?
Secondly, although the clause references charging schedules and payment phasing, it does not address how those charges are calculated or whether they reflect the environmental impact of the development. Could the Minister assure the Committee—not necessarily today or in the legislation—how he will provide more specific details on the charging regime? Without that, there would be a risk of turning the levy into a transactional tool rather than a meaningful mechanism for ecological restoration. Additionally, there is no mention of how Natural England will ensure that payments are effectively translated into real conservation outcomes. Without clearer safeguards, the process could be perceived more as a pay-to-proceed option than as a robust tool for environmental accountability. If the Minister could provide some specifics on those two main points, we would be content to support clause 61.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Hobhouse. I wanted to set out briefly the views of the Opposition, in addition to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley has said.
Recently, we listened to views from those with specialist experience in this context. There are a number of ways in which issues about biodiversity net gain and protected species may feature, with the relevant protections, as a consequence of the legislation. Although amendment 54 sets out some reasonable points, it does not address them sufficiently. In particular, there is potential scope to bring some of it within the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provisions, which would enable in many cases more effective enforcement powers than under the existing habitats regulations.
We acknowledge the Minister’s point that it will be important for those responsible for biodiversity net gain and for considering the mitigation hierarchy to be able to deploy the resources that flow from these different types of agreements in a way that reflects the broader national responsibility, rather than a site-by-site basis. That additional flexibility would be required, and we are therefore likely to seek further amendments later in the Bill’s passage that address the specifics of those concerns.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve once again with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. Let me respond first to amendment 54, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. I will then turn to clause 61 and schedule 4. The hon. Lady’s amendment seeks to limit the circumstances in which Natural England can receive a nature restoration levy payment in respect of an environmental delivery plan. She made a number of points about the mitigation hierarchy and irreplaceable habitats. I will not repeat the debate we had on a previous clause in relation to existing protections in national planning policy, which will still have effect for irreplaceable habitats.
On the mitigation hierarchy, we share her and the OEP’s view: it is a very important component of environmental law. Natural England will always want to consider the mitigation hierarchy when it is developing EDPs. We anticipate that Natural England will still prioritise avoidance and reduction of environmental harm in the first instance, not least because it is likely to deliver the best environmental outcomes at the lowest cost for developers. However, we do not believe that it should always apply.
The flexibility provided by the Bill will allow for those cases where, in Natural England’s expert judgment, the strict appliance of the mitigation hierarchy would lead to sub-optimal outcomes, and where money could be spent in a far more effective way to achieve better outcomes for nature. The hon. Lady is absolutely right and we have been very clear about this point: it is the Government’s view that the Bill effectively maintains the mitigation hierarchy. As I have said, that is also the view of the chief executive of Natural England. There is flexibility built into the Bill, which we need.
Ellie Chowns
I have two points. The Minister has claimed that the Bill maintains the mitigation hierarchy. Can he point to where that is stated in the Bill? I cannot see it; I have just checked back on clause 53, which deals with the preparation of EDPs, but it is not specified. Where is it specified in the Bill that it maintains the mitigation hierarchy?
Secondly, with respect, there are not only two options here—either to support the Bill exactly as it is written or to support the status quo. I am trying to table constructive amendments to the Bill, recognising what the Government seek to do and their stated aims of ensuring that development and nature protection go hand in hand, and that nature protection is enhanced at the same time as enabling development. I am not necessarily opposed, in principle, to area-wide and strategic approaches—I have already given credit to district-level licensing for newts and similar things that are already happening.
However, my concern is that nowhere in the Bill does it say that the mitigation hierarchy is preserved—nowhere in either clause 61 or clause 53, or anywhere else, is it preserved. It is not just me who says that; the OEP and many nature protection organisations are deeply concerned about the issue. I am proposing a constructive mid-point in my amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me make a couple of points in response. I did not state that a particular clause in the Bill, “effectively maintains the mitigation hierarchy”; I said that that was the Government’s belief as to the effect of the Bill, and it is also the view of the chief executive of Natural England.
We have been very clear that our approach requires flexibility to diverge, and this is where I would gently challenge the hon. Lady. It is all well and good for her to say, “I agree with the objective of a win-win for nature and development.” We can all agree with that. I am challenging her as to where she agrees with the fundamental requirements of how our strategic approach will operate. On this particular amendment, I would make the point that in reinstating as it does—
Matthew Pennycook
I will not give way again; I will make some progress. In reinstating as it does the requirement for site-by-site assessments before a levy could be accepted, the amendment is contrary to that strategic approach and would hamper it. In proposing a strategic approach, as I have said before, we have been careful to ensure that this is taken forward only where there is a clear case that the benefits of the conservation measures under an environmental delivery plan outweigh the negative effect of development.
That is precisely why clause 50 requires Natural England to set out the negative effect of the development to which the environmental delivery plan applies, alongside the conservation measures that Natural England will take to address the environmental impact and contribute to an overall environmental improvement. Only when it is satisfied that the conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development can the Secretary of State agree to make an environmental delivery plan.
In establishing an alternative to the existing system, as I have said, the Bill intentionally allows for a more strategic approach to be taken to environmental assessment and flexibility to diverge from a restrictive application of the mitigation hierarchy. Without that flexibility, it will not operate as intended.
Matthew Pennycook
I am not going to give way, but the hon. Lady can make a further contribution. However, this will be only where Natural England consider it appropriate and would deliver better outcomes for nature of over the course of a delivery plan. The hon. Lady’s amendment would remove that flexibility and undermine the purpose of these reforms, which is to maximise the impact of measures at a strategic scale. We are confident that this more strategic approach to the assessment of negative effects and delivery of conservation measures strikes the right balance and will result in better outcomes. As I said, and am more than happy to continue to repeat, I understand the importance of ensuring that this flexibility is used only where it needs to be, and that everyone can be confident that harm is being avoided wherever possible. I am giving further thought to ways to underpin that confidence.
Clause 61 establishes the framework that will allow developers to pay the nature restoration levy, setting out the process by which developers can make a request to Natural England to pay the nature restoration levy in respect of their proposed development. If accepted by Natural England, the developer will then be committed to make the relevant payment, as set out in the charging schedule that will be published as part of the environmental delivery plan.
The clause then sets out how the making of that payment affects the developer’s environmental obligations. For example, the legislation makes clear that the commitment by a developer to pay the nature restoration levy in respect of an environmental delivery plan addressing nutrient pollution removes the need for the developer to consider the impact of the development on an environmental feature in respect of nutrient pollution. Where payment of the levy is made mandatory by an environmental delivery plan, the clause removes the ability of a developer to discharge the relevant environmental obligation in any way other than through the payment of the nature restoration levy.
In those circumstances, Natural England must set out the reasons why it considers it necessary to mandate the payment of the levy under the EDP. That will form part of the consultation on the draft EDP, and has been included to address situations where the environmental outcome can only be achieved with payments from all relevant developments, or where failing to capture payments from all relevant developments would render the EDP economically unviable. The nature restoration levy is central to our new strategic approach, ensuring that Natural England can secure funds to deliver conservation measures and to provide certainty to developers that the making of the payment discharges the relevant environmental obligation.
I will come back to the shadow Ministers, the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, as I have given a commitment in relation to previous clauses on their points about the interactions between the provisions in this Bill and those in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. That is a very complex matter, and we will set out more detail where we have it.
In general terms—I say this with the proviso that regulations will bring forward further detail on how the levy will operate—the request and the payments are intended, essentially, to meet the scale and type of development that the EDP relates to. They cannot just be made on the basis of the discretion of what Natural England decides it wants. They have to relate to the conservation measures being put in place. We do, however, want to get the balance right between levy rates that ensure that development is economically viable—otherwise the EDP will not come forward in some instances—and not setting a rate that allows for gold-plating of projects, where that is not required. We will discuss that in more detail on future clauses.
I turn to schedule 4. In establishing the nature restoration fund, there is a need to provide legal certainty on how the new approach interacts with existing environmental requirements. Critically, there is a need to establish that where developers make a payment to the nature restoration fund, that relieves the decision maker of any obligation to consider the impact on the environmental features that the EDP addresses, as those obligations will now be discharged on a strategic scale by Natural England.
Schedule 4 achieves that by making clear that for each environmental feature identified in an EDP, be it a protected feature of a protected site or a protected species, the paying of the nature restoration levy removes many of the requirements for the developer under existing legislation. For example, where an EDP covers the impact of nutrient pollution on a protected site, and a developer pays the nature restoration levy, they will no longer be required to consider that environmental impact through wider environmental assessments. Similarly, where a protected species is identified as an environmental feature under an EDP, the making of a levy payment will mean that the developer will benefit from a deemed licence based on terms set in the EDP, which removes certain associated requirements for the developer under existing legislation.
Crucially, the legislation is clear that the making of a payment will only be capable of addressing the environmental impact on the protected features covered by an EDP. Although we expect coverage to build up over time, it is only right that the discharge of environmental obligations is limited to the matters addressed in the environmental delivery plan. Therefore, if the development has other environmental impacts that are not covered by the EDP, they will continue to be assessed in the usual way.
It is important to stress that the removal of the need for the developer to meet those environmental obligations will apply only when Natural England has sufficient evidence to draft an EDP, the Secretary of State has concluded that the EDP is sufficient to outweigh the impact of development, and the developer has committed to making the necessary nature restoration levy payment. Given the targeted nature of the changes to the regulations and Acts, and the need to provide legal certainty for the nature restoration fund to operate, I commend clause 61 and schedule 4 to the Committee.
Ellie Chowns
The Minister asserts that the Bill maintains the mitigation hierarchy, but that is not set out anywhere in the text. The words “mitigation hierarchy” appear nowhere in the Bill. The word “mitigation” appears four times, always in relation to climate change. The word “avoid” appears only once, in relation to unavoidable delays to nationally significant infrastructure projects, and the word “harm” appears only once, in relation to commercial interests. If the Bill does not say anything about the mitigation hierarchy, mitigation or avoiding harm in relation to nature, how can the Minister claim that it upholds the mitigation hierarchy?
Amendment 54 specifies that a developer needs to demonstrate taking
“reasonable steps to appropriately apply the mitigation hierarchy”.
The Minister emphasised his desire for the legislation to have flexibility. My amendment offers that flexibility; his Bill offers no support for the mitigation hierarchy. For that reason, I will not withdraw the amendment, because it is fundamentally important. I would like to press it to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
Briefly, it is worth my putting on the record the following so that the Committee is clear about the Government’s position. The mitigation hierarchy is still a requirement of the national planning policy framework. It is established through that, and it continues to operate. But we think—I have been very honest about this—that the new approach in the Bill requires flexibility, where appropriate—
Matthew Pennycook
No—the amendment is entirely at odds with the purpose and intent of clause 61, which is to disapply the requirement for assessment of environmental impact of a feature covered by an EDP once the development has committed to pay the nature restoration levy. In our view, therefore, the amendment would fundamentally undermine the operation of our approach, and for that reason we cannot accept it.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
Order. I think we have heard both sides very well, loudly and clearly. We need to push on because we have been discussing this one amendment for nearly half an hour. It is important that we now come to a decision.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move amendment 92, Clause 62, page 93, line 42, leave out from “features” to the end of line 2 on page 94 and insert—
“are funded by the developer.
This amendment would define the purpose of the nature restoration levy as being that costs incurred in maintaining and improving the conservation status of environmental features should be met by developers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 70 stand part.
Ellie Chowns
I will try to speak briefly. Amendment 92 is particularly important considering the conversation that we have just had about my previous amendment. Effectively, the nature restoration fund offers the opportunity for developers to buy the right to pollute in one location if that money is used to create habitats or support remedial action in another location. But clause 62, as it is currently drafted, makes the payment into the NRF subject to a viability test, which undermines the polluter pays principle, which is one of the fundamental environmental principles to which the Government are supposed to be sticking.
The amendment reinforces the polluter pays principle. It is a well-established environmental policy doctrine endorsed by international agreements, numerous national frameworks, and the Government’s own environmental principles. It asserts that those who cause environmental degradation should bear the costs associated with its mitigation and restoration.
Removing the economic viability constraints means that, in principle, a developer could make their own assessment of whether paying into the NRF would undermine their capacity to pursue a development. Therefore, the viability caveat undermines the environmental goals. It dilutes the effectiveness of the nature restoration levy by tethering it to this ambiguous economic viability standard. It is a subjective and, frankly, developer-biased filter that might lead to inconsistent applications of the levy or weakened environmental commitments in the face of commercial pressures, and in so doing, could prioritise short-term developmental gains over long-term ecological resilience.
Allowing economic viability to act as a limiting factor to the NRF creates a dangerous precedent, because it implies that environmental restoration is, in effect, a negotiable, secondary or optional cost that could be trimmed if profit margins are tight. Again, that would surely not be compatible with the Government’s stated aims for establishing this policy approach. Frankly, in the context of a rapidly escalating biodiversity crisis, the approach is both irresponsible and unsustainable. I warmly encourage the Minister, yet again, to consider my helpful amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Lady for speaking to amendment 92, which, as she set out, seeks to remove the duty on the Secretary of State to consider economic viability when making regulations in respect of the nature restoration levy. We believe that it is important to consider viability in the setting of that levy, because excessive costs will mean either that developers will not want to pay into the nature restoration fund, or if they are forced to, that less development will come forward. This will be a particular issue for small and medium-sized housebuilders. Without developers paying into an EDP, the conservation measures that it sets out will not be delivered.
The hon. Lady’s amendment also includes the aim of establishing a requirement that all conservation costs are funded entirely by the developer. Introducing requirements that all funding for conservation measures come from developers will also undermine Government’s ability to step in and provide funding should conservation measures not deliver the necessary effect. That is likely to lead to an increased cost for developers, or to force them to avoid using an EDP and to rely on existing systems that do not provide the same benefits for the environment as the nature restoration fund. For that reason, we cannot accept the hon. Lady’s amendment.
Clause 62 is essential to the operation of this new strategic approach. It will empower the Secretary of State to make regulations in respect of the nature restoration levy. I therefore commend it as currently drafted to the Committee.
As hon. Members will be aware, clause 70 will allow the Government to provide guidance to Natural England on the operation of the levy. It enables the Secretary of State to give guidance in relation to any matter connected with the nature restoration levy, and provides that Natural England, or any other public body to which such guidance is given, must have regard to it. Such guidance will provide clarity as to the operation of the nature restoration levy and speed up implementation. For those reasons, I commend these clauses to the Committee.
Ellie Chowns
The Minister’s response indicates that he believes it is reasonable to expect the Government, and therefore essentially taxpayers, to bear the costs of environmental damage caused by developers. That is surely not reasonable. How will the structure set out in the Bill work, be viable, protect nature or indeed improve it—the Minister has said he seeks to achieve that—if it does not specify that developers must bear the costs of remediating the damage that development does? Under his proposals, the taxpayer would be left on the hook for the costs of that. Under my proposal, the polluter pays principle, that well-established principle in international and domestic law, would be maintained, so I would like to push the amendment, my last on the clause, to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 129, in clause 64, page 95, line 4, at end insert—
“(1A) When considering the rates or other criteria to be set out in a charging schedule in the course of preparing an EDP, Natural England must not include any potential capital costs for the purposes of acquiring land.”
Clause 64 stand part.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 63 forms part of the wider group of clauses that provide the necessary powers to make regulations governing the operation of the nature restoration levy. The clause specifically deals with issues of liability and provides regulation-making powers to set out who is liable to pay the nature restoration levy and when that liability arises. Given the breadth of environmental circumstances and types of development that may be covered by an environmental delivery plan, the detailed operation of the levy is best addressed through regulations, with the powers to make regulations suitably constrained. Technical matters of liability, such as the withdrawal and cancellation of liability, will be set out in the regulations, with the clause providing the relevant powers. To provide certainty and clarity to developers, those regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause 64 is another limb in the group of clauses that will govern the operation of the nature restoration levy. In particular, the clause provides the powers to make regulations in respect of how Natural England calculates and sets the nature restoration levy. Those regulations will, for example, frame how Natural England determines the cost of conservation measures to address the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature and the subsequent levy rate for developers. In doing so, regulations made under the clause will ensure matters of economic viability form part of the setting of rates under the charging schedule.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Does the Minister share my concerns? When developments are proposed, there are obviously negotiations under section 106. Although I agree with the principle of the levy, I do not want developers to move money from other 106 obligations —healthcare, roads and education—into it. Has he given any thought to how we can prevent that from happening? This levy should be additional, rather than cutting the pie in a different way.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. In the correspondence I will send to the Committee, I am more than happy to try to give hon. Members a sense of how the provisions in the Bill do or do not interact with the existing developer contribution system. However, section 106 agreements are a very different proposition from what we are discussing. We are talking about a nature restoration levy payment, managed by Natural England and directly for use on conservation measures that form part of an EDP. So section 106 is an entirely separate issue.
I recognise—I think this is the hon. Gentleman’s point—how issues of viability will be addressed in the calculation of the levy payment. What I would say to that is that this is a regulation-making power; the regulations will come forward with further detail, and we have made them subject to the affirmative procedure. We will have further debate in the House on the technical detail of how those regulations look when they are published. This is just the regulation-making power that will allow the levy to be charged. On that basis, I hope I have somewhat clarified the issue.
David Simmonds
This is a slightly technical question, but what consideration will be given to regional and local variation in the levels of cost? My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne highlighted the point about the interaction with section 106, which the Minister has accepted. One of the calculations under section 106 is child yield, which reflects the number of children we would expect in a development. Through the formula, that produces a payment in respect of the cost of provision of school places. Clearly, that cost will vary significantly depending on which part of the country the development takes place in. I would like to be confident that if, for example, a developer undertakes development in a very high-cost area, we will not see a significant corresponding reduction in the environmental yield from such a negotiation, and that viability will not, in practice, become such a barrier that developments do not go ahead or we end up forgoing the expected yield in some of these crucial areas in order to make housing viable.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that intervention. I will say two things. First, I again slightly caution against reading section 106 agreement provisions directly across into the clause we are debating. Secondly, the point he makes about regional variations in viability challenges is a good one, and it will, I am sure, be one of many issues the regulations have to consider. However, the full detail of those regulations will be forthcoming in due course, once the Bill receives Royal Assent.
As I said, clause 64 and the regulations that flow from it will play an important part in ensuring that the setting of the levy reflects the appropriate administrative costs in connection with the environmental delivery plan, as well as ensuring that processes are integrated wherever possible. In addition, the clause provides the necessary flexibility to ensure that the nature restoration fund is capable of accommodating different approaches to the setting of charging schedules—a point that relates to the discussion we have just had. That will ensure that environmental delivery plans can, where appropriate, deploy different approaches to calculating the levy rate—for example, reflecting the fact that some environmental issues are better considered on a per-dwelling basis, whereas others may benefit from calculating the levy based on the footprint of the development. In designing the measures, we have sought to ensure that we have the flexibility to tailor our approach to the unique circumstances on the ground as they pertain to each individual EDP.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, may address amendment 129 in due course, but I will turn to it now. The amendment, which was again tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), would prevent Natural England from including the cost of acquiring land when considering the nature restoration levy rate that developers will be required to pay. The nature restoration fund model will need to operate on a full cost recovery basis, as we have discussed, so excluding the cost of land from the levy price paid by developers would shift the burden of developers’ financial responsibilities to the state.
Under the existing system, developers are required to meet the cost of mitigation measures, which would include the cost of purchasing the land. That is the situation as it stands. That shows that the capital cost of land is not an additional cost that is being added on to developers. If land purchase could never form part of a levy-funded environmental delivery plan, Natural England would be required to rely on other measures, which may be more expensive and less effective in addressing the impacts of development. On that basis, I hope the shadow Minister will not press his amendment, and I commend both clauses, as currently drafted, to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful the Minister for his comments on amendment 129. All I would say to the Minister in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley is once bitten, twice shy.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister on clause 63. The clause delegates significant discretion to the Secretary of State, without setting out guiding principles or safeguards. Although the Minister said that regulations will be forthcoming—I am grateful to him for confirming that they will be subject to the affirmative procedure—there remain some important unresolved issues in the Bill. That includes how liability will be shared in complex developments involving multiple parties, or how the timing of liability will interact with project phasing and financial planning.
Without that clarity, there is a real risk of legal uncertainty for developers and of inconsistency in enforcement. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind when the Bill receives Royal Assent and he goes away to look at regulations for affirmative scrutiny in this House. A more robust approach would involve the Bill at least outlining the key principles that will to guide the development of the regulations, ensuring that they are applied fairly, consistently and with due regard to the practical realities of development delivery.
David Simmonds
Does my hon. Friend agree—he is making this point very clearly—that the risk with this process, and with the lack of clarity around the process behind the regulations, is that it will increase the number of permissions being delivered that are not viable? Essentially, all the money is coming from the same pot, and the developer will say to the local authority and Natural England, “You can have the kids or you can have the bats, but you can’t have both.” If the developer has to pay for both, the scheme becomes non-viable. We will simply end up with more units that cannot be built.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I entirely agree with him, which is why, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, we make a dream team that is in fast competition with the Minister. He should watch this space—it is four years and counting. [Interruption.] I am joking with the Minister.
What I would say to my hon. Friend is that that is the key reason why we have concerns about clause 63. We understand the Minister’s intentions, and we will not press the amendment to further complicate the clause. However, we are concerned that the lack of clarity in the Bill could, in a very complex EDP involving multiple parties, damage the clause’s intent to enhance environmental protection. The number of planning permissions going through could increase, but the end result would actually be that the delivery was not there. That is a key area where the Minister needs to look at strengthening the wording in the Bill. That aside, we will not push our amendment to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me make a couple of comments in response. First, I understand the point that has been made, but a fair amount of the detail will come through regulations. The House will have an opportunity to scrutinise those, and they will, as I said, be under the affirmative procedure. Secondly, to refer the shadow Minister back to clause 62, I think issues such as phasing and complex development are dealt with in subsection (2).
My other, wider point goes perhaps not to the kids in schools, but certainly to the species that existing arrangements are designed to provide for. Developers are already paying a separate type of fee to discharge their environmental obligations. The Bill proposes a smarter way of doing that, and the levy will proceed on the basis of that smarter way to discharge those obligations.
I have not had the chance to say this, and it is worth doing so, but it is the Government’s clear intention that the aggregate cost of conservation measures to developers under an EDP is no greater than it is under the status quo for existing mitigations. The Government’s intent is not to charge developers more. This is a more effective, strategic and efficient way to discharge existing environmental obligations on a strategic scale. However, further detail will be forthcoming.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65
Appeals
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 65 will allow a right of appeal in relation to the calculation of the amount of the levy payable by a developer. As environmental delivery plans include charging schedules, which can set out the levy rates for different types of development, there is a need to ensure that there is a route for developers to appeal if they believe that the levy payable has been miscalculated. Crucially, the levy rates will be part of the draft environmental delivery plan, which will provide clarity as to the cost for developers, but we want to ensure that if developers believe that the rate has been miscalculated, they have a right to appeal. The appeal process will be set out in regulations, and the clause provides the detail of what those regulations may include. This is a simple and straightforward clause, and I commend it to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I have a brief question. I understand that the Minister wants to bring forward regulations backed by the affirmative procedure, and that is welcome. I am slightly concerned by the wording in subsection (3):
“In any proceedings for judicial review of a decision on an appeal, the defendant is to be such person as is specified in the regulations (and the regulations may also specify a person who is not to be the defendant for these purposes).”
I seek reassurance from the Minister that once the Bill receives Royal Assent, he will err on the side of being liberal about who can bring an issue to judicial review, and that he will not seek to restrict a category of person from taking such actions. I would be grateful if he could give that assurance.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate—as, no doubt, the development sector will—the hon. Gentleman’s concern for developers and the right of appeal. I do give him that commitment. I will go away and think about the point he raises.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 66
Use of nature restoration levy
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 66, page 96, line 20, at end insert—
“(1A) The regulations must require Natural England to ensure that use of money received by virtue of the nature restoration levy is not unreasonably delayed.”
The amendment would ensure that funding would be available for upfront nature restoration and mitigation on development sites.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 130, in clause 66, page 96, line 26, at end insert—
“(3A) The regulations may not permit Natural England to spend money received by virtue of the nature restoration levy for the purposes of acquiring land through a Compulsory Purchase Order.”
Amendment 131, in clause 66, page 96, leave out lines 40 and 41.
Amendment 10, in clause 66, page 96, line 40, leave out “may” and insert “will”.
This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would ensure that nature restoration levy money is reserved for future expenditure.
Amendment 132, in clause 66, page 97, line 6, leave out “use” and insert “return”.
Gideon Amos
I will be reasonably brief—the Committee will be pleased to know that I have been striking sections out of my speaking notes as the Committee days wear on. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Louder!
Amendment 9 would ensure that funding was available up front from the nature restoration levy and to provide mitigation on development sites. It is important, in terms of the effectiveness of any mitigation provided, that it happens up front, and not later on or after works have happened.
In terms of nature and biodiversity, the UK is one of the most depleted countries in the world. One in six species is threatened with extinction. In partnership with our pump-prime funding amendment—amendment 6 to clause 67—the amendment seeks to ensure that the levy, upon receipt by Natural England, is used as soon as possible, in order that the nature recovery fund can go some way towards ensuring that overall species abundance is increasing, rather than decreasing, by 2030. It would not be legitimate for money to sit unused in Natural England’s coffers when there is an ongoing crisis and action urgently needs to be taken.
Amendment 10 is consequential on new clause 18. It would ensure that nature restoration levy money is reserved for future expenditure—it “may” be reserved, but again that is very uncertain. That funding needs to be there and it needs to be protected. In line with our amendment to ensure that the nature restoration fund levy is not unreasonably delayed, amendment 10 would ensure that the money is put to use as soon as is reasonably practicable and is reserved for planned future expenditure.
Paul Holmes
We will not press amendments 130 to 132, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley, to a vote. On clause 66 more generally, we accept that it sets out how funding collected by Natural England through the nature restoration levy must be used. In broad terms, it is to be spent on relevant conservation measures, as well as on the administrative costs that arise. However, there is an absence of clarity that could lead to potential concerns about the transparency and accountability of fund distribution. Without clear guidelines, there is a risk that administrative costs could disproportionately consume the funds meant for conservation, thereby undermining the levy’s effectiveness in achieving its environmental objectives.
Furthermore, we have a concern that the clause provides no safeguards to ensure that the funds are spent efficiently or effectively, and nor does it establish any oversight mechanisms to monitor the use of the funds. We would argue that a more detailed breakdown of how the funds will be managed, with clear priority given to conservation over administration, would help build trust in the system and ensure that the nature restoration levy delivers the intended environmental benefits.
Additionally, and lastly, there should be a requirement for periodic reporting on how the funds are used, which would provide necessary transparency and reassurance to stakeholders.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me work through each of the amendments that have been tabled and spoken to. I will start with amendment 9, which was tabled and set out by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. It requires that funds gathered through the nature restoration levy be spent without unreasonable delay.
An environmental delivery plan will have had to meet the overall improvement test, as we have debated at length, to have been made. In designing the conservation measures in an environmental delivery plan, Natural England will have been aware that delivering measures at the earliest point in time is usually the easiest way to achieve that outcome. However, the appropriate timing to deliver a conservation measure may depend on the specific circumstances of each case and the nature of the conservation measures that represent the best outcomes for the environment in the view of Natural England, as the body preparing the EDP. Natural England’s discretion in these determinations should not, in our view, be unduly restrained by an obligation to spend money quickly, rather than well and effectively, to achieve the outcomes under the EDP. There is an option for Natural England to establish—
Matthew Pennycook
Both may well be possible in some instances, but may not be in alignment in others. We our principally concerned that money is spent well on the most effective conservation measures to achieve the best outcomes for nature. There is of course an option for Natural England to establish some mitigation measures prior to development starting.
Furthermore, the Bill contains provisions requiring National England to report on its progress, to ensure that there is transparency over how money secured through the levy is being used. We discussed that in a debate on a previous amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, which had overlooked the fact that EDPs have a set timeframe. The shadow Minister will know that EDPs are required to be reported on twice over the EDP period. It is worth making the point that Natural England must also publish annual reports setting out how it is spending the money received via the levy and the effectiveness of any EDPs. That requirement is a minimum and, as we have discussed, Natural England may publish reports at any other time. With that explanation, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will withdraw the amendment.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley was particularly concerned about a situation where, in order to fulfil the requirements of the EDP, the compulsory purchase of land that had specific characteristics would be necessary. Therefore, that would potentially drive a very significant increase in the value of the land because it was the only way in which that EDP could be fulfilled, and that would significantly increase the cost to the public purse. What measures does the Minister have in place to ensure that where that type of situation arises—because, for example, there is a blanket bog or a particular type of pond that is required to fulfil the EDP—it is delivered at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer?
Matthew Pennycook
I think I understand the shadow Minister’s point. Obviously, the normal process for compulsory purchase would apply. We will come to CPO provisions later. If I have not covered it, I am more than happy to go into further detail at that point.
As I have set out, in order for an environmental delivery plan to be made, there must be sufficient certainty that the conservation measures are deliverable to allow the EDP to pass the overall improvement test. The possibility of using compulsory purchase where other options are not available is, in our view, essential to the operation of the nature restoration fund. That does not change the fact that, in practice, compulsory purchase will always be the least preferred delivery option, with a negotiated procurement of land use or management changes being the natural starting point, wherever those are required.
While talk of compulsory purchase can raise concerns—I understand those, and we debated them on Second Reading —we expect farmers and land managers to benefit, with the nature restoration fund providing opportunities to diversify their business income. We will debate Natural England’s compulsory purchase powers more fully when we reach clause 72. Given the environmental and practical need for these limited powers, I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees to withdraw the amendment.
I turn to amendments 131 and 10, which seek to remove the ability for regulations to make provision for Natural England to reserve money for future expenditure. By removing the circumstances in which Natural England can reserve money for future expenditure, the amendments would limit the flexibility for Natural England to secure the most appropriate conservation measures and would prioritise haste over environmental outcomes. In our view, they would also restrict Natural England’s ability to plan for unforeseen circumstances and allow money to be made available to react to changing circumstances.
The Bill provides a number of additional safeguards to the use of the nature restoration levy, which will ensure that money is spent effectively and transparently. I will set those out when we reach the debate on clause 66. Natural England will, of course, not wish to unnecessarily delay the procurement of conservation measures once levy funding is received, and preventing prudent financial management would not assist it in that endeavour. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Members will agree not to press their amendments.
I turn finally to amendment 132, in the name of the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley. This would require any unused funds to be returned to developers where an EDP no longer requires funding. We recognise that a requirement for Natural England to return any unused funds could reduce the cost to developers. However, we do not expect Natural England to be left with significant residual funds at the end of an EDP. Natural England will be encouraged to ensure that the costing of conservation measures is clear from the start and, as I have said, subject to consultation.
In the event that there are unspent funds that are not required to secure the conservation measures under the EDP, those funds will be directed towards additional conservation measures and securing additional positive environmental outcomes. Should the EDP period elapse before the outcome is achieved, the funds will continue to be invested until the required environmental outcome is achieved.
In addition, any system of dividing up and returning residual funding would risk making environmental delivery plans more expensive and would distract Natural England from focusing on developing and delivering them. It is important to emphasise again that developers are not paying for specific conservation measures on a site-by-site basis. They are providing a contribution to secure the package of conservation measures required across the EDP geography to outweigh the impact of development covered by the plan. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington might consider withdrawing his amendment.
Gideon Amos
I note in particular the Minister’s concern about proceeding with undue haste—I am sure that that is the furthest thing from the mind of this Committee. Without wishing to proceed with undue haste, I suggest that he is imputing to our amendment words that it does not contain. He is suggesting that it would deprioritise effectiveness and prioritise timeliness over the measures taken being effective. However, our amendment actually says “not unreasonably delayed”, which is well-known legislative wording. It does not prevent things being done well and, if not with undue haste, in a timely fashion.
We believe that the amendment is eminently sensible. I believe in it as strongly as I did when I stood up a few minutes ago.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me give the hon. Gentleman further reassurance. There are two things. First, we genuinely do not believe that that line would strengthen the legislation in any way, in the sense that it is ambiguous and would be an additional expectation on Natural England. More importantly, it is likely only to limit Natural England’s options in bringing forward the conservation measures under EDPs. I will give him an example: it would make it more difficult to do things such as pooling levy payments to fund larger-scale, more beneficial interventions over the EDP geography. I ask him to reconsider on that basis.
Gideon Amos
As always, I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. I would argue that it is possible to carry out the actions that he described without unreasonable delay, which is what our amendment seeks. The Government cannot have it both ways: on the one hand, it is ambiguous; on the other hand, it would definitely mean that timeliness is to the detriment of the quality of the actions. I do not think those two arguments stack up.
I believe in the amendment as strongly as I did a few minutes ago. However, in the interest of the progress of the Committee, and based on my understanding of maths, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 66, page 97, line 13, leave out “separately” and insert
“to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy]”.
This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on the use made of nature restoration levy money.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 24, in clause 66, page 97, line 17, after “money” insert
“, and to report to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy] accordingly”.
This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on the use made of nature restoration levy money.
Amendment 25, in clause 66, page 97, line 18, after “report” insert
“to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy]”.
This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on expected charging collection and use of nature restoration levy money.
Amendment 26, in clause 66, page 97, line 24, after “paragraph)” insert
“, and to report to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy] accordingly”.
This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on money passed to another public authority.
New clause 18—Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before Part 3 of this Act comes into force, establish an independent body to monitor the administration of the nature restoration levy by Natural England.
(2) The independent body may request information from Natural England relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy additional to the information and reports provided to the independent body by Natural England under section 66(5).
(3) The independent body may report to the Secretary of State on—
(a) any concerns relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy, and
(b) any other matters relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy as the independent body deems appropriate.”
This new clause would provide for independent oversight of Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy.
Gideon Amos
I will spend a few moments on these amendments, because they concern the important oversight body, and I will speak to them together, so Committee members need not fear—I do not have five separate speeches. I know how disappointed they will be.
The amendments are about an independent oversight body for Natural England. As the Bill stands, the effectiveness of the environmental outcomes will be determined solely by the effectiveness of Natural England in administering its own EDPs and its nature restoration levy. That is a large amount of power and responsibility, and it requires a system of monitoring and evaluation.
A single public body should not be able to evaluate its own actions without independent scrutiny. As drafted, the Bill would ensure that Natural England would be the regulator, fundholder, implementer and monitor of the nature restoration fund without any independent oversight. This is a very important part of the Bill. The lack of external oversight risks weakening the accountability of the system. Independent oversight is essential to ensure impartiality, manage conflicts of interest and guarantee effective use of the funds.
Without criticising the hard-working staff at Natural England, there are already serious concerns about the organisation’s ability to meet its obligations. It is under-resourced and overstretched, with its budget declining 72% in recent years. It is struggling to fulfil its statutory duties. Some 78% of sites of special scientific interest have not been monitored in the last six years. In the biodiversity net gain credit scheme administered by Natural England, the total income from statutory credits was £247,000 last year, while the projected administrative costs were £300,000, surpassing the income and resulting in no actual conservation from the scheme.
Frequently, other Government levies, such as the water restoration fund and the community infrastructure levy, have been historically underspent and badly managed. Lessons from those past failures must be incorporated into the new levy system. Natural England’s district-level licensing for great crested newts has also faced delays and unclear outcomes. The Government have already committed to an extra £14 million to Natural England—we Liberal Democrats thoroughly welcome that—to increase capacity to develop an initial tranche of priority EDPs. However, this is question not just of funding and resourcing, but of using the funds effectively. Ensuring that the money is spent well, in the words of the Minister a few minutes ago, is incredibly important. If he is committed to that, there should be independent oversight so that the public scrutiny and transparent reporting mechanisms essential to building trust in the system are in place.
I emphasise that this is not a criticism of Natural England. It is a way to make sure that Natural England is resourced and empowered properly to fulfil the major and significant responsibilities given to it in part 3 of the Bill.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I offer some brief remarks to complement the excellent ones of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington in support of new clause 18.
The new clause would provide for independent oversight of Natural England’s administration of the proposed nature restoration levy. We know from testimony to this Committee that we as a country have not prioritised nature and fully understood the importance of protecting habitats. Although we cannot correct those mistakes, it is important that we look to the future, in terms of nature restoration, to bring back what we had. Not only is that crucial for a healthy planet by helping to mitigate climate change, but there is a benefit to human wellbeing. Restoring natural ecosystems can enhance food production, improve water quality and quantity, reduce flood risks, and offer socioeconomic benefits such as tourism and sustainable jobs.
As my hon. Friend said, this is not about criticising Natural England but about recognising two things: first, Natural England is resource-constrained; and secondly, there is quite a lot of evidence from around the world that schemes intended to offset carbon emissions or promote nature in other forms can, if not properly scrutinised, often not achieve their intended benefits. I do not question the Government’s intentions with the proposals, but it is important that the nature restoration levy does not end up being greenwash.
We see so many examples of that. I was bewildered by a LinkedIn post a few years ago in which some people were applauding an intercontinental airline that was expanding its services for its commitment to the environment by eliminating plastic cutlery on their planes—talk about throwing a tiny starfish into an ocean. It is very important that we do not make such mistakes with the nature restoration levy. I hope that the Government will consider our new clause 18 to ensure that Natural England receives the independent oversight that it needs to discharge its objectives fully.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank hon. Members for setting out the rationale for this group of proposals so clearly. From memory, we have already discussed at length, on a number of clauses, the resourcing issue for Natural England. To be clear—I have been candid about this—in setting up the nature restoration fund, we are asking Natural England to do a lot. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington referenced the £14 million allocated in the Budget to its work in this area.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for the Government’s response to the proposals. I can only restate some of the concerns we have about potential conflicts of interest in relation to Natural England administering, collecting and spending the money, and judging its own effectiveness. The fact that the Secretary of State is the only arbiter above it would not necessarily bring confidence to those who are most concerned about the natural environment.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire reminded us of a cast list of former Secretaries of State for the Environment. I am a little older, so I remember another one: Nicholas Ridley. Or let us think about the future: perhaps there could be a Secretary of State from the Reform party—goodness me, wouldn’t that be a prospect? What reassurance would that provide on regulating and overseeing the effectiveness of the nature restoration fund, the levy, the spending of the levy and the actions of Natural England?
For such a broad range of significant Government functions, and the significant spending of public money, it makes eminent sense to have an oversight body. It might add somewhat to the cost, but, in our opinion, that cost should be borne by developers. It is a worthwhile amount to be spent for a small regulatory function. We wish to press that point further, because it is an important way of strengthening the system, making it more robust and giving it more integrity in delivering its outcomes.
Matthew Pennycook
May I leave the hon. Gentleman with a point to reflect on? Natural England already undertakes a range of duties and makes interventions in support of positive nature outcomes, not least in terms of nutrient pollution, which we have discussed. It cannot do that through the approach we are talking about. Oversight of that is provided by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and that would remain in place. I ask him to reflect on the existing situation as it applies to Natural England, and how its very beneficial work is overseen at present.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to respond to our concerns, but, as I said, such a concentration of functions so closely related to each other—establishing the EDP, collecting and spending the funds, and monitoring its effectiveness—in what is a single system surely requires some separate oversight, rather than relying on future Secretaries of State. We will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matthew Pennycook
We have debated various amendments to clause 66, so I will be brief. I will just put on the record the Government’s case for the Bill.
The clause sets out that Natural England must spend money received through the nature restoration levy on conservation measures. More detail may be specified in regulations, as I have said, including the conservation measures that may be funded, maintenance activities and what can be treated as funding. In allowing Natural England to receive levy payments, it is vital that the payments are used to fund conservation measures that address the impacts of development on the environmental feature or features in relation to which the levy is charged. That is critical not only to ensuring that the impacts on the environmental feature are properly addressed, but to giving developers confidence that their contributions are not being used to replace wider action to restore nature. Such fairness is central to this model.
In designing the nature restoration fund, we have had to account for a range of circumstances that could arise. For example, it may be necessary to allow Natural England to use money received through the levy to reimburse actions already taken to prepare for anticipated environmental impact. Similarly, there will often be circumstances where it is necessary to make sure that funding is sufficient to extend beyond the end date of the EDP to ensure that conservation measures put in place are properly maintained for the appropriate time period.
The clause provides for such possibilities through subsection (4) and will support the delivery of the package of regulations that will underpin the nature restoration levy. The clause also ensures transparency on how levy payments will be used. That is why subsection (3) will require Natural England, through regulations, to publish a list setting out the various types of conservation measures that it may seek payment for and the procedure for doing so. The regulations will also be able to restrict Natural England’s spending of money received via the nature restoration levy on certain other activities.
The measures are further supported by subsection (5), which allows regulations to specify monitoring and reporting practices that Natural England must take, including that it accounts for money received via the levy separately from its other funding sources. That is an important point. Importantly for developers, such transparency will mean that when it comes to reviewing the charging schedule, they will be able to understand clearly not only what they have been asked to contribute, but how it will be used. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 67
Collection of nature restoration levy
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 67, page 97, line 35, leave out from “levy” to end of line 38 and insert “.
(4A) Provision under subsection (4) must include a condition that the nature restoration levy must be paid before development begins.”
This amendment would require that the nature restoration levy is paid before development begins.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 68 stand part.
Olly Glover
I rise to speak in favour of amendment 6, which would require that the nature restoration levy is paid before development begins rather than during or after. The reason for that is simple. For the nature restoration levy to be effective, it needs to be paid before development begins to allow maximum benefit. As many of us will have experienced with new developments in our constituencies, current arrangements in relation to section 106 and other measures often mean that developer contributions are made during development, and indeed sometimes they have to be chased up for many years after. I am told that there is an old adage—I must confess that I had not heard it before I was given these notes—that the best time to plant a tree is 30 years ago, and the second-best time is now. For any Members who are as curious as I was about where that came from, apparently it was from a town councillor in Cleveland, Ohio, in the 1960s called George W. White.
Regardless, many of us will know from our constituencies how important trees are to our communities. For example, in Didcot we have Geoff Bushell, a community tree champion who worked during the pandemic to categorise some of the oldest trees in Didcot. A local artist called Linda Benton illustrated a book documenting them, and an East Hagbourne poet, Roger Phipps, created a poets’ trail to pay tribute to them. That is just a symbol of how important nature and trees are to our communities, and why it is so critical to get this bit of the Bill right.
If we are to prioritise nature, make biodiversity net gains and realise the advantages to climate adaptation, the plans and projects associated need to be delivered at pace—a phrase we seem to be using frequently on this Committee. Developers should be made to pay the levy before development begins. The alternative is that it is paid at various intervals throughout, but that could make it much harder to manage, because works and projects would be unable to start until a critical amount had been reached, which for some developments could be years or decades down the line. Meanwhile, nature in the area will have been destroyed.
The Wildlife Trusts have made it clear that the so-called pump-priming of Natural England to deliver environmental delivery plans, as promised by the Minister on Second Reading, is critical. If EDPs are well resourced from the start, they will be able to deliver some gains for nature at pace, especially where it is critical that gains come before damage. A well-funded EDP workstream will be more capable of sequencing conservation measures in a way that delivers for nature without causing significant delays to development plans.
In a guide to the Bill that was published on its introduction, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government promised certainty that the conservation measures proposed under an EDP would outweigh the negative effects of development. Without provision for the timing of conservation measures, many of which will be delivered through the proper funding of nature restoration levies up front, we will not be able to achieve our goal of protecting our most threatened environmental features.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman knows that I have asked the Minister to be more specific about the proposed regulations, and I am looking forward to scrutinising them. However, I still think amendment 6 is very broad, including the language about how the
“levy must be paid before development begins.”
To help my colleagues and me, it would be useful if the hon. Gentleman elaborated on whether that will be the day before development begins. Can he set out what “before” actually means? It is a very broad term.
Olly Glover
The shadow Minister asks a valid question, and, as with a number of details in the Bill, further thought will be required about mechanisms for how things should work. But we think that it is possible to give the definition that he asks for, and that that should be done in specific agreements around nature restoration levies associated with relevant developments. It should be made clear that the value that will be paid into them should be paid up front, rather than during or after.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful for the useful clarification.
I rise to speak to clauses 67 and 68. As I have outlined to the Minister, we are concerned that a number of these clauses in the 60s—if I can refer to them as a group—are very broad in scope. The Minister will say to me that we will come on to scrutinise that, and he has confirmed that the affirmative process will apply. I fully accept that, but it concerns me that the broad brushstrokes in the Bill do not have meat to their bones.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, has made a genuine point about democratic accountability and oversight. In a previous amendment, it was proposed that an independent body should be overseeing some of the actions in Natural England. I gently say to the Liberal Democrats that it is clear from this group of clauses that Natural England is being supervised, instructed and scrutinised by the democratically elected Secretary of State. So two clear bodies, if I can call the Secretary of State or their office a body, are providing scrutiny. It would be a very dangerous precedent to legislate to essentially protect the public from a democratically elected Secretary of State, just because somebody is fearful about where they come from, what party they represent or their policies.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend is setting out the concerns eloquently. The Minister was clear earlier that the Government’s expectation is that this system will raise no net additional funds compared with the existing one, so the cost to the developers will be no different. The implication is that there will be no significant additional resource, if any, for Natural England to deploy as a result. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that that raises a serious question about its capacity to do the work that is outlined in the Bill?
Paul Holmes
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We heard evidence from the chief executive of Natural England, and in case she is listening, I say again very clearly that I make no imputation about the way she or the organisation are doing their job, but the language that she used was very loose. Without that financial certainty, there is a question about whether the organisation will be able to cope with all the responsibilities that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington outlined. As my hon. Friend just mentioned, the Minister has also admitted—if he wants to intervene, that is fine—that no additional funding means that Natural England will be relying on the spending review even more than we thought at the beginning of the evidence session.
Matthew Pennycook
I am shaking my head, for the following reasons. I have made it clear that the nature restoration fund will ultimately work on the basis of full cost recovery. To be clear, these are costs for introducing compensation measures and discharging environmental obligations that Natural England at present does not handle; developers do them on a site-by-site basis. Although I do not underestimate the resourcing challenges across Government, the full cost recovery for the service provided will not impact on Natural England’s wider work. There will be full cost recovery for the preparation and delivery of environmental delivery plans for Natural England. I hope that that addresses the matter.
In that sense, I do not think the shadow Minister is right to say that we are giving Natural England an additional responsibility, on top of its existing responsibilities, outside the provisions of the Bill here, for which full cost recovery will apply. There is a specific, direct link with the levy that is going to be raised.
Broadly, I say to the shadow Minister—I am just flicking through the explanatory notes—that he has challenged me, and I accept the challenge, that there is not enough specificity in the regulation-making powers in the Bill. I have committed to regulations coming forward under the affirmative procedure. If he could go away and help my reflection by guiding me to another piece of legislation that has included the specificity around regulation-making powers that he would like to see, that would very much aid my deliberation.
Paul Holmes
I am a very aspirational, can-do, go-getter politician—[Interruption.] Yes, it is everyone else who needs to say that. I am willing to sit down with the Minister and guide him in any way I can—perhaps over a double espresso—to make sure that the gist of what the Bill seeks to achieve is matched in the specificity about what is required in regulations. I do not think I am being ungenerous to the Minister; I have accepted that he has been very good in saying that we will consider them under the affirmative procedure. But as we discuss the key driving force behind the Bill, we seek reassurance on some of the unclear elements of Natural England’s responsibilities.
The Minister, who is driving this legislation forward, could indicate to the Committee verbally or in writing afterwards where he will give more specifics on enforcement action, on costs, on raising powers and on other things. I am not being mean to him; I am just saying that if he spent years writing this while he was shadow Minister, he should know what he wants Natural England to do now that he is Minister. I have full confidence that he can do that, and I cannot be any more complimentary to him than I have been on this Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
As complimentary as the shadow Minister is being about me, I think it is a stretch—even for someone such as myself, who has lived and breathed this for years—to have been setting out while in opposition the fine details of collection for nature restoration levy regulations forthcoming. That is a level of detail that I did not get into, and would not be expected to, and that the House can consider when those regulations come forward.
Paul Holmes
If the Minister has lived and breathed this for the many years for which he has wanted to write this legislation, and he has then got to the dizzying heights of a red box and a ministerial desk, he should know what he wants to do—
The Chair
Order. Much as a bit of banter is fun, we need to get on with getting through the agenda for today.
Paul Holmes
At the insistence of the general noise coming mostly from Government Members, I will plough on. The serious point behind what I was saying is that the Conservatives, alongside the Liberal Democrats, do have some concerns about the regulations and the responsibilities of Natural England.
On clause 68, we welcome the ability to make payments in instalments or in forms other than money. That provides some adaptable and accessible elements for developers. However, we worry about the overburdening of other public bodies that might be asked to pay into this fund. We would argue that some of the process is not clearly defined. On enforcement, the clause lacks specifics regarding the consequences for late or failed payments. Additionally, it does not address how flexibility will be built into the enforcement process for developers. We think that developers deserve clarity about that.
Although we had a brief moment of levity earlier, there is a serious point about the responsibilities. We hope the Minister will be able to respond to our concerns.
Ellie Chowns
I will be brief. I strongly support amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. Accepting the amendment would go a long way towards addressing the concerns about enforcement, late payment and so on. Let us adopt it.
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington argued, amendment 6 is designed to ensure that developers pay the nature restoration levy before a development can progress.
The timeline of payment has been carefully considered by the Government, and the payment and timing of the levy will be agreed as part of the wider process of planning consent, and before development can progress. However, in developing the legislation, we recognise that EDPs will cover a broad range of circumstances, so there is a need to allow the payment of the nature restoration levy to be tailored to reflect the type and scale of development in each instance. For example, this would allow large, multi-phased developments to pay in line with development milestones, as opposed to there being a requirement for the total levy to be paid up front. That will ensure that the environmental delivery plan is a viable option for developers, which in turn will ensure that we are able to deliver the improved environmental outcomes through the nature restoration fund.
Clause 67 already allows regulations to be created regarding the imposition of planning conditions to require payment of the levy—for example, allowing a condition that development cannot commence until the levy has been paid. If we took an overly prescriptive approach to the payment of the levy, we would risk reducing the overall impact of the new approach and driving more developers into using the existing process, which delivers less for nature, as we have argued previously. Having given that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Clause 67 establishes a requirement for nature restoration levy regulation to include provision relating to the collection of the levy. It also stipulates further provisions, including matters such as when and how the levy is to be paid. The regulation-making powers in the clause are vital to ensure that the levy can accommodate different scenarios, such as enabling other public authorities to collect the nature restoration levy on behalf of Natural England, and to provide for refunds in case of overpayment.
Importantly, and as I have just set out, the regulations also allow for the imposition of planning conditions to require payment of the levy—for example, a condition that development cannot commence until the levy has been paid. We believe that that is the most appropriate mechanism to secure collection of the levy and for that reason I commend the clause to the Committee.
I turn finally to clause 68, which continues to build the system of regulations that will govern the operation of the nature restoration levy and ensure that effective enforcement procedures are put in place. Ensuring that levy payments are properly captured is vital to ensuring that Natural England is able to deliver the conservation measures required under the EDP, in order to secure the necessary positive environmental outcomes.
As the levy is the way in which the EDP is funded, it is vital that mechanisms are available to Natural England to enforce payment when a developer has breached their commitment to pay the levy. Although we expect the vast majority of developers to engage with the new process in good faith, non-payment of the levy could result in insufficient funding being available to address the environmental impact of development, which is unacceptable. That is why clause 68 sets out that regulations must include provision relating to enforcement of the levy, with consequences for late or failed payment. It also sets out that regulations may include provisions around penalties and charges, granting enforcement powers such as powers of entry, information collection and prosecution, and provisions regarding replications of existing tax enforcement measures and appeals.
It is important that there is effective enforcement of the nature restoration levy. I have taken up the challenge put by the shadow Minister. I hope that he comes forward with further detail. As a former shadow Minister who has sat in the hon. Gentleman’s place while considering many pieces of legislation, I would argue that these regulation-making powers are sufficiently detailed. I count 13 subsections under clause 68, for example, with further detail in regulations to come. On that basis, I commend these clauses to the Committee.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to Committee members for responding to our amendment about payment of the restoration levy up front. The Minister raises the objection that it might prevent multi-phase payments. In response to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage made very clear that the intent of our amendment is to ensure that works occur up front, at the early stage, and that funds are there to make that possible.
I recognise that, for the Minister, resisting amendments is the order of the day, week, month and all the rest of it, but I did hear him refer to regulation. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we earnestly hope that those regulations will take account of the principles that we have advanced in this amendment—that funds should be provided up front and early enough for mitigation works to happen early in the process. We will be looking carefully: if that occurs, we shall be very pleased to have had raised those issues in this debate. We shall be watching the regulations carefully. Given the assurance that regulations are coming forward, which we hope will achieve the objectives of our amendment, we will not seek to push it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 67 and 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Compensation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 69 is a further building block in the system of regulations that will govern the operation of the nature restoration levy. Whereas regulations made under clause 68 will enable Natural England to take enforcement action to address non-payment of the nature restoration levy, clause 69 ensures that, where appropriate, any persons who have suffered loss or damage as a result of such enforcement action will have a route to compensation.
The compensation process, including when and how a claim for compensation can be made and how the amount of compensation will be determined, may be set out in regulations, with the clause providing the framework for that process. Through the development of a new system, we intend to guard against such circumstances, but it is only right and prudent to provide for them. For that reason, I commend the clause to the committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 69 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71
Administering and implementing EDPs
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 73 stand part.
Clause 74 stand part.
Government new clause 65—Transfer schemes in connection with regulations under section 74(1).
Government new clause 67—Power to enter and survey or investigate land.
Government new clause 68—Warrant to enter and survey or investigate land.
Government new clause 69—Powers of entry: further provision.
Government new clause 70—Powers of entry: compensation.
Government new clause 71—Powers of entry: offences.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 71 sets out the broad functions of Natural England in respect of the nature restoration fund. As will have become clear from earlier clauses and previous debates, Natural England will administer environmental delivery plans; that is, it will do everything required to prepare the documents themselves, as well as take them through the processes of consultations and scrutiny before they are made by the Secretary of State. This will include its administrative responsibilities in monitoring and preparing reports on an environmental delivery plan’s progress.
Natural England will also be responsible for securing the delivery of the conservation measures necessary to implement what is set out in the environmental delivery plan, to ensure that it meets the necessary overall improvement test, and delivers positive outcomes for nature. This clause makes it clear that these functions may include the development of land, for example, to create a certain habitat to improve the conservation status of a protected site.
There will be instances where it is more prudent, cost-effective or timely for another body, whether public authority or private business, to carry out certain measures, so the clause gives Natural England the ability to pay another person to take conservation measures. That will ensure that Natural England can work with other providers where needed to ensure the timely and effective delivery of conservation measures, and for that reason I commend the clause to the Committee.
Throughout the development of the nature restoration fund, we have been clear that that Natural England must have the appropriate powers to deliver on the ambitions of the reforms. That is why we have tabled Government new clauses 67 to 71, which will ensure that Natural England has sufficient powers of entry to survey or investigate land. That will allow Natural England to conduct surveys, take samples, or conduct any exploratory works necessary to produce an environmental delivery plan or deliver conservation measures.
We recognise that such powers should be provided only with appropriate constraints. With that in mind, the powers are not exercisable to enter a private residence and entry must take place at a reasonable time. Where land is occupied, Natural England or the Secretary of State must give at least 24 hours’ notice in writing to the occupier, unless the occupier of the land is a relevant statutory undertaker, where the notice period is 21 days.
If, in seeking to exercise powers of entry, Natural England has been or is likely to be denied entry, the amendments also provide for the courts to issue a warrant to enter land. They create two relevant offences relating to the power of entry: intentionally obstructing a person acting in exercise of this power, and disclosing confidential information obtained in the exercise of a power of entry for purposes other than those for which the power was exercised. These powers are crucial to ensure that Natural England is able to carry out its functions effectively, and for those reasons I commend the new clauses to the Committee.
Clause 73 provides that, as well as preparing environmental delivery plans, Natural England must produce an annual report on the exercise of its functions in respect of the nature restoration fund. As previously set out, environmental delivery plans have a dual purpose in facilitating the development the country needs to meet its ambitious goals for housing and growth, while contributing also towards the restoration of our natural environment. Given the central role environmental delivery plans will play, it will be important that the Secretary of State, as well as the public and Parliament, are provided with regular information across a range of matters relating to the plans. Clause 73 establishes an appropriate proportionate requirement for Natural England to prepare an annual report to fulfil this purpose.
The Secretary of State will prepare guidance with further detail on how the report should be prepared, with this clause setting out core matters that the report must include, such as where environmental delivery plans are in place, and an assessment of each one that is in force. This report will be published and laid before Parliament so that it can receive appropriate scrutiny from all hon. Members. This is an important step to ensure transparency and to provide information to support the ongoing delivery of EDPs, as well as the design of future environmental delivery plans. For these reasons, I commend this clause to the Committee.
Turning to clause 74, Natural England has a central role to play in preparing and implementing EDPs and is already planning how to deliver the first tranche. However, as we have discussed, circumstances may arise in which it is prudent or necessary for another body to assume some or all of Natural England's functions in this space. Clause 74 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make the necessary changes to allow another public body to exercise the same functions as Natural England in respect of environmental delivery plans. That includes the ability to confer powers granted to Natural England under part 1 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 on an alternative body for the purpose of administering and implementing EDPs. In designating an alternative body, it may also be necessary to transfer certain rights, assets and liabilities from Natural England for those functions to be carried out. Government new clause 65 provides the mechanism for doing so.
Throughout these clauses we have sought to ensure the nature restoration fund is fit for purpose today, but also able to adapt to changes in the future. It is on that basis that we have proposed the inclusion of a power to designate another body to exercise the functions of Natural England. I commend these clauses to the Committee.
The Chair
Before I put the question, I would like to make hon. Members aware that we have now debated clauses 73 and 74, on which I will put the question later today. We have also already debated new clauses 65 and 67 to 78, on which a question will be put at the end of proceedings next week.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 71 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 72
Power to acquire land compulsorily
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 150, in clause 72, page 101, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) The power under subsection (1) may not be exercised in relation to land which is, or forms part of, a legally occupied dwelling or a private garden.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 112 to 118
Schedule 5
New clause 107—Return of compulsorily purchased land—
“(1) Natural England must return land acquired under a compulsory purchase order to the person from whom it was compulsorily purchased where the following conditions have been met—
(a) the owner of the land has refused to agree to a contract offered by Natural England;
(b) any works specified under the contract have been undertaken on behalf of Natural England and relate to an environmental development plan;
(c) a compulsory purchase order has been made by Natural England in relation to the land; and
(d) the cost of work undertaken on the land by Natural England exceeds the value of the contract offered by Natural England to the owner.
(2) When returning land under subsection (1), Natural England must not—
(a) impose any charge on, or
(b) require any sum from,
the person from whom the land was compulsorily purchased.”
Paul Holmes
You will be pleased to hear, Mrs Hobhouse, that I will be very brief. I just want to ask some questions and speak to amendment 150 and the clause. I will also speak to new clause 107. I will listen to the Minister’s answers before deciding whether to divide the Committee on the amendment.
We know that clause 72 gives Natural England the power compulsorily to acquire land, including “new rights over land”, subject to authorisation by the Secretary of State. Although this provision ensures that Natural England can secure the necessary land for environmental conservation and restoration projects, the use of compulsory land acquisition raises several concerns. The Minister should not be surprised to hear that, because we have raised them before.
First, compulsory acquisition can have significant social and economic impacts on landowners, potentially displacing communities or affecting livelihoods. A clear and transparent process must be in place to ensure that landowners are fairly compensated and that their interests are adequately considered, yet the clause does not specify the conditions in which the compulsory powers will be exercised, which could lead to concerns about the fairness or necessity of such actions.
The requirement for authorisation by the Secretary of State introduces an additional layer of oversight that might provide a safeguard against the misuse of these powers, but the clause would benefit from more detail of the criteria and process for granting authorisation, to ensure that the Secretary of State's decisions are transparent, accountable and based on clear, consistent guidelines. Without such clarity, there is a risk of arbitrary or inconsistent use of compulsory acquisition powers. That is notwithstanding the defence that I gave, believing that the Secretary of State should have those powers in earlier clauses.
The clause also does not address potential challenges from landowners or local communities affected by the acquisition, such as disputes over compensation or the environmental justification for land use. It would be beneficial to outline a clear appeals or mediation process to resolve such issues, which I know we come on to later in the Bill. Overall, while the power to acquire land may be necessary for some conservation efforts, careful safeguards are required to avoid potential negative consequences and to ensure that the power is exercised appropriately and fairly.
Amendment 150 stands in the name of the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle. I would not say this is a probing amendment, but will the Minister clarify the parameters on the exercise of a compulsory purchase order when it comes to
“a legally occupied dwelling or private garden.”?
We do not expect him to completely eradicate the use of such an order, but we would appreciate his guidance on where the regulations point in respect of when Natural England should and could be able to take private dwellings in a CPO process.
Turning to new clause 107, I note, in the interests of transparency, that I do not think we will move the clause, but we want to press the Minister as we remain concerned about compulsory purchase. We believe that compulsorily purchased land should be returned to the person from whom it was compulsorily purchased if certain conditions are met. Those are that
“the owner of the land has refused to agree to a contract offered by Natural England”—
that gives power to the individual—
“any works specified under the contract have been undertaken on behalf of Natural England and relate to an environmental development plan…a compulsory purchase order has been made by Natural England in…relation to the land; and…the cost of work undertaken on the land by Natural England exceeds the value of the contract offered by Natural England to the owner.”
I hope the Minister sees why we have tabled the amendments. I am not being obtuse, Mrs Hobhouse, in not saying yet whether we will push them to a vote. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about them, but as soon as we have, we will give you a steer.
Matthew Pennycook
I understand why the shadow Minister has sought to press me on this point, as I hope I have conveyed on previous clauses where we have touched upon compulsory purchase. We expect Natural England to use compulsory purchase orders as a last resort, and subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight. It will need to be authorised by the Secretary of State. I hope I can reassure him up front that Secretary of State oversight of the CPO process, as it applies through the nature restoration fund, is the same as in the existing process. Schedule 5 makes it very clear that the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 applies.
More generally, clause 72 provides Natural England with powers to compulsorily purchase land. As we have set out throughout this sitting, to be successful in delivering a win-win for nature and the economy, it is vital that Natural England has the necessary powers to secure and implement the conservation measures needed to protect the environment and enable Britain to get building. Although it is necessary to equip Natural England with those powers to ensure conservation measures can be delivered, they can be used only if the land is required for the purposes connected with a conservation measure set out in an environmental delivery plan, where attempts to acquire land by negotiation have failed, and where there is a compelling case in the public interest for use of the compulsory purchase powers.
As a further safeguard, the use of those powers will need to be authorised by the Secretary of State. Equipping Natural England with compulsory purchase powers is not unusual or novel. I sought to address that point on Second Reading. Many public bodies with statutory powers have compulsory purchase powers, and Natural England can already make compulsory purchase orders in some circumstances.
Clause 72 is supported by schedule 5, which applies the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and makes necessary modifications to compulsory purchase compensation legislation to accommodate these changes. Government new clauses 112 to 118 support this approach to compulsory purchase by making a number of technical amendments to ensure the operability of the new powers. That includes protections in respect of the use of CPO powers where the use of them may affect those carrying out statutory functions.
Finally, the package of amendments removes certain terms that are a hangover from outdated regulations and makes adjustments to the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 to allow for powers of entry where notice has been given. As the Committee has already heard, the Government have taken a cautious approach to extending compulsory purchase powers but are clear that they need to be available in the context of the nature restoration fund to ensure that there is sufficient certainty that, where necessary and appropriate, compulsory purchase can be used to ensure conservation measures are delivered.
I turn now to amendment 150, tabled by the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), which would restrict Natural England from utilising compulsory purchase powers for land that forms part of a dwelling or private garden. If I heard the shadow Minister correctly, it is a probing amendment, but I am more than happy to provide him with some further detail on the Government’s position. We agree that it will be crucial for the use of compulsory purchase powers to be appropriately constrained. That is why we have made sure that the current clauses provide that these powers can be used only where attempts to acquire land by negotiation have failed and there is a compelling case in the public interest for use of the compulsory purchase powers.
That is supported by the further safeguard that the use of the powers will need to be authorised by the Secretary of State, which will include considering whether the public interest benefits of the acquisition justify interfering with the private rights of those affected. It is highly improbable that conservation measures in private gardens could form an ecologically essential component of an environmental delivery plan. I do not say it would be impossible, but it is highly improbable.
Any restriction, however, of the use of the power where land contains an occupied dwelling or forms part of a private garden would be an unusual restriction on CPO powers, and would introduce unnecessary risks of complexity and delay when they are exercised. Any private dwellings will already benefit from additional protections, as I am sure the shadow Minister will know, under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. For that reason, and the existing safeguards within the Bill itself, I hope that the shadow Minister will withdraw the right hon. Lady’s amendment.
Finally, I turn to new clause 107, which would provide for circumstances where Natural England must return land that has been compulsorily purchased. In providing Natural England with new powers to acquire land through compulsory purchase, the Government have been at pains to ensure that the powers operate with effective safeguards, as I have said, and are in line with the wider approach to compulsory purchase. As raised elsewhere in the debate, we are clear about the need to ensure that Natural England can, where appropriate, use such powers to secure land to deliver conservation measures.
The new clause would undermine the efficacy of the proposed targeted powers by requiring land to be returned, at a loss to the taxpayer, where Natural England had to spend more money on conservation measures than the original contract price offered to the landowner. That would leave a hole not only in the public purse but in the environmental delivery plan in question, which would need to secure additional land to implement additional conservation measures that would have been secured on land now returned to the original owner.
We share the desire of the shadow Minister to see the effective use of the powers—that is why the safeguards are in place—but I hope that, with that explanation, he will withdraw the amendment.
Paul Holmes
We are satisfied with and appreciate the Minister’s response, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Compulsory acquisition of land under Part 3: supplementary provisions
Amendments made: 112, in schedule 5, page 148, line 36, at end insert—
“5A (1) Paragraph 3(2) does not apply to—
(a) any right vested in statutory undertakers for the purpose of carrying on their undertaking,
(b) any apparatus belonging to statutory undertakers for that purpose,
(c) any right conferred by, or in accordance with, the electronic communications code on the operator of an electronic communications code network, or
(d) any electronic communications apparatus kept installed for the purposes of any such network.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) ‘statutory undertakers’ means persons who are, or are deemed to be, statutory undertakers for the purposes of any provision of Part 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and ‘undertaking’ is to be read in accordance with section 262 of that Act (meaning of ‘statutory undertakers’).”
This amendment secures that the things mentioned in the inserted paragraph 5A are not affected by paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 5, which would otherwise provide for their extinguishment or acquisition when land is compulsorily acquired under clause 72.
Amendment 113, in schedule 5, page 152, line 10, leave out “or restrictive covenant”.
This amendment and amendment 114 remove erroneous references to a restrictive covenant from paragraph 11 of Schedule 5. Paragraph 11 relates only to the compulsory acquisition of a new right over land under clause 72.
Amendment 114, in schedule 5, page 152, line 14, leave out “or enforcing that covenant”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 113.
Amendment 115, in schedule 5, page 152, line 14, after “sections” insert
“11A (powers of entry: further notices of entry), 11B (counter-notice requiring possession to be taken on specified date),”.
This amendment secures that the modification of section 11 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 made by paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 affects sections 11A and 11B of that Act, as well as sections 12 and 13.
Amendment 116, in schedule 5, page 152, line 29, at end insert—
“New rights: application of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981
13A The Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 (‘CP(VD)A 1981’) applies to the compulsory acquisition of new rights under section 72—
(a) with the modifications specified in paragraph 13B; and
(b) with such other modifications as may be necessary.
13B (1) The modifications of CP(VD)A 1981 referred to in paragraph 13A(a) are as follows.
(2) References to CPA 1965 are, in appropriate contexts, to be read (according to the requirements of the particular context) as referring to, or as including references to—
(a) the right acquired or to be acquired; or
(b) the land over which the right is, or is to be, exercisable.
(3) References to CPA 1965 are to be read as references to that Act as it applies to the compulsory acquisition of a right under section 72.
(4) Section 8(1) (vesting, and right to enter and take possession) is to be read as securing that—
(a) a general vesting declaration in respect of any right vests the right in the acquiring authority on the vesting date; and
(b) as from the vesting date, the acquiring authority has power, exercisable in the same circumstances and subject to the same conditions, to enter land for the purpose of exercising that right as if the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a) and (b) of section 8(1) had arisen.
(5) Section 9(2) (right of entry under section 8(1) not exercisable in respect of land subject to certain tenancies unless notice has been served on occupiers of the land) is to be read as requiring a notice served by the appropriate authority under that provision to refer to the authority’s intention to enter land specified in the notice in order to exercise the right.
(6) In section 10(1) (acquiring authority’s liability on vesting of the land), the reference to the acquiring authority’s taking possession of the land under section 11 of CPA 1965 is to be read as a reference to the authority’s exercising the power to enter the land under that provision as modified by paragraph 11 of this Schedule.
(7) Schedule A1 (counter-notice requiring purchase of land not in general vesting declaration) is to be read as if—
(a) in paragraph 1(1), for ‘part only of’ there were substituted ‘only the acquisition of a right over’;
(b) paragraph 1(2) were omitted;
(c) references to the land proposed to be acquired were (subject to paragraph (e) below) to the right proposed to be acquired;
(d) references to the additional land were to the house, building or factory over which the right is proposed to be exercisable;
(e) in paragraphs 14 and 15, references to the severance of land proposed to be acquired were to the acquisition of the right; and
(f) in paragraph 15, after ‘in addition to’ there were inserted ‘or in substitution for’.”
This amendment secures that the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 applies in relation to the compulsory acquisition of a new right over land under clause 72, subject (a) to the specific modifications in paragraph 13B (designed to secure that certain provisions of that Act work correctly in relation to that case and (b) any other modifications necessary to secure that result.
Amendment 117, in schedule 5, page 152, line 32, leave out
“with the necessary modifications, in”
and insert “—
(a) with the modification specified in paragraph 15, and
(b) with such other modifications as are necessary,
in”.
Paragraph 14 of Schedule 5 secures that the enactments relating to compensation for the compulsory purchase of land apply to the acquisition of new rights over land under clause 72 with the modifications necessary to make them work correctly in relation to that case. The amendment makes clear that the modifications include the particular modification of the Land Compensation Act 1961 set out in the new paragraphs 15 inserted by Amendment 118.
Amendment 118, in schedule 5, page 152, line 35, at end insert—
“15 Section 5A (relevant valuation date) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 is to be read as if for subsections (5A) and (5B) there were substituted—
‘(5A) If—
(a) the acquiring authority enters on land for the purpose of exercising a right in pursuance of a notice of entry under section 11(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (as modified by paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025),
(b) the acquiring authority is subsequently required by a determination under paragraph 13 of Schedule 2A to the 1965 Act (as substituted by paragraph 9 of Schedule 5 to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025) to acquire an interest in the land, and
(c) the acquiring authority enters on and takes possession of that land,
the authority is deemed for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) to have entered on that land when it entered on that land for the purpose of exercising that right.
(5B) If—
(a) a right over land is the subject of a general vesting declaration,
(b) by virtue of paragraph 11(2) or 16(2) of Schedule A1 to the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981, the declaration has effect as if it included an interest in the land, and
(c) the vesting date for the right is different from the vesting date for the interest in the land,
the first of the vesting dates is deemed for the purposes of subsection (4)(a) to be the vesting date for the whole of the land.’”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment sets out a modification of section 5A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 as it applies in relation to the compulsory acquisition of new rights over land under clause 72. The amendments ensure that section 5A works correctly in relation to its application to the acquisition of such new rights.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 73 and 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 75
Duty of co-operation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 76 stand part.
Government amendments 103 and 104.
Amendment 121, in schedule 6, page 157, line 34, leave out paragraph 41.
Government amendments 105 to 111.
Schedule 6.
Clause 77 stand part.
Government amendments 99 and 100.
Clause 78 stand part.
Government new clause 73—Application to the Crown.
Matthew Pennycook
Environmental delivery plans will, by their very nature, cross administrative boundaries and require input from a wide range of actors from across the system, be they local authorities, regulators or other public bodies. It is vital that Natural England can rely on their support and input to develop and implement environmental delivery plans.
Clause 75 will establish a stand-alone duty to co-operate in respect of environmental delivery plans to ensure that relevant public bodies and public authorities engage and co-operate with Natural England. The duty will require such public bodies in England to provide reasonable assistance to Natural England and have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State about how the duty needs to be complied with. Of course, we recognise that such bodies will want to proactively engage on such matters, but a legislative duty will provide reassurance to local communities, environmental groups and developers that all parts of the system will work together to ensure that the plans can be put in place and properly implemented. The clause provides an important safeguard to ensure that all parts of the public sector work together to design and deliver EDPs.
Clause 76 relates to Ramsar sites, which I am sure hon. Members are aware are wetlands of international importance designated under the convention on wetlands. In England alone, these amount to over 300,000 hectares of land. To date, in England, these sites have been given the protection of the habitats regulations assessment process, through policy as set out in the national planning policy framework and in Government guidance, rather than through legislation.
To support the effective operation of the nature restoration fund work, we propose to place protections for Ramsar sites on a legislative footing, with clause 76 providing for Ramsar sites to be treated in the same way as European sites under the habitats regulations assessment process. Obligations relating to Ramsar sites will therefore have a legal basis, allowing environmental delivery plans and payments into the nature restoration fund to cover the impact of development on Ramsar sites. That is important, given the importance of the sites, and will mean that, going forward, such sites of global importance can benefit from the environmental uplift secured through an environmental delivery plan.
In order to ensure the operability of the nature restoration fund, schedule 6 makes various necessary amendments to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Part 1 of the schedule places the protection of Ramsar sites, the country’s most important wetlands, on a statutory footing. That will apply the statutory protections of the habitats regulations assessment process to Ramsar sites, mirroring existing policy requirements set out in the national planning policy framework and national guidance. That approach will not only strengthen protections but ensure that Ramsar sites can be adequately covered by EDPs.
Part 2 of schedule 6 makes various minor and consequential amendments to the Acts I have mentioned. In respect of the Protection of Badgers Act, those are to allow for the granting of a deemed licence, which can cover the activities necessary to allow development and to implement an EDP. The amendments also provide for greater alignment with licences granted in respect of other species. This part makes further amendments to provisions on wildlife licensing, again to ensure workability with an EDP.
Part 2 of schedule 6 also excludes the preparation of EDPs and the implementation of conservation measures from the requirement to produce a strategic environmental assessment and the requirement to conduct an assessment under part 6 of the habitats regulations. Similarly, the schedule excludes the application of regulation 9 to the exercise of those functions. That approach reflects the fact that we have embedded the requirements in the process of the environmental delivery plan itself. For example, EDPs will consider alternatives, conduct robust public consultation, and carry out appropriate monitoring and reporting. By their very nature, EDPs will result in better outcomes for nature, but will do so by adopting a different approach, as we have discussed at length.
Amendment 121 will be set out in more detail by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. It seeks to remove the Government’s consequential amendments to the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The Government recognise that badgers are an iconic British species and have already started immediate action to bring an end to the badger cull by the end of this Parliament. Our consequential amendments to the Act under schedule 6 to the Bill will ensure that the nature restoration fund is operable for badgers. As part of the fund, we are ensuring that any licences granted as part of an environmental delivery plan in respect of badgers will be in line with licences granted under the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Without the changes, environmental delivery plans could not be put in place to address the impact of development on badgers.
In developing the new model, it is vital that Natural England is empowered to achieve the best possible environmental outcomes. That is why schedule 6 also gives Natural England the necessary range of tools to undertake conservation measures that support badgers. We will be guided by the evidence and Natural England’s expertise on which species are best suited to strategic approaches and how to apply the new tools. At this stage, however, we need to ensure that the legislation remains capable of supporting badgers. Given that explanation, I hope the hon. Member will not move amendment 121.
I turn now to clause 77. In establishing the new system, the Government have been mindful of the appropriate role for Parliament in scrutinising regulations made in respect of the nature restoration fund. In drafting this clause, we sought to secure the appropriate parliamentary procedure for the making of regulations under this part of the Bill, which must be made by statutory instrument. As with all Bills, we have tailored the approach to reflect the significance of the regulations, with the most important being subject to additional scrutiny through the affirmative procedure.
With that in mind, regulations relating to the nature restoration levy, regulations relating to the designation of a delivery body other than Natural England, and regulations making consequential amendments that amend an Act of Parliament will need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. Any other statutory instruments containing regulations that are made under this part will go through the negative procedure. They will therefore become law unless there is an objection by either House of Parliament in the form of a resolution to annul. We think that strikes the right balance and makes the best and most appropriate use of parliamentary time. For that reason, I commend clause 77 to the Committee.
Finally in this group, I turn to clause 78. In establishing the nature restoration fund, the legislation relies on a number of terms and phrases that define the core features and operation of the model. This clause acts as a reference list, bringing together the various definitions used in this part of the Bill. This clause is designed to assist the House and the public to navigate the clauses. Following introduction, we have sought to address minor issues in the drafting to ensure the effective operation of the statute book and to address any minor errors. Government amendments 103 to 111 make minor but necessary technical changes. I therefore commend clause 78 and the relevant Government amendments to the Committee.
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak to our amendment 121. Our primary concern is that the Bill’s proposed amendments to the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 will, for the first time, introduce permission to kill badgers, in addition to the power to interfere with their setts. Badgers are a much-loved British species of wild animal, and one that humans have not so far managed to make an endangered species. That could change with the Bill’s broadening of the legislation. It is a significant change in the law, from a power to interfere with badger setts to a power to kill badgers—the word in the Bill is “kill”—where there is an “overriding public interest”.
In our view, “overriding public interest” is not a clear justification. There are other legal tests: for example, the test of
“imperative reasons of overriding public interest”
appears in the habitats regulations, and the test of a
“compelling case in the public interest”
appears in compulsory purchase legislation. The “overriding public interest” does not seem, to us, a clear test; it is in the eye of the beholder and could be justified by any particular development. If the provision is not going to be used to make development quicker, it is difficult to understand why it is needed, since current legislation provides for interference with badger setts. Such interference can, in any event, lead to the death of badgers.
I am tempted to say that this is not a black and white issue, but perhaps we cannot say that about badgers—I thought I would get that in before someone else did. Our concern is that the Bill would significantly weaken the legal safeguards. In this country, we have provisions to protect wild animals from being killed, and we Liberal Democrats do not understand why badgers are now to become an exception to that. Laws to prevent killing wild animals are an important part of our legislative system. Making badgers an exception is not something that we are able to support.
We also believe that the provision is unnecessary. Under the 1992 Act, a licence can already be obtained to
“interfere with any badger sett…for the purpose of any development”.
In this context, “interfere” means:
“As a registered user you can interfere with badger setts under this licence to carry out development work or stop badgers causing serious damage”
by “monitoring setts”, “evicting and excluding badgers” and “destroying setts”. I do not understand why that is not sufficient for a developer, and why they need to go out and kill them. It would seem more challenging and problematic to try to find badgers to shoot them, when all those powers already exist. In all the numerous development projects in which I have been involved—over more years working in planning and development than I care to remember—it has been possible to relocate and remove badgers. None of the applicants I represented, or any of those I listened to as a planning inspector, complained that they were not able to go out and kill badgers, or that they were allowed only to move and interfere with their setts. We therefore do not understand why it is necessary to introduce this power to kill badgers.
Paragraph 41 of schedule 6 also contains a provision to allow badgers to be killed to preserve “public health or safety”. Again, it is unclear why that is necessary, given that the current legislation already allows badgers to be killed
“for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease”.
If that power already exists, why do we need the new power? It seems unnecessary, and a distraction from the main purpose of the paragraph, which is to allow the killing of badgers for the purposes of development. For all those reasons, we do not feel that it is justified to introduce the power to kill badgers, which are, as the Minister himself said, a much loved British species.
David Simmonds
I had not quite appreciated quite how ill the Minister’s intentions were in respect of our black and white furry friends. It is clear that they have been singled out by the Minister for extra special hostile treatment in the Bill. That raises a more general point, which we referenced earlier in relation to our intentions to introduce debates on biodiversity net gain. As important as badgers are, we know that our countryside is home to hedgehogs, dormice and all manner of protected species of flora and fauna. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire spoke eloquently on the mitigation hierarchy earlier on, and we must ensure that appropriate protection arrangements are in place in that hierarchy. I know that the Minister will write to me on the powers in the Wildlife and Countryside Act and how they might be relevant in this context. We look forward to that.
I would like to address two points that arise from clause 75. The first is that, under an earlier clause, the Secretary of State acquires the power to designate another person to undertake the functions of Natural England; this clause makes specific reference to the duty to “co-operate with Natural England”, but it does not specify what happens when a third party may have been appointed. That would have relevance where there may be a conflict, perhaps in planning terms, between the appointed party’s intentions to undertake work in the delivery of an EDP and, for example, a local authority or other public body that is having to consider, under its duties and responsibilities, an application for the delivery of those in its area. It is important to be clear whether third parties that have been appointed are covered by the clause.
The second point relates to how that interacts with a situation in which the public body covered by the duty is opposed to the development that gives rise to the need for the EDP in the first place. It reminds me of my personal experience of the example of Heathrow airport. What happens if a local authority says, “In discharging our duty in respect of air quality, we are obligated to oppose this development in any way we possibly can”, but is then advised by the Government, “However, you are obligated to co-operate through the EDP in order to enable that development to go ahead”? Clearly, that is not something that our constituents would expect to happen. The clause would introduce a degree of moral hazard in any major infrastructure project. How will the Minister address those two issues?
The Chair
I can see Members looking for the reference to the killing of badgers. It is in schedule 6 on page 157.
Ellie Chowns
I rise to speak in support of amendment 121, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I will not repeat all the arguments that he made so powerfully in favour of it. It is clear that the amendment would mete out unnecessarily hostile treatment to badgers, as the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner pointed out. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say to explain why the provision is needed, because it seems clear from the arguments that have already been made that it is not required.
Matthew Pennycook
I did address this in some detail—the intention behind these clauses has obviously passed hon. Members by—but I would just like to make very clear, for the Guardian article that will no doubt appear tomorrow, that I have no particular animus against badgers in whatever form. However, we need these amendments to the Protection of Badgers Act to ensure operability under the nature restoration fund. They bring badger licences granted as part of an EDP in line with licences granted under the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act. In essence, all we are trying to do is to ensure that the licensing approach is relevant across all relevant species. I am happy to write to Members with more detail. I really do think, and I say this with all sincerity, that their concerns in this area are unfounded. I am happy to set out more detail in respect of badgers specifically.
Gideon Amos
I understand that interference with badgers is sometimes necessary for development or perhaps for environmental measures, but can the Minister explain why the existing powers are not sufficient? These are powers that enable interference with a badger sett, which may indeed mean the badgers are killed, and the sett to be destroyed. All those powers are there. Why is it necessary to have the additional power to kill them?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member is right that those powers are there. The reason the new clauses are required is to ensure the operability under the nature restoration fund. To provide him with a little more detail, which I hope might be helpful, in respect of the Protection of Badgers Act the new clauses extend which prohibited activities may be covered by a licence to cover what will be needed for an EDP.
The new clauses also provide for a greater alignment between licences granted under the existing Protection of Badgers Act and those granted in respect of other species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. EDPs will set the terms of a licence, but we need these new clauses to ensure operability under the nature restoration fund. As I said, I am more than happy to write to hon. Members to reassure them on this point, but I do think their concerns are somewhat unfounded and I do not think the interpretation they are placing on the Government is correct.
Lewis Cocking
As Broxbourne’s emblem is a badger, I would like the Minister to write to me so I can have some more reassurance that these powers will not be used unnecessarily.
Matthew Pennycook
It is late in the day, Mrs Hobhouse, and people are running away with themselves in various respects, but I do want to provide members of the Committee with as much reassurance on this point as we can provide as the Government. I will be able to set out the reasons I think their concerns are unfounded and why I think the interpretation they have put on these new clauses is not accurate, and why, for reasons of operability, we need to ensure they are in place. As part of that, I also commit to write to the shadow Minister on the specific and fairly technical series of questions he has put to us about public bodies in respect of clause 75. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6
Amendments relating to Part 3
Amendments made: 103, in schedule 6, page 156, line 35, leave out
“, as it applies in England and Wales,”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 101.
Amendment 104, in schedule 6, page 156, line 35, at end insert
“(see also section 95(1A) (extent of this paragraph is England and Wales only)).”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 101.
Amendment proposed: 121, in schedule 6, page 157, line 34, leave out paragraph 41.—(Gideon Amos.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Tuesday 20th May 2025
(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 May 2025 - (20 May 2025)
The Chair
I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk and to switch electronic devices to silent, please. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Interventions are taken at the discretion of the Member who has the Floor and they should be short and pithy. Members may bob to make another speech if they want to speak at greater length.
Clause 79
Areas for development and remit
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. We have now reached part 4 of the Bill, which concerns development corporations. Among other reforms, the Government are clear that boosting housing supply requires renewed focus on building large-scale new communities across England. Development corporations are statutory bodies established for the purpose of urban development and regeneration. They are important vehicles for delivering large-scale and complex regeneration and development projects. The four clauses in this part are designed to create a clearer, more flexible and more robust framework for their operation.
Clause 79 strengthens development corporations by providing greater clarity and flexibility for them in terms of the variety, extent and types of geographical area over which they can operate. That will ensure that development corporations can be used to respond to site-specific challenges, without having to retrofit the scope of the project to match the development corporation model used. The changes are necessary to ensure that development corporations are suitable for modern development needs. They will enable delivery of more large-scale developments, including consented sites that have been stuck in the system for far too long. They will be vital to the delivery of new large-scale projects, such as the new generation of new towns to which the Government are committed.
Existing legislation provides for five types of development corporation. It is probably worth mentioning them to aid our deliberations: the new town development corporation, the urban development corporation, the mayoral development corporation, the locally-led new town development corporation and the new locally-led urban development corporation, which was introduced in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and is subject to the commencement of its provisions.
Clause 79 clarifies that new town development corporations can deliver urban extensions—expansions of existing urban sites—and that new town development corporations and urban development corporations can develop brownfield and greenfield sites. The clause also expands the remit of mayoral development corporations so that they can be used to deliver new settlements, including on greenfield sites, as well as urban regeneration projects. That will ensure that mayors have the right powers to deliver the range of places their communities need.
Finally, the clause creates maximum application and flexibility for new town development corporations by allowing separate, non-contiguous parcels of land to be designated for development, aligning NTDCs with the other development corporation models. A single new town development corporation will also be able to oversee the laying out of more than one new town site.
By making the legislative framework clearer and more flexible, the reforms will facilitate the use of development corporations and therefore unlock more sites for development, further supporting the Government’s growth mission and the delivery of 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I welcome these measures to make development corporations fit for purpose. In my constituency, as members of the Committee may know, Ebbsfleet development corporation is building Ebbsfleet garden city. That experience shows how important it is that we align infrastructure delivery with housing growth to ensure that communities are supported from day one with everything that they need to live full and healthy lives. I welcome the clause. Development corporations outside Ebbsfleet, across the country, are an extremely important tool to get the right, well-balanced developments planned and built, so that they become communities. The clauses in part 4 give development corporations the flexibility to adapt, each one to a unique circumstance.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister to come back on if possible. First, given that development corporations are time-limited, what consideration has been given to the need for them to plan for their legacy, and to how their newly-built amenities will be catered for after closure, especially given the financial challenges faced by local government? Secondly, I know there is some desire in the sector for development corporations to have an explicit aim to provide upskilling and training for local residents, so that the economic benefits of their work can be shared across the local area. Have the Government looked at that, or might they consider looking at that in future?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for those questions. To be clear, the purpose of the clause is to ensure clarity around the remit and functions of development corporations. I understand his points about legacy and the wider contributions that development corporations can make, not least to construction and other skills areas. I am happy to take those up with him outside the Committee and to provide full responses on those points, but they are slightly outside the scope of this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 79 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 80
Duties to have regard to sustainable development and climate change
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 80 seeks to ensure that all types of development corporation must aim to contribute to sustainable development, climate change mitigation and adaption, and good design. The delivery of large-scale development and regeneration projects is vital to boost the housing supply, as I just mentioned. We must ensure, however, that large-scale new communities are delivered sustainably, with care for our climate, and that they have good design and quality at their heart.
Currently, only new town development corporations are required to aim to contribute to sustainable development and have regard to the desirability of good design. The current legislative framework does not require any development corporation model to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaption. Clause 80 will change that by amending current legislation to ensure that all development corporations must aim to contribute to sustainable development, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and good design.
Through the changes, we will create certainty for local communities that development corporations working in their areas will put sustainable development, climate change, and good design at the heart of delivery. I commend the simple, straightforward and, I hope, uncontroversial clause to the Committee.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I want to express my absolute support for this clause. I chair the all-party parliamentary water group and the APPG for sustainable flood and drought management, and prior to my time in this place, I worked in the world of design and engineering around the climate, so this is an important issue for me. I support sustainable urban drainage systems, especially after this April and May, as it looks like we will have had the driest spring in 100 years. We need to consider what we are doing on developments about drought, with grey water recycling, and we need to look at how we address future flood risk and build resilience in new towns—and existing ones as well. I am happy to see this measure in the Bill.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I, too, rise to support this clause, but I note that here we will mitigate “and” adapt to climate change, whereas in the spatial development strategies, we will mitigate “or” adapt to climate change. Without wishing to nit-pick, I feel that point needs to be made.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not rehearse our previous debate, in which I was clear that the Government’s intention, and what the Bill delivers, on spatial development strategies does account for mitigation and adaptation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for their support of this clause.
This clause is important because, in some cases, development corporations taking on planning powers will already be subject to such duties, but we know that not every development corporation will take on planning powers. Some will have a major role to play in development through master planning, for example, and we want to cater for all eventualities. It is therefore essential that development corporations are subject to the duties in this clause, independent of whether they take planning powers, to cater for the full range of uses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 80 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 81
Powers in relation to infrastructure
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 81 primarily seeks to standardise the list of infrastructure that development corporations can deliver to be in line with that of mayoral development corporations. The co-ordination of infrastructure with large-scale property development is essential. However, the current legislation is inconsistent concerning the types of infrastructure that different development corporation models can provide, creating unnecessary uncertainty.
In particular, the existing legislation sets out a long list of infrastructure that mayoral development corporations can provide, but the same list is not currently applied to new town and urban development corporations. Clause 81 addresses that by standardising the list of infrastructure that development corporations can provide. It also goes further in adding heat networks to the list. This recognises heat as a distinct utility, alongside others such as water, gas and electricity. The addition of heat networks will also empower development corporations in their aims with respect to sustainable development and climate change, a point that we have just debated.
Existing legislation also places unnecessary restrictions on new town development corporations to deliver transport infrastructure. Clause 81 therefore removes the restriction on new town development corporations so that they can provide railways, light railways and tramways. No other type of development corporation is subject to this restriction, and provision of sustainable transport systems is vital to delivering large-scale developments. These measures will ensure that development corporations are on an equal footing to deliver the infrastructure to unlock more sites and co-ordinate more housing infrastructure and transport in the public interest. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. It is good to see the Minister and all members of the Committee here again; I have déjà vu, but we are still happy, aren’t we? [Interruption.] “Speak for yourself,” the Minister says.
We generally welcome the powers in relation to infrastructure in clause 81. I particularly welcome what the Minister said about removing restrictions to deliver infrastructure such as trams. That is a welcome move to deliver for those of us who have had constantly had frustrations at the lack of ability to get that infrastructure, but I would like to ask a few questions. Having said that, I deem that the clause does not account for the varying needs and characteristics of different regions. Can he reassure the Committee about the effective standardisation that he is promoting?
We do not necessarily have an argument with it, but we would like to examine the checks and balances in the consultation element of what the Minister is proposing to ensure that there is not a one-size-fits-all model. Even though I know that is what standardisation aims to do, I hope he would accept that in varying regions, with the wants and needs of different communities, that may not be appropriate at all times. Will he outline the checks and balances and how that could be varied according to the needs of local communities? Other than that, the Opposition welcome the clause and the Minister’s commitment to infrastructure.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that question. I think it raises a slightly wider debate than the provisions of the clause and their purposive effect, but he raises a valuable point. Decisions to designate and grant powers to a development corporation must be made via regulations. They are subject to statutory consultation and are carefully made with consideration given to issues of oversight and governance. The particular model selected in a particular area will be chosen by the relevant parties on the basis that it is the model that best suits what they are trying to achieve.
I take the shadow Minister’s point about regional variation in the sense that all this clause does is standardise the list of infrastructure that can be provided by development corporations of all types, making it equal to the existing list that applies to mayoral development corporations. It is a simple simplification to ensure standardisation across the infrastructure that can be provided across all models.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 81 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 82
Exercise of transport functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 82 seeks to introduce a new duty for relevant local transport authorities to co-operate with development corporations in the development and implementation of their plans, Too often developments are not co-ordinated with the transport infrastructure needed to service existing and new communities. That has detrimental impacts on quality of life, productivity and economic growth. Development corporations cannot currently take on local transport powers. As a result, there can be significant delays and barriers to delivering essential transport infrastructure, particularly where local transport authorities are unaligned with the plans of development corporations. Clause 82 will therefore place a duty of co-operation on local transport authorities to ensure that sites delivered by development corporations include the necessary transport infrastructure and are seamlessly integrated into the wider spatial plan for the area.
Local transport authorities must have regard to the plans of development corporations and co-operate in the development and implementation of their plans. Where that duty is not fulfilled—resulting, for example, in a failure to produce key outputs in an agreed timeframe or transport provisions being blocked and impacting growth potential—the Secretary of State will have a new power to direct relevant local transport authorities. Where the direction is not complied with, and as a last resort, the Secretary of State will have the new power to transfer specific transport functions from local transport authorities to the development corporation in question.
In addition to transport planning functions, the transfer may also include specific property rights and liabilities—for example, in instances where the development corporation needs to undertake upgrades to existing highways within its red line area. Any such transfer will be made by regulations and in relation to the development corporation’s red line area. The measures are intended to increase co-operation while ensuring that development corporations can ultimately deliver necessary transport infrastructure in a timely manner. I want to be very clear: our preferred approach is for the development corporation to work with the local transport authority in the first instance. The measures are therefore escalatory and will be used only as a last resort. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to transport infrastructure. We have had disagreements on other parts of the Bill that we have discussed in previous sittings, and no doubt we will in this afternoon’s sitting on the new clauses, but I think this part of the Bill genuinely tries to reform models to make sure that transport infrastructure, which is often controversial, is delivered. We welcome his commitment and foresight in that.
The clause aims to address, as we know, the co-ordination issues between development corporations and fragmented local transport authorities by placing the statutory duty of co-operation on the latter. Although the intention to improve alignment between housing and transport planning is welcome, I have a couple of questions about its practical impact and enforceability. None of the questions comes from a place of criticising or carping; they are to get genuine clarification for Opposition Members. By simply requiring transport authorities to “have regard to” and “co-operate” with development corporations, does the Minister not have a concern that the plans may not be sufficient to ensure meaningful collaboration? The terms are legally vague and may result in only minimal compliance. He has said that it is escalatory, but I wonder whether the clause needs to be slightly strengthened, in terms of “have regard to” and “co-operate”.
The clause stops short of granting development corporations any direct transport powers. That may be a fundamental disagreement between us, if the Minister does not believe they should have those powers, but we have a concern about the good intentions not being delivered on because of that collaboration and “having regard to”. Other than that, we welcome the clause, which will make a huge difference in delivering the fundamental change that we need in regional and local communities.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Ms Jardine. I welcome the clause. In the area where I live in Warwickshire, public transport is woeful, which means that children and young people are left behind because they cannot access school and college facilities. It also means that people are reluctant to make a trip to the hospital because they simply cannot get there.
The clause means that young people can have aspirations for their future and live in communities that are connected. The powers will be very welcome in areas like mine where transport authorities seem reluctant to fulfil their functions. I really welcome it.
Jim Dickson
I also very much welcome the clause, which rectifies the fragmentation of housing and transport and therefore the inability to co-ordinate them. It will be hugely important to the new towns that the Government are planning in order to fulfil our housing targets.
I have one query for the Minister. The clause covers local transport authorities and their relationship with development corporations. Did he consider including a provision on the relationship between development corporations and national transport bodies such as National Highways? I can foresee situations in which co-operation between those bodies will be necessary to achieve the aims of the development corporation. In such a situation, would he use powers to ensure that National Highways co-operates with the development corporation, or at least broker the conversation to enable that to happen?
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the support for the clause that hon. Members have indicated. The integration of transport infrastructure and its timely delivery are essential to delivering large-scale urban developments, and that is what the clause will facilitate.
The shadow Minister and others asked me whether the wording is sufficient to deliver the objectives of the clause. I will reflect on that, as I always do, but we are clear that introducing a duty on local transport authorities to have regard to and co-operate with development corporations—this is our preferred approach in the instance—will facilitate co-operation. Each development corporation will respond to particular and localised delivery challenges, with differences in transport requirements for each development, so it is not possible to specify the nature of the co-operation required in all cases.
In practical terms, officials in my Department will support the development corporation to have those conversations with local transport authorities, try to get a shared understanding and resolve transport challenges in particular circumstances. As a necessary minimum, we will expect local transport authorities to engage constructively with the development corporation’s plans for transport delivery and not unduly block the delivery of transport infrastructure that is necessary to unlock growth in the red line area.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I support this clause on development corporations and transport. NHS and healthcare services in the new development corporations are also vital, so why did the Government not include a clause that would make local NHS trusts behave in the way that the Minister wants transport authorities to behave, so that development corporations cater for healthcare needs as well?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We just debated a clause about standardising the list of infrastructure that all development corporations can bring forward, but clause 82 addresses a specific gap in the legislation, which is that development corporations cannot have transport powers and are reliant on local transport authorities to bring them forward. I do not dismiss his point about wider infrastructure—we have debated it elsewhere, and I have taken on board the points that hon. Members have raised—but the clause addresses a specific issue and outlines a way of dealing with it. As I say, the preferred approach is co-operation in the first instance and working with the local transport authority in question.
The ability to transfer transport powers, which is available under the clause, is ultimately a backstop measure, and escalation via direction is an initial measure to address insufficient co-operation. The clause clearly sets out how the escalatory process will work, although it is worth saying that decisions to either direct or transfer powers will be taken on a case-by-case basis and applied only where there is good reason to believe that co-operation on the part of the local transport authority is not forthcoming and necessary transport infrastructure is not delivered.
We think that the backstop is necessary for cases where the local transport authority refuses to co-operate and is blocking necessary infrastructure that the development corporation requires for its urban regeneration and development needs. On that basis, I hope I have reassured hon. Members.
Paul Holmes
You may rule me out of order, Ms Jardine—I entirely expect that you might—but I want to follow up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne on health services. I know that it is not directly in the scope of this clause, but I want to explore the fact that, in many of our constituencies, integrated care boards, which, as the Minister will know, are locally responsible for the provision of health services, simply are not doing the work that is needed on demographic or infrastructure changes because of the silo-based approach to central and local government. Can the Minister assure the Committee that he will go away and work with the Department of Health and Social Care—maybe other clauses could be included—on how we can bring that together and allow those health facilities, as well as transport issues, to be delivered?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that question. Hansard will correct me if I am wrong, but I feel that I have already given a commitment in that area, which I am more than happy to give again, on the following basis: to the extent that essential infrastructure and amenities, particularly those delivered via the existing developer contribution system, are not forthcoming in the manner required or in a timely manner, and where section 106 agreements are not being honoured, the Government are looking to take action to strengthen the existing system. There are two aspects to this. One is ensuring that local authorities are in a position to, on a fairly equal basis, negotiate with an applicant and get a good section 106 agreement. Then, there is the other part of the process, which is ensuring that the agreements entered into are honoured.
However, in some instances—I think I have recognised this in a previous debate—there is a co-ordination issue. I am interested in what more can be done and I am exploring that across Government Departments. ICBs are a good example—there have been examples in my constituency. In certain cases, it may be that the 106 agreement or other provision is not bringing forward the necessary—let us put it in very practical terms—GP centre. In other cases, as I hear from many hon. Members across the country, the 106 has facilitated the construction of the building, but there is a workforce challenge. That is a wider challenge for Government and the Department of Health and Social Care to address, which they are doing. I think that co-ordination can help us to address some of these problems.
To bring us back to the clause that we are debating, we are talking specifically about instances of a development corporation, either within the red line area or outside it where transport infrastructure is necessary to facilitate growth within it. We need a mechanism to ensure that co-operation occurs with the local transport authority. As I have said, judged on a case-by-case basis, in instances where the local transport authority in question is not co-operating, or where Government have good reason to believe that it will not co-operate, we need a measure to ensure that those powers are transferred or a direction is put in place. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 82 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 83
Electronic service etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clauses 83 to 92 relate to compulsory purchase and are designed as a group to improve the compulsory purchase order process and land compensation rules to enable more effective land assembly through public sector-led schemes. As hon. Members will no doubt be aware—I am sure that they have read every word—the Government’s 2024 manifesto made a commitment to further reform compulsory purchase compensation rules to improve land assembly, speed up site delivery and deliver housing, infrastructure, amenity and transport benefits in the public interest. That manifesto promised that a Labour Government would take steps to ensure that, for specific types of development schemes, landowners are awarded fair compensation rather than inflated prices based on the prospect of planning permission.
The Government’s reforms, which were outlined in the consultation published at the end of 2024, are necessary to deliver the housing and critical infrastructure that this country needs and to make it more attractive for the public sector to use its compulsory purchase powers to deliver development in the right places. That is the intent behind the clauses that we are debating this morning. To be clear, changes introduced in the Bill are not targeted at farmers or any particular landowners, and they make a limited addition to the existing power for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value, so it may apply to parish or town council CPOs facilitating affordable housing provision.
I made this point on Second Reading and I want to be clear: there is nothing in the Bill that changes the core principle of compulsory purchase—that it must be used only where negotiations to acquire land by agreement have not succeeded and where there is a compelling case in the public interest. It will be for individual authorities to decide where it is most appropriate to use their CPO powers to deliver their schemes in the public interest. Taken together, the clauses will ensure that quicker decisions on CPOs can be made, the administrative costs of undertaking the process are reduced, and a better balance is struck so compensation paid to landowners is, as I have said, fair but not excessive.
Clause 83 amends the legislation underpinning the compulsory purchase process and compensation rules to allow the service of statutory notices to be undertaken by electronic methods of communication. Allowing CPO notices to be served on parties by electronic communication will ensure that the CPO process is modernised and made more efficient. Notices may be served by electronic communication providing the person receiving the notice has provided an address for such a service, such as an email address. Where an address is not provided, the existing methods of service—for example, by post—will remain. The default method for service of notices on public authorities will be electronic communication, providing the authority has specified an address for communicating about the specific CPO in question. The clause, which again I hope is uncontroversial, simply intends to modernise and speed up the compulsory purchase process and reduce the administrative costs, and I commend it to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I will take the tactic of discussing each clause relating to CPOs at a time, if that is all right with the Minister. I know he had to give an overview of clauses 83 to 92, but we would like to scope out some questions before coming on to new clause 52, which we will discuss under clause 88, where most of our disagreement comes from.
I understand what the Minister has said about CPO reform and not targeting farmers. However, the record of this Government’s relationship with farmers in other areas of policy has raised anxieties about agricultural land and the rights of farmers, and the amount of compensation that tenant farmers versus occupied land farmers will be offered. Some of the reforms that the Minister is making raise questions about the Government’s general campaign against farming and agriculture in this country, which we remain very concerned about in other areas of policy, but we will discuss those issues in a moderate and constructive manner when we debate later clauses.
Clause 83 concerns electronic services. We generally welcome any simplification and reduction in costs and administration; that is why I am a Conversative. However, we believe that the clause could still raise some implementation challenges. Public authorities are presumed to consult with an electronic service if they provide a relevant email or web address, but that assumption may lead to issues where authorities have multiple points of contact or emails go unattended, potentially causing delays or disputes within an effective service.
Secondly, the clause introduces a default presumption that notices are received the next business day after sending, but that might not hold in practice—for example, if the message is caught in a spam filter or fails to send due to technical error. There could be some conflicts and complications in some of the cases that the clause seeks to amend. The legislation could benefit from a clearer mechanism for confirming receipt to reduce uncertainty or legal challenge further down the line.
Moreover, although the shift to digital communication is welcome, the clause stops short of encouraging or mandating broader digital transformation across the CPO process. For instance, there is no mention of a centralised digital portal for tracking notices or verifying delivery, which could further enhance transparency and reduce administrative friction. Although modest in scope, the clause is a positive step towards a more efficient compulsory purchase regime, notwithstanding the concerns that we have about further reforms, but its practical success will hinge on thoughtful implementation, clear guidance and ongoing support for acquiring authorities and affected parties.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for those fair and reasonable questions. I will provide a reassurance on the central mechanism by which we expect the Bill to operate. Electronic communication will become the default. Where parties do not agree to receive service of notice by electronic methods, or do not provide an electronic address for service, they will continue to receive notices by post, hand delivery or it being left at their address, so there is a clear mechanism for those who do not want to, or feel they cannot, receive such notices by electronic communication.
However, authorities will need to ensure that the electronic address given by recipients for service of notice is the one used when they serve notices electronically on that person. Where an action is triggered by the receipt of a notice under the CPO process, the legislation is clear that if notice is served by electronic communication, the notice will be taken to have been received on the next working day—“working day” is defined in the legislation. We will, of course, provide guidance for local authorities on best practice, and ensure that routes to legal challenge on procedural grounds are maintained.
The central point on which we must be clear is that where parties have agreed in writing to receive service of notice by electronic methods, the burden of responsibility for responding to an action triggered by receipt of a notice will lie solely with the recipient. If they do not feel able to administer the process on those grounds, there is an option to still receive notices in the existing manner.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. Is this proposed to become the default across Government? In my experience as a magistrate, large numbers of people do not attend court. The rules essentially say that a notice is deemed served if it has been posted to a correct postal address of the individual concerned. Clearly, that could become more efficient in the days of electronic communication. However, are we going to find that there is a sufficiently consistent approach, especially in situations where there is a dispute between the landowner and those acting in pursuit of the compulsory purchase order, so that there are no misunderstandings by lawyers advising people about which rules apply under this specific legislation, as opposed to other legislation of which they also have experience?
Matthew Pennycook
I take the shadow Minister’s point. He tempts me to opine on digital communication strategy across Government, but it is too early in the morning to do that. Different Government Departments are taking forward reform in different ways. I recognise the point he makes. It may or may not interest the Committee that I am required to do jury service in the coming weeks, which the Whips have some issue with. I received electronic and postal notice of that jury service. Different processes are in different stages of reform.
We are very clear that, for this process, we want to move to default electronic communication, which has lots of administrative benefits, but we have made provision for those who do not feel that they can move, or want to move, to that type of notice. We will, as I have said, provide guidance for local authorities on best practice and ensure that routes to legal challenge on procedural grounds are minimised. However, I will take the hon. Member’s point away. I am happy to share it with ministerial colleagues in other Departments. I think it is a fair challenge that the Government should ensure that, across the board, to the extent that they possibly can, they have a uniform approach to moving to electronic communication in instances where they want to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 83 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 84
Required content of newspaper notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Although we are maintaining the requirement for notices on the making and confirmation of CPOs to be published in newspapers, this clause simplifies the information required in the description of land included in those newspaper notices. Instead of giving complete, detailed descriptions of land, authorities will be able to comply with the requirement by briefly identifying the land through stating its postal address or, where that is not available, briefly describing its location. This will mean that newspaper notices contain succinct and clear information regarding the description of land included in CPOs and not overly complex text, ensuring that they are easier to understand and making the CPO process more accessible. The simplification of information in this regard will deliver administrative cost savings for acquiring authorities. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
Again, we do not see the clause as particularly controversial, but we would like to ask some questions. Can I put on record, first, that I wish the Minister well with his jury service? We will see whether he is the living embodiment of being “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”. I am sure that the Whips will love the fact that one of their Ministers is off-site—hopefully on Report so that we can get most of our amendments through.
As the Minister said, clause 84 aims to streamline the content requirements for newspaper notices related to CPOs by permitting either the use of a postal address or a general location description where a specific address is not available. The clause is expected to reduce administrative complexity and cost, which is a welcome step for authorities managing CPOs under tight timelines and budgets.
However, while simplification is beneficial, there is a risk that overly brief or vague descriptions could undermine transparency for affected landowners or the wider public. Newspaper notices remain a critical means of ensuring that individuals who may not be directly notified are still informed about CPOs that could affect them. If the language becomes too generic, individuals may be unaware that their land is included in an order, potentially limiting opportunities for objections or engagement.
The clause could benefit from safeguards or accompanying guidance to ensure that clarity and public accessibility are maintained, especially in cases involving rural land, undeveloped plots or where postal addresses are unclear. Moreover, the clause does not address whether digital platforms could supplement or eventually replace newspaper notices, which could further modernise the process while improving public access to information. Overall, the clause is a pragmatic reform, but we must strike the right balance between efficiency and the need for meaningful public engagement.
Has the Minister had any feedback from local newspaper industry representatives saying that they are concerned, given some of the ways in which these notices provide an income stream to a sector that is increasingly under pressure in being able to communicate with our local residents?
Matthew Pennycook
I again thank the shadow Minister for that fair and reasonable challenge. I recognise—as the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, would—that the loss of local newspapers is very keenly felt in a London context. Blogs and other things have sprung up in their place, but this is definitely an issue. That is one of the reasons why we have determined not to remove the requirement to publish CPO notices in newspapers. We think that that does have benefits, particularly for members of the public who cannot access the internet, but we do think that a modernisation of the process is necessary.
This is not about reducing transparency; it is about making the administrative process more proportionate and more cost-effective. The key point is that the information contained in the newspaper notice will still give the location of the land and other information, and, importantly, as I have said, that will be complemented by information available in site notices affixed to the land in question, notices served on individuals, and information published about the CPO on the acquiring authority’s website—for example, electronic copies of the CPO, including a map and notices. The requirement to describe the land fully in these other notices is not changing. We are just trying to make more proportionate the information contained in the newspaper notice in question.
David Simmonds
I agree with my fellow shadow Minister that the Government are landing in the right place on this. It was a great frustration for many of us who served in local government that quite a few of those newspapers moved to being online-only, but maintained a print edition because that meant that they could charge the local authority £5,000 for putting a notice in that, if it was a lonely hearts ad or someone selling their car, would have been £25. The system has been abused at the expense of council tax payers for quite a long time, and this moves us a bit more to the right location.
Matthew Pennycook
I think I have said enough. There is no further information that I can provide on the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 84 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 85
Confirmation by acquiring authority: orders with modifications
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 85 will speed up decisions on CPOs where no objections have been received. Currently, where a CPO is not objected to, the confirmation decision can be made by the acquiring authority, providing certain conditions have been met. One condition is that the CPO does not require modification—for example, to correct an error in the drafting of the order. That adds unnecessary delay and prevents authorities from taking earlier possession of land to deliver benefits in the public interest.
Clause 85 allows an acquiring authority to confirm its own compulsory purchase order with modifications, providing that they do not affect a person’s interest in the land. Where they do, it introduces the ability for acquiring authorities to confirm their own CPOs where modifications are required, providing that the modifications do not affect a person’s interest in a controversial way. Where modifications need to be made to a CPO— for example, to remove land from the CPO, or to correct a drafting error such as the wrong colour used on the map to identify land—the confirming authority will set out in a notice what modifications are required. Acquiring authorities will not be allowed to add new land into CPOs or exclude part of a plot of land from CPOs, as such changes could provoke objections. In those circumstances, the modification and confirmation of the CPO will still be made by the confirming authority.
The changes are intended to speed up the decision-making process for CPOs that have not been objected to, and to allow benefits in the public interest to be delivered more efficiently. They will be particularly helpful in situations where, as part of a wider land assembly exercise, an acquiring authority needs to exercise its compulsory purchase powers to acquire title to land in unknown ownership. Modifications that do affect a person’s interest in land are allowed, but only if the affected person gives their consent for the modification being made. For these reasons, the Government believe that the clause will enable the CPO process to better benefit the public interest.
Paul Holmes
Again, we welcome the Minister taking a pragmatic approach to streamlining the process. That would be useful to some elements of CPOs, with minor modifications. Although the clause is framed around efficiency, however, it raises some concerns about checks and balances. Even modifications deemed minor can have implications for how land is used or valued. Relying on the judgment of the acquiring authority alone may create a risk of oversight or perceived conflicts of interest.
The provision for consent from affected landowners offers a safeguard, but in practice, there may be power imbalances that undermine the voluntariness of that consent, especially if pressure to expedite delivery is high. Furthermore, the process for how affected parties are informed and how modifications are assessed as “non-impactful” remains vague. Without clear guidance or criteria, the risk of inconsistent applications across authorities is significant. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that specific issue. Although the goal of speeding up land assembly for public benefit is legitimate, greater transparency and procedural clarity is essential to ensure that the clause does not erode public trust in the compulsory purchase process.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome that question from the shadow Minister. We are confident that the power will not be misused. The legislation will allow acquiring authorities to make minor modifications to CPOs in cases where they do not affect a landowner’s interests, other than with the landowner’s consent. We broadly consider that such modifications are non-controversial and will not provoke objections, but given the strength of feeling that the shadow Minister has expressed on the matter, I am more than happy to write to him to set out some further clarification of how we believe the process would operate, and why we do not think there is risk of misuse in the way that he fears.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 85 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86
General vesting declarations: advancement of vesting by agreement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
These clauses introduce provision to allow more flexibility for taking possession of land subject to compulsory purchase. Currently, before an acquiring authority can take possession of land under the general vesting declaration procedure, it must give a minimum of three months’ notice to those with an interest in the land. Generally, this is to allow those who occupy or use the land time to relocate, move out or arrange alternative access. Clauses 86 and 87 introduce the ability for authorities to take earlier possession of land in certain circumstances.
Paul Holmes
I will make some brief comments on the clauses. On clause 86, we believe that the conditions under which earlier possession may occur, such as when land is unoccupied, unsafe or where ownership is unknown, are potentially valid, but they rely heavily on subjective judgements by the acquiring authority. For instance, allowing the authority to determine whether items left on the land are of significant value or whether the land is
“unfit for its ordinary use”
introduces a risk of inconsistent or contested interpretations. The exclusion of illegal occupation from the definition of occupancy is also fraught with complexity, particularly in areas where land may be informally used by vulnerable individuals.
Although the clause provides a process for effective parties to make representations, it does not establish an independent mechanism for appeal or review if the acquiring authority rejects those representations. That could weaken procedural safeguards and may leave individuals or communities with limited recourse. Furthermore, although the clause excludes partial acquisitions of buildings, the broader implications for owners of derelict or disputed property could be significant, particularly in urban regeneration contexts where such assets are common.
Overall, while the reform seeks to introduce efficiency, it must be implemented with caution to avoid undermining rights to property and due process. Stronger safeguards, such as independent oversight of early possession decisions and clearer statutory definitions, may be necessary to prevent potential misuse or unintended consequences.
On the surface, the provisions in clause 87 appear pragmatic: they enable willing parties to bypass the standard three-month wait under the general vesting declaration procedure, and instead agree to an earlier possession date no sooner than six weeks after the publication of the CPO confirmation notice. We accept that this could reduce delays in project delivery, particularly where landowners prefer a swift resolution, or where prolonged possession timelines would otherwise stall regeneration or infrastructure efforts.
However, the clause’s wider implications warrant attention. While this is an agreement-based route, the inherent power imbalance in the compulsory purchase context can make voluntary agreements feel pressurised. Landowners—particularly smaller ones or those with limited legal support—may feel compelled to agree to early possession without fully understanding their rights or the valuation consequences. The clause attempts to address compensation timing and valuation issues, but the technical nature of the provisions may still leave room for confusion or disputes. I look to the Minister for reassurance.
The exclusion of counter-notice rights in cases of partial early possession under schedule A1 to the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 also weakens the landowner’s ability to negotiate fairly, as it removes a potential tool for resisting piecemeal acquisitions that may render the remainder of the property less viable. While efficiency is a legitimate goal, it must be weighed against individual rights and procedural fairness.
Overall, while the clause introduces a useful flexibility for streamlined land acquisition, it should be accompanied by strong safeguards, including clear guidance for landowners, transparent compensation mechanisms and accessible dispute resolution processes, to prevent coercion and ensure genuinely informed agreements.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for those questions. As ever, I will reflect on his request for procedural fairness to be maintained, but in broad terms, I would say that abuses of the kind he suggests are highly unlikely. I am more than happy to provide him with further reassurance on that point.
Given that clause 87 is about undertaking the procedure in question by agreement, I think it is less controversial. On clause 86, it will be for the acquiring authority to be confident that the conditions for the use of the power have been met, and to objectively identify where it thinks that the conditions for the use of the power have been met. In doing so, it will be for acquiring authorities to respond to and defend against any disputes or challenges made on the use of the power.
Where the land includes a dwelling, the acquiring authority is empowered only to expedite the vesting of the land if the dwelling is unfit for human habitation within the well-understood meaning set out in section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. However, included within the power to take early possession of land or buildings is a safeguard to prevent the vesting of land from being brought forward where there is disagreement as to whether the land is unoccupied or is in a condition that it is fit for use, or where an occupant identifies themselves to the authority. As I have said, parties can make representations to the acquiring authority that those conditions have not been met, but ultimately, the decision as to whether they have or not remains with the acquiring authority. However, I am happy to reflect on whether there is a need for further safeguards in this area and to update the shadow Minister accordingly.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 86 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 88
Adjustment of basic and occupier’s loss payments
Paul Holmes
I do not know whether this is helpful clarification procedurally, but on this group, I would like to speak only to new clause 52 under the name of the official Opposition. We are happy not to press amendments 134 to 147 at this stage.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 52—Alignment of basic and occupier’s loss payments—
“(1) The Land Compensation Act 1973 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 33B (occupier’s loss payment: agricultural land), in subsection (2)(a) omit ‘2.5%’ and insert ‘7.5%’.
(3) In section 33C (occupier’s loss payment: other land), in subsection (2)(a) omit ‘2.5%’ and insert ‘7.5%’.”
This new clause, being an amendment of the Land Compensation Act 1973, would align the occupier’s loss payments with the basic loss payments at 7.5% of the value of the party’s interest.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for not pressing amendments 134 to 147. I would not have been able to accept them for reasons I could have gone into at some length.
I will deal with the clause and then new clause 52, which the Opposition still wish to move. To ensure that compensation paid to those whose land is compulsorily acquired is fair, clause 88 makes changes to the Land Compensation Act 1973 and the framework for basic and occupier’s loss payments. Loss payments exist to reflect the inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase. They are valued either on the market value of a person’s interest or on an amount calculated by reference to the area of the land or buildings known as the “land amount” or “building amount”, whichever is the highest.
The market value of a freehold interest is often more than the market value of a leasehold interest held by an occupying tenant, which often has little or no market value. That usually results in occupying tenants receiving less compensation than owners. As occupying tenants bear the burden of having to close or relocate their businesses, the existing allocation of loss payments is poorly targeted. It unduly favours investor owners over occupying businesses or agricultural tenants who incur greater costs. The Government believe that to be unfair. The clause therefore amends the 1973 Act to adjust the balance of loss payments in favour of occupiers.
Under our changes, we are increasing the land and buildings amount payments, which will benefit occupiers as that is the payment that they usually receive. That will better reflect the level of disruption and inconvenience caused to them through compulsory purchase, compared with investor-owners. It also ensures that the compensation regime is fair. To be clear, the reforms to the CPO process and compensation rules will not encourage the use of any particular type of CPO or change the fundamental principle that there must always be a compelling case in the public interest for use of a CPO.
The changes being made to the loss payments regime will benefit tenant farmers whose land interest is compulsorily acquired, as they will receive a fairer share of compensation to reflect the level of inconvenience that they experience from CPOs. The changes under the clause will not result in landowners being paid less than market value for the compulsory purchase of their interests.
The clause also simplifies the method of calculating the buildings amount for occupier’s loss payments relating to non-agricultural land by using the gross internal area method instead of gross external area, which we believe is more consistent with industry standards. The clause applies to England only, apart from the change to the method of calculating buildings amounts, since the Welsh Ministers have devolved competence to reform loss payments for CPOs in Wales. I therefore see the clause as an integral part of ensuring that the CPO process is built on a fair and balanced compensation process, relative to the level of disruption and inconvenience caused to occupiers of land by a CPO. I commend the clause to the Committee.
I am more than happy to respond in due course, but will first turn briefly to non-Government new clause 52, which seeks to introduce a change to the loss payment compensation regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973. The new clause would increase the amount that occupiers of buildings or land subject to a CPO would be entitled to, and place them on an equal footing with owners. Clause 88 already achieves, in part, what the shadow Minister is looking for: it increases the loss payment compensation due to occupiers of buildings and land in the way that the new clause seeks to do. The purpose of loss payments, however, is to reflect the inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase, and it is occupiers, rather than investor owners, who bear the greater burden in that respect because they are the ones who will need to close or relocate their businesses.
As I said, the clause rebalances loss payment compensation to allow occupiers to claim a higher amount and landowners to claim a lower amount. We believe that that rebalancing of loss payment compensation in favour of occupiers is the right approach. While the clause does some of what new clause 52 seeks to achieve, elements of the new clause are problematic for the reasons I set out. I am afraid I will not be able to accept the new clause, and I ask the shadow Minister not to move it.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for that detailed assessment of the clause. Lord knows how long his speech would have been if we had referred to the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) tabled. I thought I would spare the Minister that—and also spare myself having to explain them. We will table more amendments on Report.
As the Minister explained, the clause revises key provisions of part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, particularly loss payments to landowners and occupiers whose properties in England are subject to compulsory purchase. The intent behind the changes is to ensure that compensation more accurately reflects the disruption and inconvenience caused to affected individuals.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions about compulsory purchase and redevelopment and regeneration schemes. A significant regeneration scheme has been proposed in Basingstoke for the communities of South Ham and Buckskin by the housing association SNG. To say that the consultation with residents has been badly handled is an understatement. I have been calling for a complete reset of the project by SNG, which has fundamentally failed to take the community with it. It has lost the trust of many people, from its tenants to local homeowners and private renters. It must rebuild that trust. I have committed to working with residents to ensure that any plans benefit and have the support of the local community.
One of the key concerns of the community is the threat of widespread compulsory purchase. Can the Minister confirm that nothing in the Bill will weaken the voice or say of residents involved in redevelopment or regeneration schemes, where CPO is involved? Can he also confirm that CPO should always be used as a last resort, that it must always be taken in the public interest, and that it will not change the compensation available to ordinary owner-occupiers and tenants involved in such regeneration schemes?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank all Members for their contributions. To the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, I do not think that I can add much more to the very clear set of principles that have guided our approach in opening this particular part of the Bill. This is not particularly directed at the shadow Minister, but there has been a fair amount of scaremongering about what the compulsory purchase provisions in the Bill entail, which has not always been completely accurate—let me put it as gently as that.
In response to a number of the challenges, I recognise why the shadow Minister raised his point, and I addressed the point about the Welsh Government. Welsh Ministers have devolved competence to reform loss payments for CPO in Wales, and therefore this clause applies in the way that I have set out. On the more substantive point, without getting into individual cases, I note the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke made and I appreciate why he raised it, but he will also recognise why I cannot comment on specific instances of CPO use.
On the general principle of the Bill, I will say a couple of things to the shadow Minister. First, we are not removing the ability for landowners and occupiers to claim for a basic occupier’s loss payment. The Government consider it necessary to rebalance how loss payments are allocated between owners and occupiers to ensure—this is the guiding principle—that those who experience the most level of disruption and inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase are compensated fairly.
The shadow Minister pushed me to reassure him and to go away and reflect to ensure that the system has equal parity. We already have a two-tier system in place; there are differing rates for tenants and landowners. All we are seeking to do through this clause is rebalance the loss payment compensation in favour of occupiers for the reasons that I have given. Landowners and occupiers can still claim for loss payments in addition to claiming compensation for the market value of their land, disturbance costs and other reasonable costs incurred because of a CPO, such as legal and other professional fees.
We may have a principal difference of opinion here; however, on the substantive point, although we have a two-tier system already, we think that it is right to rebalance that two-tier system and weight it slightly more in favour of occupiers of land so that they are entitled to the higher amount of 7.5%, and owners of land to the lower amount of 2.5%. We think that is right, and for that reason, we will not be able to accept new clause 52.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 88 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 89
Home loss payments: exclusions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 89 amends the Land Compensation Act 1973 and introduces provision to exclude the right to a home loss payment in certain situations. A home loss payment is an additional amount of compensation paid to a person to recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused where a person is displaced from their home as a result of a CPO. We have just had a debate about a slightly different aspect of what the Government intend to effect by these provisions.
Under the current provisions, where property owners have failed to comply with a statutory notice or order served on them to make improvements to their neglected land or properties, their right to basic and occupier’s loss payments may be excluded. There are, however, currently no similar exclusions for home loss payments. Clause 89 amends the 1973 Act to apply this exclusion to home loss payments also. The situations where home loss payments may be excluded will include where certain improvement notices or orders have been served on a person and they fail to undertake the necessary works.
Local authorities can expend significant resource and cost using CPO powers to acquire neglected properties to bring them back into use. Where property owners fail to undertake mandated improvement works to their properties, they should not be able to benefit financially through claiming a home loss payment. Non-compliance with improvement notices or orders can increase the costs to the public purse of bringing valuable housing resources back into use through use of CPOs. If memory serves, we had a short debate on empty homes and what more the Government can do, and I think that making changes in this area will help with that. Introducing provision for these circumstances will lower local authorities’ costs of using their CPO powers. It will support the delivery of more housing for communities. It also further ensures that the compensation regime is fair.
Paul Holmes
I have nothing further to add.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 89 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90
Temporary possession of land in connection with compulsory purchase
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 90 amends the power to take temporary possession of land under the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017. Promoters of major infrastructure have indicated that their current consenting regimes provide flexibility for the taking of temporary possession of land, and should the 2017 Act power be commenced, that flexibility would be taken away. The clause sets out that the power for acquiring authorities to take temporary possession of land by agreement or compulsion under the 2017 Act does not apply in respect of: first, other express temporary possession powers provided for by other Acts; secondly, development consent orders made under the Planning Act 2008, and infrastructure consent orders made under the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024; thirdly, orders made under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
The clause will enable the taking of temporary possession under the 2017 Act, without interfering with the process for taking temporary possession under development consent orders, infrastructure consent orders or transport and works orders. It will help ensure continued flexibility for the delivery of critical infrastructure, while paving the way for the taking of temporary possession under other regimes such as the CPO process and the New Towns Act 1981.
Paul Holmes
We do not have much to say on this clause, but it would be rude if I did not say something. [Interruption.] I know Government Back Benchers agree.
Clause 90 provides a targeted amendment to the temporary possession provisions under the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, clarifying the scope of that Act’s powers in relation to other legislative frameworks. It stipulates that the temporary possession powers under the 2017 Act do not apply where other Acts such as the Planning Act 2008, the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 or the Transport and Works Act 1992 already contain express provisions for temporary possession. That clarification will ensure that there is no duplication or conflict between the different legislative regimes, thereby promoting legal certainty and administrative efficiency.
By explicitly excluding scenarios where other statutory mechanisms are in place, the clause avoids overlapping authorities and potential jurisdictional confusion. Moreover, it preserves the functionality of the 2017 Act for compulsory purchase orders under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and New Towns Act 1981, ensuring that those frameworks can continue to utilise the temporary possession powers where no alternative statutory mechanism exists.
Although the clause provides a cleaner legislative structure, it may also introduce complexity for practitioners who must now navigate multiple legislative sources to determine the applicable authority for temporary possession. That could increase the burden on acquiring authorities and landowners alike, particularly in large infrastructure schemes involving various enabling statutes. Overall, the clause serves a valuable purpose in harmonising the law, but may require careful guidance to ensure that its practical application does not create uncertainty or administrative hurdles. Although we are generally supportive, I look to the Minister to see whether he deems it appropriate to provide advisory guides and accompanying documents when the legislation is enacted.
Matthew Pennycook
It is important to make one point about the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, and then to reiterate the purpose and effect of the clause. The temporary possession powers in the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 still need to be commenced. Before commencing those provisions, the Government must consult on regulations relating to the reinstatement of land, subject to a period of temporary possession.
The commencement of the 2017 Act temporary possession powers is an important reform, to which the Government are committed. However, scoping of the work required to prepare the necessary consultation and draft regulations is still under consideration. The clause is an important tidying-up measure, although I will reflect on whether we can do more through guidance to ensure that the process is as clear as possible for those participating in it. In certain cases, the 2017 Act will—inadvertently, to be fair to the previous Government—prevent the powers from being used to enable major infrastructure regimes.
We want those infrastructure regimes to continue under the current legal provisions granted to them for the taking of temporary possession of land, so we think it necessary to amend the temporary possession powers introduced through the 2017 Act: to disapply them for the consenting regimes I set out, to ensure that, when commenced, the 2017 provisions operate as intended and that this does not frustrate major infrastructure coming through the other consenting regimes. I do not think I can be clearer than that. The clause is fairly straightforward and simple, but I am more than happy to take away the shadow Minister’s points about guidance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 90 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 91
Amendments relating to section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 91, page 131, line 17, at end insert—
“(za) after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) Subsection (2) also applies if an acquiring authority submits a compulsory purchase order in relation to furthering the purposes of delivering housing targets set out in a local plan.’”
This amendment would provide that, where a compulsory purchase order is applied for to acquire land or property for the purpose of delivering housing targets set out in local plans, the prospect of planning permission being granted can be disregarded when calculating compensation (also known as “hope value”).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 86, clause 91, page 131, line 17, at end insert—
“(za) in subsection (2), at end insert “unless the acquiring authority states that the whole of the land is being acquired for the purpose (or for the main purpose) of provision of sporting or recreational facilities in which case subsection (5) shall not apply.”
This amendment would enable hope value to be disregarded in calculating the compulsory purchase value of land, where it is being purchased for recreational facilities.
Amendment 87, clause 91, page 131, line 18, at end insert—
“(ab) in subsection (5), at end insert “unless the acquiring authority states that the whole of the land is being acquired for the purpose (or for the main purpose) of provision of sporting or recreational facilities in which case this provision shall not apply.”
This amendment is linked to Amendment 86.
Clause stand part.
New clause 108—Repeal of section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961—
“In the Land Compensation Act 1961, omit section 14A.”
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak to amendment 2. Before I do, I would like to welcome the tone in which the Minister has presented the clauses in this part of the Bill. I recognise and understand the intention to clarify the CPO process and enable it to work better, and I particularly welcome our discussions on clause 88—the determination to ensure a fairer distribution between tenants and owners, for example.
Amendment 2 is intended to be fully in that spirit. It recognises the reality of our dysfunctional land and housing markets in the UK, that hope value plays a part in that, and that reforming hope value could unlock significant resources for the delivery of social and affordable housing. I understand that the calculation is that reforming hope value could free up £4.5 billion a year, which could enable us to build a third more social rented homes than had previously been intended. That would be very valuable.
Under the Land Compensation Act 1961, land owners can potentially claim the value of planning permissions that have not even been thought of, let alone applied for. I understand that land with planning permission is on average worth 275 times more than land without—really quite an extraordinary step change in land value. Reforms to address the issue are very much needed.
Under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, changes were made; the previous Government recognised that there was a problem. The 2023 Act allows hope value to be removed when a development is deemed to be in pursuit of public benefit, particularly affordable housing, health and education. It is a step in the right direction, but still requires the local authority to apply to the Secretary of State for permission on a case-by-case basis. Amendment 2 would simply clarify the situation and specify that when a local authority is compulsorily purchasing land to provide affordable housing, hope value can be disregarded. It is entirely in the spirit of previous reforms to the legislation. It clarifies the situation, and it avoids the potential for councils to be subject to challenge from developers on a case-by-case basis. It does that by clarifying that when the public benefit is being served—something that the Minister has repeatedly referred to—it is clear that hope value can be disregarded, because the public benefit from providing affordable housing is, in those cases, overriding. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak to amendments 86 and 87 on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). In tackling the issue of hope value, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill misses an opportunity when it comes to playing fields. The amendments seek to include recreational facilities such as playing fields by ensuring that when an acquiring authority uses a compulsory purchase order to acquire land for use as a sports or recreational facility, hope value would not be applied, thus making the cost more affordable.
The amendments would enable hard-pressed local authorities to acquire playing fields for their local communities’ use at playing-field value, instead of at an overinflated hope value, to boost additional grassroots sports provision. Such a change would allow sites such as Udney Park playing fields in Teddington, in my hon. Friend’s constituency—they have lain derelict for more than a decade under private ownership—to be acquired for public use. There is a dire need for additional playing space in the area.
The Liberal Democrats believe that everyone should have access to high-quality sports and recreation facilities in their local community. Indeed, Sport England says that those spaces are key to physical and mental health, and to community links. According to a 2023 College of Policing report, such facilities can help to reduce reoffending, particularly among young people. Up and down the country, too many communities lack the necessary land and space to support young people and families, as well as the wider community, to enjoy sport and improve their physical and mental health. I hope the Minister will consider the amendments in the spirit in which they are intended.
Gideon Amos
I rise to support the principle of what is being proposed in clause 91 and what has been said about the need to allow authorities to acquire land without paying additional hope value or value of planning permissions not yet sought or granted. It is a long-standing issue, and debates on it go back a very long time indeed; I think it began with Lloyd George, who said that it should be the state, rather than landowners, that benefits when the state invests resources or increases the value of land from its own actions.
I support the clause as a Liberal Democrat—it was in our manifesto—but I should add that it does not represent a radical or enormous change; in fact, it was the position for a great many years. Following the second world war, the Pointe Gourde case established the principle that hope value would not be paid. As has been mentioned, it was only the Land Compensation Act 1961, exaggerated by further case law in the 1970s, that gradually increased the amount of compensation payable to landowners on the basis of planning permissions not sought or obtained—that is, hope value. As we have been discussing, that frustrates and stymies the delivery of social housing, which we all wish to see, and of other public development.
For all those reasons, this is a welcome clause and we definitely support it. On amendment 2, my understanding is that the clause would allow social housing to be delivered under the provisions of clause 91, but no doubt the Minister will clarify that. We will make our decision about amendment 2 on that basis.
Finally, this has been a long campaign by a number of people and organisations, including the Town and Country Planning Association. People such as Wyndham Thomas, a pioneer in this field, long argued for a change to the hope value provisions. The change, if it comes today, will do credit to those who pushed for it for so many decades.
Paul Holmes
For the Committee’s convenience, I note that we do not plan to speak to proposed new clause 108, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins); I have just scribbled it out. We welcome some provisions of clause 91, but we have some concerns. The Minister will definitely come back to me and say, “But your Government made some reforms.” We know that, but the Opposition have some concern about the scattergun—I would not say “spontaneous”—approach to bypassing hope value, which allows its removal through a much more centralised and unfair system. As we said previously about some CPO provisions, we are concerned that the clause will be unfair on some people who are not well off or affluent.
However, overall the clause is a pragmatic and well targeted reform that aims to steer towards prioritising community benefits and affordability. We will look at it in more detail in later stages of consideration; the Minister knows that we will constructively try to reform the elements that we are concerned about. But we will not press proposed new clause 108, and are happy to let clause 91 through without a Division.
Matthew Pennycook
I will first respond to amendments 2, 86 and 87, then speak to clause 91 stand part, and finish by touching briefly on proposed new clause 108.
Amendment 2 was moved by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. As she set out, it would amend clause 91 to expand the power, introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value. The amendment proposes expanding the direction power to CPOs that are delivering housing targets set out in their local plans.
The Government agree that there is a need to address issues around the payment of hope value, but I am unable to support the amendment. Sympathetic as I am to the greater use of hope value—mayors and local authorities around the country read Hansard closely, so I stress that the Government very much want an acquiring authority to utilise the powers in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act—I cannot accept the amendment because its principal objectives can already be achieved with the existing direction power. That power has similar effects but, importantly, requires affordable housing to be part of any scheme reliant on CPO powers. We therefore do not believe that the amendment is required.
If the hon. Member for North Herefordshire wants to respond we can have an exchange on this point, but the power in question is used on a case-by-case basis according to the public interest. This Government, like the previous Government, are well aware of the need to meet the public interest test so that use of the power does not fall foul of article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998, in a true, broader application. That is why the public benefit test is important and needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Seeking to expand the use of the power beyond that test, and apply it much more widely, is problematic.
Gideon Amos
It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed what I think he is saying: that the application of compulsory purchase under clause 91 could include compulsory purchase of land that will be used for social or affordable housing.
Matthew Pennycook
I absolutely can confirm that. If the hon. Member is interested, that was set out in the extensive debates on that power during the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee. The public benefits to which the direction can apply are very clear: transport schemes but also affordable housing schemes. However, it would be judged on a case-by-case basis whether the amount of affordable housing provided, in each instance, was sufficient to meet that public benefit test.
The important point that I need to make is that the reference to the provision of affordable housing and other benefits is an important safeguard, to ensure that directions removing hope value could meet the public interest justification test and ensure that the use of the power would be compliant with human rights legislation. That is really important. Trying to draw the power too widely would fall foul of human rights legislation and we would not be able to use it in any case. That is why it has to be targeted at schemes that deliver in the public interest. That will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
The Government also have concerns that amendment 2 could introduce a change that could make it difficult for authorities to justify directions removing hope value in the public interest. We think that it could make the benefits delivered through use of the existing direction power less clearly identifiable and problematic for those reasons, so I will not be able to accept the amendment, although, as I say, I am sympathetic to the use of the direction in clear instances when a public benefit is at stake.
Although we have commenced the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provisions only this year, to date no acquiring authority has used them; I suspect that is partly from the usual hesitancy about being the first mover and partly about ensuring that there are sufficient skills in the acquiring authority to use it. But the Government are very clear: we do want an acquiring authority, where appropriate, to make use of the power, although we cannot draw it more widely for the reasons I have given.
I turn to amendments 86 and 87. The amendments seek to amend clause 91 and expand the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value. The amendments propose to extend the types of CPOs for which directions removing hope value may be sought to CPOs providing provision of sporting and recreational facilities. The amendments also seek to introduce a change so that CPOs that provide sporting and recreational facilities would not have to facilitate affordable housing provision when seeking directions removing hope value.
While the Government recognise the value of parks and playing fields to our communities—we could all give our own examples of how much they are cherished and loved—we are unable to support the amendments. As I have said, the non-payment of hope value to landowners through the use of CPO powers must be proportionate and justified in the public interest. Affordable housing, education and health are types of public sector-led development where the public benefits facilitated through the non-payment of hope value can be directly demonstrable to local communities. The Government have concerns that the provisions would be less compelling for sporting and recreational facilities. The proposed changes could make it difficult for authorities to justify directions removing hope value in the public interest, as the benefits to be delivered would be less clearly identifiable. The Government are therefore unable to support the amendments.
I turn briefly to clause stand part. Clause 91 makes amendments to the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which we have just been debating, that allows authorities to include in their CPOs directions the removal of hope value from compensation, when that is justified in the public interest. First, the clause amends the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and provides that CPOs made with directions removing hope value may be confirmed by acquiring authorities where there are no objections to the relevant CPO.
Alongside that reform, the Government intend to publish updated CPO guidance to make clear their policy that the power for inspectors to be appointed to take decisions on CPOs under the 1981 Act can be used for CPOs with directions removing hope value. CPO guidance published by my Department sets out criteria that the Secretary of State will consider in deciding whether to delegate confirmation decisions to inspectors. The updated CPO guidance, reflecting the Government’s policy, will be published when we implement the Bill’s reforms following Royal Assent. The changes will speed up the decision-making process for CPOs with directions removing hope value and ensure that the process is more efficient and effective.
Secondly, clause 91 extends the power for CPOs to include directions removing hope value to CPOs made on behalf of parish or community councils under section 125 of the Local Government Act 1972. That will allow parish or community councils, when seeking to deliver affordable housing in their areas, to acquire land without paying hope value compensation—again, when a direction removing hope value is justified in the public interest demonstrably and clearly. The change is intended to increase the viability of such schemes to deliver more affordable housing, which these communities desperately need.
Lastly, the clause amends the legislation to ensure that when CPOs are confirmed with directions removing hope value, the directions apply not only to the assessment of market value of land taken but to loss payments where the assessment of market value is a relevant factor. That makes it clearer that hope value will be removed from all heads of claim where market value is assessed. That provides for the consistent application of the principles for the assessment of the market value of land where CPOs are confirmed, with directions removing hope value. It also ensures that the compensation regime does not deliver excessive compensation where compulsory purchase is used to deliver benefits in the public interest.
I again make it clear that these reforms are not about targeting farm owners or any specific types of land or landowner. Neither do the clauses seek to change—returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke—the core principles of compulsory purchase, which remain. There is nothing in the Bill that changes the core principles of compulsory purchase. As I have said, it must be used only where negotiations to acquire land by agreement have failed, and where there is a compelling case in the public interest. To deliver the homes and infrastructure we need, we must look to unlock land in the right places. These clauses ensure we have the correct tools to realise that.
Briefly, new clause 108, tabled by the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, seeks to repeal section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which provides the power for CPOs to be confirmed, with directions removing hope value where justified in the public interest. For that reason, I understand why the shadow Minister has at the last moment hesitated to speak to it. In essence, the new clause would remove the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which allows acquiring authorities to take forward certain types of scheme by compulsory purchase and to pay a reduced value for land where it will deliver clear and significant benefits and is justified in the public interest.
I disagree with the reforms made by Baron Gove—I think that is now the correct terminology—in a number of areas. He tainted his record in my Department very late on in the previous Government by abolishing mandatory housing targets under pressure from the so-called planning concern group, the ringleaders of which all lost their seats in any case. He did, however, introduce a number of very valuable reforms, one of which is that reform to CPOs. It is therefore absolutely right that we do not attempt—as the right hon. Lady clearly does, if not the shadow Minister—to remove it from the statute book.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is being slightly unfair in saying that I have chosen not to speak to the new clause at the last minute; I had always intended not to speak to it because we are very collaborative on our Opposition Front Bench in deciding what we will and will not speak to. The Minister should know that there is always a good intention behind a new clause or amendment—in this case, to restrict the unfairness to some people.
The Minister should also not be surprised that the shadow Cabinet and shadow Ministers such as myself are assessing what happened under the last Government. We are looking back and, as we have said repeatedly, we are under new leadership. The Minister will know—in a basic constitutional lesson—that no Government is bound by the actions of its predecessor, and we are not bound by the actions of our previous leader. [Interruption.] They should not be surprised by that. They were always reviewing their successes under Gordon Brown and particularly the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband). They have changed a lot of their views from what they used to say then. They have definitely changed a lot of what they thought when they were under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and were extolling the virtues of loyalty.
We will look to see how we can strengthen the provisions in the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, and we will come back to it a further stage. The Minister should not always think that there is a conspiracy when I decide not to press an amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
It has been pretty dry going this morning on these clauses. For the purposes of entertaining the Committee, I just want to make sure I have understood the shadow Minister.
Matthew Pennycook
The Opposition are at liberty to change their position on any policy that the previous Government introduced, but they do not want to change policy in this area as they believe that the power is proportionate and necessary. However, the right hon. Lady still tabled the new clause to signal that they may be willing to come back to it at some point. Is that broadly right?
Paul Holmes
The Minister is being overly cynical. As he knows, our leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), has said that there is a mainstream review of what worked and what did not work under the very successful Conservative Government that served for the last 14 years. What we are looking at going forward is whether we need a new approach to planning reform. That is exactly what the new clause was intended to probe.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 92
New powers to appoint an inspector
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 92 amends the process for the confirmation of CPOs made under the New Towns Act 1981. Decisions to confirm CPOs made under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, such as housing and planning CPOs, can be made by inspectors on the Secretary of State’s behalf, but currently, confirmation decisions on CPOs made under the New Towns Act must be taken by the relevant Secretary of State. Clause 92 introduces a power for confirmation decisions on CPOs made under the New Towns Act to be delegated to inspectors, although the Secretary of State will retain the ability to recover decisions for their determination. This change will ensure the decision-making process for CPOs facilitating new towns is streamlined and consistent with the confirmation of other CPOs.
Clause 92 also amends the decision-making process for directions for the payment of additional compensation under schedule 2A to the Land Compensation Act 1961 where an acquiring authority has not fulfilled the commitments it relied on when it obtained a direction allowing it to acquire the land without hope value. The clause introduces a power for the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors to take decisions on applications for additional compensation. This will ensure that the process for considering applications for additional compensation is more efficient and consistent with the approach set out in clause 91, which allows for the delegation of decisions on CPOs. The clause will make the authorisation process more efficient, resulting in quicker decisions.
David Simmonds
I just want to ask the Minister, in respect of the appointment of the inspector, what the Government’s thoughts are about the requirements for who that inspector would be. With reference to my fellow shadow Minister’s point on an earlier clause, one of the concerns is whether what emerges from this process will be a fair level of compensation, particularly in a constituency such as mine on the edge of London, where there is a lot of farmland—a lot of green-belt land—for which the occupiers will have paid a significant hope value premium to Parliament, sometimes decades ago. The same will be true in many potential development areas on the fringes of cities.
Clearly, it will be necessary that the inspector, who comes to a view about what an appropriate compensation payment is, has a relevant level of qualification. Again, does the Minister have a view about including a requirement for the inspector to have a relevant accountancy, surveying or other qualification that would enable them to discharge this function, or to secure the relevant advice, so that all parties can be confident in the decision that is made?
Matthew Pennycook
If the shadow Minister will allow me, I will come back to him in writing on the specific point of how the Government will ensure that the relevant inspector has the correct skillset to make the necessary decisions.
I think it is probably worth making two other points. First, how will the delegation of decisions to inspectors on CPOs made under the New Towns Act 1981 be considered? The appointment by the Secretary of State of an inspector to make the decision on a CPO made under the 1981 Act will be considered against the delegation criteria published in the Government’s guidance on the compulsory purchase process.
Secondly, there is the important question of whether the decision on an application for additional compensation will be delegated to the same inspector who considered the original CPO with the direction removing hope value. In that regard, it is important to note that the timescales between the confirmation of a CPO with a direction removing hope value and the determination of an application for additional compensation will vary in each case. As such, it may be impractical for the inspector who considered the original CPO with the direction removing hope value to determine the direction for additional compensation, so we need that flexibility.
David Simmonds
I understand the point the Minister is making. The lessons learnt from the HS2 project is that this can become a very significant source of hardship for land occupiers. I think of a constituent in his 90s who has waited six years for the payment of compensation for land that has been occupied throughout that time by HS2 in pursuance of its project. There are ongoing debates about how this will be settled. Despite an agreed figure having been reached some time ago, payment was held up. If the Minister is not minded to introduce deadlines around that, he might wish to table amendments to that effect at a later stage. I am interested in what he has to say about that.
Matthew Pennycook
I note the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I will not comment on the specific case he raises, but I am keen to provide him with as much reassurance as possible about the skillset of inspectors, and that skillset being directly applicable to the types of cases they will be looking for in terms of compensation. On the practical considerations around the timescale of the process and other issues he has raised, I am more than happy to set that down in writing to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 92 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 93
Reporting on extra-territorial environmental outcomes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
As the Government move to bring forward the new system of environmental outcome reports that will replace the EU processes of environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment, it is necessary to make a minor amendment to the original drafting to ensure the new system can comply with relevant international obligations. Environmental outcomes reports provide the opportunity to streamline the assessment process while securing better outcomes for nature, but it is vital we start this journey with the right powers.
Clause 93 amends the power to specify environmental outcomes to ensure they can relate to areas outside of our national jurisdiction. This is to ensure that the new system of EORs can comply with, among other things, the UK’s obligations under the Espoo convention, which requires signatories to consider the potential transboundary impact of development. This measure will ensure that, as the Government progress with developing the new system of EORs, they will have sufficient powers to ensure the new system can adequately fulfil all our international obligations.
Paul Holmes
Before we receive a statement later from the Prime Minister, can the Minister outline whether any of the movements in this domestic legislation, which stem from the transitioning of EU-derived systems, will be affected by any Government deal made between the EU and the United Kingdom?
Matthew Pennycook
I will come back to the hon. Member on that point in writing, because it is important that I am precise on it. Obviously a series of obligations stem from the trade and co-operation agreement, and they are set out. This clause specifically attempts to ensure that the new system of EORs—legislated for through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023—can, once it is brought into force, function in a way that is compliant with all our international obligations. I think members of the Committee would very much support that being the case. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I would expect the Minister to write to us; I would not expect an answer on the Floor of the Committee. What the Prime Minister is going to outline later is a detailed and holistic deal. When we talk about a change that is being framed within the context of transitioning from the EU-derived systems of environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments—I have only read what is in the papers; I am sure the Minister has, too—any area that is encapsulated within that wider deal may affect this domestic legislation going forward, so I would appreciate his writing to us on that.
By expanding the geographical scope within that derived system, the clause allows for a more holistic consideration of environmental impacts, including transboundary and global effects, as the Minister has outlined, which are particularly relevant in an era of climate change, biodiversity loss, and other interconnected environmental challenges. The broadened scope may be seen as a progressive move, enabling regulators to take a more comprehensive view of environmental harm such as greenhouse gas emissions or marine pollution, which can extend well beyond national borders. It aligns with growing international expectations that environmental assessments account for broader spatial impacts, enhancing the credibility and robustness of the UK’s post-Brexit environmental governance framework, although that is potentially subject to change by the Government.
Although the clause strengthens the theoretical scope of environmental assessments, it does not clarify the practical mechanisms by which the likely significant effects beyond the UK will be evaluated or enforced. Without that clear guidance, the broader remit could become more symbolic than operational, risking inconsistencies in application. Bearing in mind the time, I would appreciate it if the Minister could briefly come back on those points, and then we would be content not to vote against the clause.
Matthew Pennycook
In speaking to the clause, I stressed that the purpose is to ensure that the new system of environmental outcomes reports introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which this Government are committed to proceeding with, is compliant with all our international obligations. I mentioned, for example, the Espoo convention. The UK is party to that convention, and thus all development must consider whether the project will have likely significant effects on the environment in other states that are also party to it. I understand the shadow Minister’s points, but this is a non-controversial clause that simply ensures that once we bring the new system into force, it is compliant with all our international obligations.
Gideon Amos
It might be helpful to point out that the Espoo convention—the transboundary convention—is not, although the shadow Minister referred to European obligations and transition, a European convention; it is a United Nations convention. It is therefore not related to Brexit. It is a convention signed under the United Nations commission. It is important that the clause addresses that.
The Espoo convention also reminded me of the training for inspectors point that the Minister made. I wonder whether the Government, given the clauses in the Bill, particularly the hope value clause we discussed earlier, would ensure that training of inspectors is brought up to date across the board to ensure that the provisions are properly applied. I declare an interest as a former inspector.
Matthew Pennycook
We value the hon. Gentleman’s expertise and insight. I would say two things. It is worth clarifying—apologies if I gave the impression otherwise—that it is for the upper tribunal to determine compensation cases, but I reassure the Opposition that when it comes to inspectors and their role in the CPO process, they have the necessary skillset. I will provide further reassurance on that point.
To the hon. Gentleman’s point on the Espoo convention, although I do not want to answer for the shadow Minister, it is right that, while the convention is not EU-derived, the new system of EORs will replace the EU-derived processes of EIAs and SEAs. I think that is the point that the shadow Minister was making. We want to ensure that the new system that replaces the EU-derived existing assessment regime is compatible with our international obligations, and nothing more.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 93 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Tuesday 20th May 2025
(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 May 2025 - (20 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Following a request, Members may now remove jackets if they are finding it oppressively warm.
We now come to the new clauses. I remind Committee members that Government new clauses are considered first, with other new clauses then being considered in numerical order, as listed on the amendment paper and the selection and grouping paper. Some new clauses may be grouped with others for the purpose of debate and some new clauses have already been debated during the Committee’s consideration of the Bill. When a new clause has previously been debated, it cannot be debated further when it is reached; Committee members should let me know if they wish to press it to a vote. We start with Government new clause 39, which was debated with clause 44.
New Clause 39
Surcharge on planning fees
“In the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, after section 303ZZA (inserted by section 44) insert—
‘303ZZB Surcharge on planning fees
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a surcharge to be imposed on a fee or charge paid—
(a) to a local planning authority in England under section 303(1) or (2),
(b) to the Mayor of London or a specified person under section 303(1ZA), or
(c) to the Secretary of State under section 303(1A), (2), (3) or (4A).
(2) Where regulations under subsection (1) provide for a surcharge to be imposed on a fee or charge paid to a person other than the Secretary of State, that person must pay to the Secretary of State the amount they receive from any surcharges—
(a) subject to such deductions, and
(b) at the times and in the manner,
as set out in regulations under subsection (1).
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may—
(a) specify the level of the surcharge as a percentage of the level of a fee or charge;
(b) make different provision for different purposes, including setting different levels of surcharge for different fees, charges, cases or circumstances.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may provide that where the level of the fee or charge has been set by—
(a) a local planning authority under section 303(5A), or
(b) the Mayor of London or a specified person under section 303(5B),
the surcharge may be set as a percentage of the fee or charge that would be payable had the level of the fee or charge not been so set.
(5) The Secretary of State must list in regulations the persons whose relevant costs the surcharge is intended to cover (“listed persons”).
(6) In setting the level of the surcharge, the Secretary of State must have regard to the relevant costs of the listed persons, and must secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from the surcharge does not exceed the relevant costs of the listed persons.
(7) In subsections (5) and (6), “relevant costs” means the costs of providing advice, information or assistance (including the provision of a response to a consultation) in connection with—
(a) applications,
(b) proposed applications, or
(c) proposals for a permission, approval or consent,
that are made under or for the purposes of the planning Acts and that relate to land in England.
(8) Regulations under subsection (1) may set the surcharge at a level that exceeds the costs of listed persons of providing advice, information or assistance in connection with the application, proposed application or proposal in respect of which the surcharge is imposed.
(9) Paragraphs (a) to (f) of section 303(5) apply to regulations under this section as they apply to regulations under subsection (1), save that references to a fee or charge are to be read as references to the surcharge.
(10) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
The effect of this new clause is to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing a surcharge on planning application fees. The surcharge must, if imposed, be set by reference to the costs incurred by bodies, listed in regulations, which provide advice in the planning application process, including by way of consultation responses.
Brought up, read the First time and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 42
Planning Act 2008: right to enter and survey land
“(1) Section 53 of the Planning Act 2008 (rights of entry) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (7).
(2) In subsection (1), for “Any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State” substitute “An authorised person”.
(3) After subsection (1A) insert—
“(1B) In subsection (1) “authorised person” means a person who is authorised in writing to exercise the power in that subsection on behalf of—
(a) a person who has made an application for an order granting development consent that has been accepted by the Secretary of State,
(b) a person who proposes to make an application for an order granting development consent, or
(c) a person who has been granted the benefit of an order granting development consent of a kind specified in subsection (1)(c).”
(4) Omit subsection (2).
(5) In subsection (4)—
(a) in the words before paragraph (a), for “authorised under subsection (1) to enter any land” substitute “acting in the exercise of a power of entry onto any land conferred under subsection (1)”;
(b) insert “and” at the end of paragraph (a);
(c) in paragraph (b)—
(i) for “any land which is occupied” substitute “the land”;
(ii) for “the occupier” substitute “every owner or occupier of the land”;
(d) omit “and” at the end of paragraph (b);
(e) omit paragraph (c).
(6) After subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) Notice given in accordance with subsection (4)(b) must include prescribed information.
(4B) A justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorising a person to use force in the exercise of the power conferred under subsection (1) if satisfied—
(a) that another person has prevented or is likely to prevent the exercise of that power, and
(b) that it is reasonable to use force in the exercise of that power.
(4C) The force that may be authorised by a warrant is limited to that which is reasonably necessary.
(4D) A warrant authorising the person to use force must specify the number of occasions on which the person can rely on the warrant when entering land.
(4E) The number specified must be the number which the justice of the peace considers appropriate to achieve the purpose for which the entry is required.
(4F) Any evidence in proceedings for a warrant must be given on oath.”
(7) After subsection (8) insert—
“(8A) Section 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (costs) applies to the determination of a question referred under subsection (8) as it applies to the determination of a question under section 1 of that Act, but as if references to the acquiring authority were references to the person from whom compensation is claimed.”
(8) In paragraph 7 of Schedule 12 to the Planning Act 2008 (application of Act to Scotland: modifications of section 53)—
(a) after paragraph (za) insert—
“(zb) in subsections (4B) and (4E), the references to a justice of the peace were references to a sheriff or summary sheriff,”;
(b) omit “and” at the end of paragraph (b);
(c) after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) in subsection (8A)—
(i) the reference to section 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 were a reference to sections 9 and 11 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, and
(ii) the reference to section 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 were a reference to section 8 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, and”.
(9) In the Localism Act 2011—
(a) omit section 136(4);
(b) in paragraph 12 of Schedule 13—
(i) in sub-paragraph (2), omit “and (2)”;
(ii) omit sub-paragraph (3).”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This clause amends existing rights to enter and survey land in connection with development consent orders, to: (1) remove the requirement for authorisation by the Secretary of State before entry, and (2) allow the use of force if authorised by a warrant issued by a justice of the peace.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
At present, we know that it is taking too long for promoters of nationally significant infrastructure projects to prepare applications for development consent that are robust and ready for examination. Part of the reason is the time it is taking for promoters to gain access to the land to carry out surveys to understand its condition and status, to inform their assessments of the project’s environmental impact.
The Government remain committed to ensuring that applicants and landowners reach agreements privately on when land can be accessed and on any compensation necessary as a result of activities carried out by the promoter when surveying the land. However, we appreciate that such agreements cannot be made in every circumstance. While that is regrettable, it should not come at the cost of delaying the delivery of the critical infrastructure that this country needs.
In this new clause, I am making changes to provide a more efficient route to accessing land to carry out surveys for promoters of nationally significant infrastructure projects. These align with rights already available to, and often used by, DCO applicants under the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The changes will give authorisation to promoters to access land on the premise that sufficient notice is given to landowners and occupiers, with regulations to be made requiring the specific information to be contained in that notice.
Should access be unreasonably prevented, promoters will be able to apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant to use force to enter the land and carry out the surveys required. The use of force that may be authorised by a warrant is limited to what is reasonably necessary to exercise the power conferred by the provision. The new clause is an important step change in speeding up the preparation stage of applications for development consent and ultimately the delivery of nationally significant infrastructure projects. It will come into force when the Secretary of State introduces the associated regulations.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I have a couple of queries. I understand the spirit of the proposal; when I was involved in this part of the planning regime, almost no applications came forward for the power to enter land because of the elaborate process involved, so I very much understand and welcome the spirit in which these changes are made.
However, I ask the Minister to consider whether there is a risk of going from one extreme to the other. The new clause would grant any person who proposes to make an application the power to enter land. We would be interested to know what provisos will sit around that. Can anybody simply say, “I am going to make an application” and therefore get an order to enter land? Do the Government envisage guidance or regulations on that aspect? Generally, however, we support the clause.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate the reasons why the hon. Gentleman has raised those points; I have a couple of points that may provide him with reassurance. The provisions in section 53 will allow authorised persons to carry out surveys required in connection with the preparation of environmental assessments and habitats assessments. The entry powers being sought are for a very specific purpose.
As I said, the Government strongly advocate that applicants and landowners should first reach agreements privately when access is required. The problem that the new clause is trying to address is that that does not always happen. We want to ensure that, when necessary, there is a mechanism for applicants to be able to access land and carry out the requisite surveys.
When exercising the power conferred under section 53(1), authorised persons are required to provide the owner or occupier of the land with at least 14 days’ notice of their entry. Regulations, to come forward in due course, will specify certain information that the notice will contain. That information will include details of the negotiations that have been held regarding the entry, full details of the surveys to be undertaken and the rationale for undertaking them, and evidence that the surveys are required in connection with the NSIP in question.
To the points made by the hon. Gentleman, I say that access is required for specific purposes, notice will have to be given and regulations will be forthcoming that provide further details. In general terms, however, we absolutely want in the first instance for applicants and landowners to be able to reach agreements. We think that this power is required and proportionate for circumstances when that does not take place.
Gideon Amos
Those provisos on the regulations are helpful. They are important because to go on to someone else’s land without their agreement initially is a significant power. We agree with the Minister that it should be used only as a last resort, once all the alternatives set out in the guidance have been explored.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 42 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 43
Changes to, and revocation of, development consent orders
“(1) Schedule 6 to the Planning Act 2008 (changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).
(2) Omit paragraph 2 (non-material changes to orders granting development consent) and the italic heading before it.
(3) In paragraph 3 (changes to, and revocation of, orders)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (3)(b), omit “or paragraph 2 of this Schedule”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (5A), after “should” insert “, when considered in conjunction with any other changes already made,”.
(4) In paragraph 4 (changes to, and revocation of, orders: supplementary), after sub-paragraph (6) insert—
“(6A) If a development consent order is changed in exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 3(1), the development consent order continues in force.
(6B) If a development consent order is changed or revoked in the exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 3(1), the change or revocation takes effect on—
(a) the date on which the order making the change or revocation is made, or
(b) if the order specifies a date on which the change or revocation takes effect, the specified date.
(6C) Except in a case within sub-paragraph (7), the Secretary of State must publish an order making a change to, or revoking, a development consent order in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”
(5) In section 118 of the Planning Act 2008 (legal challenges)—
(a) omit subsection (5);
(b) in subsection (6)(b), for “notice of the change or revocation” to the end substitute “the order making the change or revocation is published.”
(6) In consequence of the amendment in subsection (2), omit—
(a) paragraph 4(6)(a) of Schedule 8 to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009,
(b) paragraph 72(4) to (7) of Schedule 13 to the Localism Act 2011,
(c) section 28(2) of the Infrastructure Act 2015,
(d) paragraph 8(3)(b)(i) of Schedule 7 to the Wales Act 2017, and
(e) section 128 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.” —(Matthew Pennycook.)
This clause amends the Planning Act 2008 concerning changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent. The key change is to repeal the procedure for making non-material changes that is currently in paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to that Act.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 43 will make the process for post-consent changes to development consent orders more proportionate to the change requested. That will allow greater flexibility than the existing binary process. The current change process takes too long to deliver on the ground, and is putting developers off requesting changes that have the potential to improve design, reduce adverse environmental impacts, better meet community interests, reduce costs and speed up delivery.
The removal of the distinction between material and non-material changes will allow us to design a more proportionate single process for changes, the detail of which will be set out in new regulations. The new system will be commenced by the implementation of updated regulations. As such, there will be no impact on existing DCOs that are considering change applications in the immediate term, while the Government develop the new process alongside industry stakeholders. Transitional provisions will be included in the revised regulations to ensure an efficient transition to the new system.
The measure will support the Government’s growth and clean energy missions, giving certainty to developers, reducing cost risk and supporting faster decisions. It will ensure that we can deliver the critical infrastructure the country needs in the best form. I am grateful to the expert input provided by stakeholders through feedback on the limitations of the existing change process. Officials in my Department will continue to work with stakeholders and practitioners to refine the new process, and to ensure it delivers efficiencies and better supports the delivery of infrastructure across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 42 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 44
Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements
“Omit the following sections of the Planning Act 2008—
(a) section 42 (duty to consult);
(b) section 43 (local authorities for purposes of section 42(1)(b));
(c) section 44 (categories for purposes of section 42(1)(d));
(d) section 45 (timetable for consultation under section 42);
(e) section 47 (duty to consult local community);
(f) section 49 (duty to take account of responses to consultation and publicity).”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This new clause omits sections of the Planning Act 2008 which currently require a person who proposes to apply for development consent to consult particular people about the proposed application, including prescribed bodies, local authorities, the local community and persons with an interest in the land in question.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 15—Requirement to undertake planned affordable housing construction—
“(1) Where an application to develop affordable housing has been granted, no amendment to the amount of affordable housing to be developed may be made if the reasons for the amendment include—
(a) the affordability to the applicant; or
(b) that providing such affordable housing would make the development unprofitable for the applicant.
(2) This section applies where the provision of affordable housing forms the whole of or a part of the proposed development.
(3) For the purposes of this section “develop” has the meaning given by section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.”
This amendment would mean that, where a developer has committed in their initial application to providing a certain number of affordable homes, they would be prohibited from lowering that provision based on affordability or profitability.
New clause 25—Requirement to undertake planned affordable housing construction (No. 2)—
“Where an application proposes—
(a) to develop more than 10 houses, and
(b) that at least 20% of the houses to be developed will be social housing,
no amendment to the amount of social housing to be developed may be made if the amendment would reduce the amount of social housing below 20% of the houses to be developed on the grounds of viability to the applicant.”
This new clause would prevent developers from seeking to reduce commitments to provide social housing on the grounds of viability.
New clause 55—Transfer of land to local authority following expiry of planning permission—
“In section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (general condition limiting duration of planning permission), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3ZZA) Subject to subsection (4), where a development includes the construction of 100 or more houses and has not begun within the applicable period, ownership of the land on which such development was permitted transfers to the relevant local authority on the expiration of the applicable period.””
This new clause would mean that, where permission for a development of 100 homes or more is not used within the applicable period, ownership of the land to which the permission applies passes to the relevant local authority.
New clause 60—Thresholds for affordable housing provision—
“Where an application proposes or is required to provide affordable housing, no amendment to the amount of affordable housing to be developed may be made if the amendment would result in the amount of affordable housing to be developed failing to exceed the higher of—
(a) the relevant authority’s affordable housing threshold, or
(b) twenty per cent of the total amount of housing provided in the development.”
This new clause would place lower limits on the amount of affordable housing developments which intend to provide such housing must provide.
New clause 61—Additional business rates for developers not completing approved development—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, hold a public consultation on providing local authorities who exercise the functions of local planning authorities with the power to levy additional business rates on—
(a) land owners, and
(b) developers
who fail to complete the development of projects for which permission has been granted within a reasonable period.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of the conclusion of the public consultation, lay before both Houses of Parliament—
(a) a report on the findings of the consultation, and
(b) a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to those findings.”
New clause 76—No planning permission to be granted in cases of intentional unauthorised development—
“(1) A local planning authority may not grant consent for development where there has been intentional unauthorised development in respect of the land or properties which are to be subject to that development.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “intentional unauthorised development”—
(a) includes any development of land undertaken in advance of obtaining planning permission;
(b) does not include any unintentional, minor or trivial works undertaken without having obtained the relevant permission.
(3) Where works under subsection (2)(b) are undertaken, the local planning authority may require relevant permissions to be obtained retrospectively.”
New clause 82—Duty to complete development of local infrastructure—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a Development Consent Order is made providing for, or
(b) a Strategic Development Scheme includes provision for,
the development of local infrastructure.
(2) Where subsection (1) applies, the developer must deliver the relevant local infrastructure in full.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “local infrastructure” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify, but must include—
(a) schools,
(b) nurseries, and
(c) General Practice clinics.
(4) A duty under this section may be disapplied [by whom] with the consent of the relevant local planning authority.”
This new clause aims to ensure that commitments to provide local infrastructure such as schools and GP clinics, approved as part of a development, are permanent and legally binding.
New clause 83—Development of land for the public benefit—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a developer has entered into an obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which requires the development of local community infrastructure; and
(b) such development—
(i) has not been completed, and it is not intended or anticipated that the development will be completed; or
(ii) has been subject to a change of circumstance which means that it will not or cannot be used for its intended purpose.
(2) Where this section applies—
(a) the relevant land remains under the ownership of the local planning authority;
(b) the local planning authority may only develop or permit the development of the land for the purposes of providing a community asset;
(c) the local planning authority must, when proposing to develop the land under subsection (2)(b), must consult the local community before commencing development or granting permission for any development.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“local community infrastructure” means a development for the benefit of the local community, including schools, nurseries, and medical centres.
“community asset” means—
(a) a public park;
(b) a public leisure facility;
(c) social housing;
(d) such other assets as the local planning authority may specify, provided that their development is to meet the needs of the local community.”
This new clause provides that land designated development as community infrastructure under a S106 agreement will not be returned to a developer to use for other purposes in the event that the original purpose is not fulfilled. It provides instead that land would remain under the control of the local planning authority for development as a community asset.
Ellie Chowns
New clause 1 was tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), and I remind colleagues that I am the Member for North Herefordshire—always a cause for confusion. I will also speak to six other new clauses, three of which are intended to dissuade developers from engaging in land banking, and three to ensure that affordable housing targets are met.
New clause 1 would give the planning authority the power to decline future planning applications from a developer that had failed to use, or at least to make sufficient progress on, planning permission that they had already been given. This is designed to stop the practice whereby developers purchase land, get planning permission on it and do nothing with it. I think we all agree, on both sides of the Committee, that we need to expedite the building of affordable housing, so this is a proportionate and clear measure to support that. It relates to new clause 55, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. If such land is not built on, the land should transfer to the local authority, so that it can get on with doing the job instead.
New clause 61, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire, suggests extending business rates for developers that do not build. Each new clause is designed to prevent the practice of land banking, to encourage developers to get on and build when they have been given planning permission.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I completely understand why the new clause has been tabled, and we support the premise behind it, but can I ask the hon. Lady for clarification? She may not know, and that is perfectly acceptable. Say an application went in for a nursing home, but the business went bust before the initial build out was delivered. If the developer wanted to change the application to allow it to build a block of flats, how would the new clause prevent that from happening? It is a genuine question, and I do not know what the answer is.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his genuine question. He highlights a case that arguably represents complexities that the Government employ lots of lawyers to fix. I do not think it would prevent a new clause such as this from progressing. The intention is to prevent land banking, and if lawyers need to tweak the language a little bit, so be it.
I will move on briefly to new clauses 15, 25 and 60, which are all about ensuring that affordable housing is actually built. New clause 60 would set a lower bound on the amount of affordable housing that was due to be constructed. New clauses 15 and 25 are intended to ensure that the affordable housing commitments that developers make in their initial applications are not subsequently chipped away at or eroded by arguments about viability.
Fundamentally, if there are issues around viability, the Government and local authorities should prioritise the building of affordable housing, not the safeguarding of developer profits. The new clauses are therefore intended to ensure that when developers commit during the planning process to building affordable houses, they stick to those commitments. I commend the new clauses to the Committee, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Gideon Amos
I rise to say a few words about new clause 1, but I will principally speak about our new clause 55, which is a mechanism to incentivise the building of housing developments that have lain unbuilt and undeveloped for three years.
On new clause 1, I am very sympathetic to the proposal made by the hon. Members for North Herefordshire and for North East Hertfordshire—we are only missing Hampshire—but, frankly, we prefer our approach. There is a long-standing principle in planning law that the person of the applicant is not a relevant consideration, and by and large we wish to stand by that. There is scope for the new clause to be used to prejudice particular applicants.
There is also a practical consideration. Land changes hands very quickly and, whoever owns it, different applicants can make applications. I am reminded of the famous case in Oxford of university students applying for a nuclear power station on Christ Church meadow, because a person can apply for anything on any land, whether they own it or not. In fact, the Town and Country Planning Association applied for permission for an airport on Maplin Sands, even though it was probably not going to be able to build it. Those bizarre examples demonstrate that the person of the applicant is not a relevant consideration.
Under new clause 1, a different applicant with a different name or a different agent of the same landowner could immediately come forward, so I have practical concerns about it. Our approach is to introduce a “use it or lose it” principle into the planning system. Specifically, where a development of 100 homes or more has been granted permission but not started within the applicable period—usually three years—the land will transfer to the relevant local authority. We expect that in those circumstances, the usual provisions of the Land Compensation Acts and the principles of fairness in compulsory acquisition, which I referred to in a previous debate, would apply.
We accept the principle that developers and house builders need a pipeline—a plan for their land—but three years is a significant amount of time. The recent moves to encourage the build-out of homes that have not been built have not succeeded. We have had a reduction from five years to three years in the lifespan of planning permissions, but there has not been a significant change in the build-out rate, so we need significant measures if we are to make these major schemes happen.
This is not about penalising people; it is about dealing with an issue that is clearly undermining our ability to tackle the housing crisis. Across the country, there are permissions for 1.5 million new homes that have not been built—13,000 in my authority area of Somerset alone. Those homes could house thousands of families. Research from TerraQuest, which operates the planning portal—not a particularly radical or out-there organisation —shows that a third of all homes given planning permission since 2015 have not been built. Ten years on, that shows that unbuilt permissions are an enduring problem that needs to be tackled. If all those permissions had been built out, the Government would have hit their annual 300,000 homes target in eight out of the last 10 years, and yet the approach so far focuses almost entirely on allocating more and more permissions in the hope that that will result in more homes being built.
There is no lack of planning permissions; the problem is that developers are not building out the ones they already have, because the current system does not penalise delay. Two big things could be done to improve housing supply: funding social housing and funding infrastructure. If those things were funded in a range of areas around the country, there would be almost unlimited build-out rates on stalled sites.
Developers clearly, and I think reasonably and rationally, will only build out at a rate that sustains the price of their product and their viability. They have fiduciary duties to their shareholders, and they need to maintain the viability of their companies. So they will not build out at a rate significant enough to flood the local market with housing and depress the price. We cannot blame them for wanting to make a profit—that is what we expect them to do—but we need to fund social housing publicly, as it was funded in the past, to get out of that bind. That is why I believe we need a stronger lever than we currently have.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I would like to speak to new clause 76, which is in my name.
This new clause seeks to probe the Minister’s thoughts about the success of local authorities in tackling and challenging the unauthorised development that has gone on. As he will know, the last Government made intentional unauthorised development a material consideration, meaning that planning permission could be refused, and there is a presumption that it should be refused, when development has taken place without consent.
I think it is safe to say that we do not think—many of us see this in our constituencies—that that is being enforced uniformly. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), has an open case at the moment, and I am sure all of us, as elected MPs, have had such cases in the past. There is also an issue with unauthorised encampments. The new clause goes a step further by saying that if development has taken place without authorisation, the planning authority should not grant consent. This is a probing amendment because such provisions already exist, but there are many examples across the country of enforcement not taking place.
New clause 76 requires that no planning permission is to be granted in cases of intentional unauthorised development. It would provide a power to the local planning authority not to grant consent for development
“where there has been intentional unauthorised development in respect of the land or properties which are to be subject to that development.”
It gives further detail about the meaning of “intentional unauthorised development”, which
“(a) includes any development of land undertaken in advance of obtaining planning permission”,
but
“(b) does not include any unintentional, minor or trivial works undertaken without having obtained the relevant permission.”
We have put in paragraph (b) to take account of householders who have undertaken small modifications—for instance, small extensions, walls or garden sheds—that in certain circumstances would need planning permission. We do not want to persecute or make the law come down hard on those who have made a genuine mistake. This is about larger unauthorised development. The reason for tabling the new clause is that we think the Bill should go further in restricting unauthorised development, and that we want local planning authorities to be able to enforce the powers they have through the legislative changes made by the last Government.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, particularly in the context of our earlier debate about hope value, it is important that this issue is addressed? For law-abiding citizens, nothing is more frustrating than someone carrying out an unauthorised development, potentially on a site in the green belt, as we have seen on a number of occasions, and then being able to regularise that by obtaining retrospective planning permission, when, had they applied lawfully to begin with, it would have been refused. That is an injustice in the planning system that needs to be addressed.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is right; I think that we have all seen that happen as Members of Parliament. It makes a mockery of the planning system when people—they know exactly what they are doing—retrospectively apply for permission and still reap the benefits. There was an example of this in my old constituency that involved removing trees that had tree preservation orders, in order to build on some land. Doing so destroyed that area of land, and it went completely against what should have happened. When the developer went to the local authority, it retrospectively granted planning permission, and the local villagers were outraged.
My hon. Friend is right: the new clause is meant to tackle those who know how to play the system. However, if someone has made unintentional changes to a house that could be covered under permitted development rights, but may go slightly beyond them, we would give local planning authorities the jurisdiction and authority to use their own minds in such cases.
I hope that the Minister understands why we are trying to probe him to see whether he can strengthen the Bill in relation to unauthorised development. He may have to write to me after the Committee—I am sorry to the officials for asking for another letter—about whether the last Government’s measures to give local authorities that power has worked and, if not, how we could work together to ensure that unauthorised development is stopped. We do not want to stop developments, but we think that there needs to be fairness in the planning system. People, who may not be well off, who want to make a planning application for their own home often find it a difficult experience when, just down the road, people are doing it willy-nilly whenever they want to. I look forward to clarification from the Minister. If he needs to write to me, that is absolutely fine.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak first to new clause 1, which seems to me, as someone who has worked closely with developers, ill thought out. It does not address the need to build more social and affordable homes.
Permissions that are granted, particularly on brownfield sites, often contain any number of conditions that are extremely difficult for developers to achieve—discharging conditions around environmental remediation and, for example, looking after bats or newts, which are common where I practise. There is also a lack of local authority staff competent to deal with section 106 agreements. Permissions are often granted to developers before they own the land, and there may be suitable tax reasons why people do not wish to sell the land until the following tax year. It is easy for those things to stretch over way more than three years, and sometimes up to five years. I am in favour of building more social homes, but the new clause would not achieve that objective. It also does not take into account the massive shortage of workers in the construction sector, the skills that we need or the shortage of materials, which has become even more acute in the past couple of years.
I also want to talk about new clause 76. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley has entertained us for most of the day with minor matters, but his new clause would have an effect that he has perhaps not thought about. The majority of unauthorised planning that I saw in my practice was carried out by farmers who were not able to make enough money from farming their land, so very often diversified their large warehouse-type structures and started using them for small businesses—perhaps renting them out to local engineering firms and so on. After a period of 10 years, somebody would complain in the local village and they would then apply for an authorised use certificate, and nine times out of 10, it would be granted.
The impact of new clause 76—that unauthorised change of use—would prevent those people from developing new homes on their site or opening up more opportunities for new businesses. It needs more thought and attention, because the very people who would be impacted are those who the Opposition say that they stand up for. Very often, they will be farmers who are looking to diversify their property.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Jardine. I wish to speak to new clause 25, which would, for developments of more than 10 houses, require that where 20% of those houses are to be developed for social housing, developers would not be able to reduce that amount below 20% over the fullness of time, as often happens today. We all seem to support the need for more social housing, but we have debated at length in Committee how best we get there.
In the interest of brevity, and conscious that we have more new clauses coming than the entire Dead Sea scrolls, I will keep my remarks concise. We in the Liberal Democrats feel that new clause 25 is necessary to hold developers account to that 20% quota for social housing, rather than being able to fritter it away. It relates to points that we previously made, that it would seem that without more regulation, market forces alone are not succeeding in delivering the social housing that we all recognise we need.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate hon. Members speaking to these new clauses. I recognise the worthy intentions that sit behind many of them. The Government certainly recognise the challenges of many of the issues that they touch on. It will not surprise Members that the Government will not be able to accept them, but I hope I can set out in some detail why that is the case.
Let me first deal with new clauses 1, 55 and 61, all of which relate in some way to build-out. All seek to improve the speed of build-out of developments by giving local planning authorities greater control and power where developments are not built out fast enough. New clause 1 seeks to introduce a power to decline applications based on outcomes of previous grants of permission. New clause 55 seeks to introduce a new mechanism for developments of 100 houses or more where, if permission is not used within an applicable period, the ownership of the land would pass to the relevant local authority.
I want to make clear to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington that the Government agree with the objective of improving the build-out rate of residential development. We want to see homes built out faster where they have consent, and I very much recognise—I say this as a constituency MP, as well as a Minister—the frustrations that stalled or delayed sites can cause to communities, particularly to people in communities who have gone through the process of putting in a view on an application. They have an application that they want to see come forward, and then the site does not develop.
The Government expect developers to do all that they can to deliver, but we do not think these new clauses are necessary to achieve that. In the case of new clause 55, which effectively involves the transfer of land to a local authority without compensation if planning permission is not commenced, we feel that would be disproportionate, not compatible with the European convention on human rights and would have a chilling effect on development, as it would create risks for developers that their planning permissions may not be implemented.
Instead, we are introducing new requirements for statutory build-out reporting by implementing the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 on commencement notices and development progress reports. That will provide local planning authorities and communities with greater transparency about the rate of build-out of developments and any delays that may occur.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
Let me emphasise the point around viability and the impact of a precarious economic situation on developers’ ability to build. Does the Minister agree that the challenges for the private sector that he has set out also apply to local authorities? In estate renewal in London, for example, many have had to relook at the viability of that and have seen delays for a number of years because markets have changed and the land analysis has altered. It is a changing picture depending on the moment in time, and one that it is inextricably linked to the economic picture at the time.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is right. If we are having a mature conversation about this, we have to recognise that economic circumstances can change and that the costs that developers are having to deal with—build material costs have increased significantly, particularly in London—are factors they do have to weigh in their judgments. On the other side of the coin, it is important, in strengthening the section 106 system, that we are ensuring local authorities can negotiate robustly on those agreements and that we hold developers to the commitments that they make. The Government’s intention is to do both.
Matthew Pennycook
I will, but I do not want to lead us down the path of a long debate on viability.
Lewis Cocking
I thank the Minister for giving way. He is talking about changes in viability. What does he say to councils that are in the position of having granted planning permission, had a viability assessment and agreed a 106, and the developer comes back a year or two later and says that they cannot do it and will have to put in a new planning application, have a new viability assessment and a new 106, but because the council has determined a planned application on that site, if it went to the planning inspector, there would be a lower bar for that development to get over? That is because the council has already accepted the principle of development on that site under the premise of one section 106 negotiation.
Does the Minister think that, on the second go, the developer should have to start from the beginning, have the same principles to get the development off the ground, and that the same higher bar should apply? At the end of the day it is the community that lose out from the community obligations that the developer is trying to get out of.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member tempts me into commenting on hypotheticals. I will instead say the following. There are two things happening here. We have to be aware of the ability for some existing mechanisms—section 73 applications are a good example—to be gamed in terms of viability to drive down the amount of public gain. I am aware of that, and I have been very candid about it. On the other hand, and correspondingly, if a permission such as the one he hypothetically mentioned is in place, I think that is testament to why it is so important that we bring forward measures on build-out transparency and have the powers to be able to say to developers, as the Government are saying to all developers, “If you’ve got a consent, then get on and build.”
The Government are making a variety of reforms to the planning system, which in any number of ways will provide for a more rules-based system, more certainty and will drive down development costs. We are firming up planning policy guidance and expectations. We are making it clearer and easier for developers to put in an application and we should reduce costs as well. Correspondingly, we can ask for more. We are bringing forward measures in fairly short order on build-out and we will turn on the LURA provisions that I have mentioned. On that basis, I ask for the new clauses to be withdrawn.
New clause 76, tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, seeks to prevent those who have deliberately undertaken unauthorised development from obtaining planning permission retrospectively. The Government do not condone unauthorised development and are clear that anyone seeking to undertake development should first obtain planning permission where it is required. I therefore very much appreciate the sentiment behind his new clause. I recall debating with a shadow Secretary of State this particular matter in relation to Gypsy and Traveller camps, and I appreciate that across the House there is concern about the use of unauthorised developments.
However, the Government’s view is that there may be circumstances—I am happy to set this out in writing to the shadow Minister—in which unauthorised development, even if it is intentional, may be acceptable in planning terms or may be made so by the imposition of planning conditions. I say that only to make the point that we believe that there is a need for some pragmatism here and that such developments should be considered by the local planning authority. It is already the case that intentional unauthorised development, as he said, is a material consideration. It must be weighed in the balance when determining planning applications and appeals. That approach retains local decision making.
The Government obviously keep this matter under review. I am more than happy to have a conversation with the shadow Minister about the Government’s view as to whether the enforcement powers available to local planning authorities—they have a wide range of powers, with strong penalties for non-compliance—are being used, and if not, why not. I am also more than happy to share with him our understanding of how local planning authorities and inspectors are treating unauthorised development as a material consideration, as they are now required to do. I hope that, on that basis, I have provided him with some reassurance.
Paul Holmes
I appreciate the Minister’s being so open and genuinely—I wouldn’t say I didn’t believe him before—promising to go away and look at this issue. We would like to take him up on that; we will not press our new clause today, but there are conversations to be had further down the line on this topic. Will he just confirm whether his Department holds any statistics on how many unauthorised developments we are talking about? Is there is a reporting structure for local authorities, which may be held by the Planning Inspectorate? We would like to know how his Department is monitoring the number of unauthorised developments that are using the powers that were given to local authorities, if that makes sense.
Matthew Pennycook
What I can commit to—I feel the glares from my officials on me now—is this. If we have the information, I am more than happy to have a conversation with the shadow Minister to give him a sense of, across the country, how local authorities are using their existing enforcement powers and the extent to which, although I think this will be difficult information for Government to track, local planning authorities and inspectors are relying on unauthorised development as a material consideration. I am thinking, for example, of inspectors allowing things on appeal that are unauthorised. If we have that information, I am more than happy to share it and to have that conversation with the hon. Gentleman.
Ellie Chowns
I thank all those who have contributed and the Minister for his very thoughtful responses. On new clause 1, I note the Minister’s assurances that existing mechanisms will be going some way, at least, to addressing the concerns I have raised about build-out, so I will not push it to a vote at this point. I will not push the new clauses on affordability to a vote at this point, either, because I will be speaking to new clause 3, which is specifically on this issue, but I will emphasise that when we are thinking about viability, we must remember that we have a huge crisis of a lack of affordable housing in this country. We do not have a crisis in developer profits—not at all.
I would like to cite to the Committee a paragraph from a report that I have just checked out:
“Since 2014, the largest housebuilders, and in particular the three largest housebuilders by volume (Taylor Wimpey, Barratt and Persimmon…) have consistently reported supernormal levels of profitability, with gross profit margins reaching 32% and never falling below 17%”.
That is the reality of the crisis of excess developer profits that we face in the current housing market, and it is from independent academics. In that context, I think that it is incumbent on the Government and everybody to do everything possible to ensure that viability tests are not used as an excuse by developers to wriggle out of commitments to providing affordable housing. I am genuinely concerned that the provisions in existing law and in this Bill will still leave a huge viability loophole for developers. If in the next 10 years we continue to have those levels of supernormal profits on the part of developers, this Government will have absolutely failed all those who are struggling in the face of the housing crisis.
Matthew Pennycook
I think some of this will become evident in the fullness of time. There has been an implicit criticism of the Government at several points in Committee that we are entirely reliant on a market-led approach, and are happy with an entirely developer-led, market-led approach. That is not the case. We think that targeted reforms to the planning system are necessary, but we also absolutely believe that reform of our broken house building model is required. I have said on many occasions that we are overly reliant on a speculative development model that produces bad outcomes. Hon. Members across the Committee will see before too long other measures that the Government are bringing forward to both transform and disrupt that market in ways that are beneficial.
Matthew Pennycook
Well, the market does need to be disrupted, in the particular sense that we need new entrants coming forward, and small and medium-sized enterprises and community led-housing back in the game.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington said, and I think he is right, that developers have a business model, particularly volume builders. Some are changing their business model and we would encourage change to those business models, but there is a particular model that relies on very high margins. I know the academic study that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire cited. We must and will reduce our reliance on that. We also must be careful about weighing in on viability in a way that would just stop house building coming forward in lots of cases, because that would ultimately help nobody.
A final point that I think is pertinent to this debate: I always find the nimby and yimby debate incredibly reductive, but I think that some who oppose development on the basis that they only prioritise social and affordable housing discount the fact that building homes of any tenure in localities assists people trying to access social and affordable rent. It all helps and it need not be one or the other.
Rachel Taylor
I think what comes across in some of the proposed new clauses, which is not the case in the Bill itself, is a punitive scheme for developers. What we need to do is work in partnership with smaller developers and community developers in particular, so that we can build out any number of different types of homes—whether they are apartments, bungalows, or small starter homes. All of those are important in the market and will help young people to feel that they can get on the housing ladder and not have to rely on living in their parents’ spare room until they are in their mid-30s.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a good point. To wrap this debate up, I think it is right that the Government seek to take forward planning reform in the way we have, and to streamline the planning process in a way that drops costs on developers where it is appropriate. Equally, we must be robust with developers. We want to put this mechanism in place and ensure that local authorities can negotiate section 106 agreements robustly. Where those agreements are entered into, we expect them to be delivered and we expect sites to be built out. As I say, hon. Members will not have to wait too long to see some of the changes that are not in existing law, but that the Government are bringing forward. On that basis, I hope hon. Members might not press the new clauses.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Review of the setting of local plans under the National Planning Policy Framework
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, review the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to the setting of local plans.
(2) The review must consider in particular replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement for local planning authorities to identify sites within their areas which are necessary to meet—
(a) local housing targets, and
(b) the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals.” —(Ellie Chowns.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the setting of local plans with a view to replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement for local planning authorities to identify sites which meet housing targets and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am reflecting on the comments that the Minister just made on the broken speculative model of development that we are currently stuck with. The new clause actually fits with amendment 2 to clause 91, which I spoke to earlier. Essentially, the new clause is asking the Government to review the way that local plans are set under the national planning policy framework, and specifically, to consider replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement in which the onus is on local planning authorities to identify sites in their areas that are necessary to achieve local housing targets and sustainable development. Currently, under-resourced and underfunded councils are forced to accept whatever ill-suited sites are offered up by developers. The pressure of meeting local housing needs often means that there is pressure to accept the sites that are offered rather than no sites.
The new clause does not force the Government to do anything apart from a review that specifically looks at redressing the power to identify which sites housing should be built on, and putting it much more in the hands of local planning authorities. That way they can take a genuinely strategic approach, rather than being at the mercy of developers’ initiatives, which may not be in the interests of the public.
Matthew Pennycook
New clause 2, which the hon. Lady has just spoken to, was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire. The purpose of the planning system is clear: to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The UN’s sustainable development goals are important to that. It is because of their importance that they are already addressed via existing planning laws, planning policy, guidance and processes.
The objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development is being delivered by the existing requirement to prepare local plans under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The national planning policy framework already contains policy on sustainable development with the presumption in favour of sustainable development at its heart.
National policy includes how to plan for good design, sustainable modes of transport including walking and cycling, an integrated approach to the location of housing, economic uses and the community services and facilities needed. It recognises the importance to health, wellbeing and recreation that open space and green infrastructure provides, and is clear that local plans should seek to meet the identified need and seek opportunities for new provision. It also contains policies on how to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places, and sets out that the planning system should support the transition to a low-carbon future.
The NPPF is also clear that planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes. The framework must be given regard to in preparing the development plan, and is a material consideration in planning decisions. The “call for sites” process ensures early engagement with landowners and land promoters to understand the availability and achievability of land identified to deliver sustainable development. The current process ensures consideration of the economic, environmental and social impacts of proposed sites for development, and how those contribute to a more sustainable future.
The important part here is that the assessment does not in itself determine whether a site should be allocated for development. It is the role of the assessment to provide information on the range of sites that are available to meet the local authority’s requirements, but it is for the local development plan, taken through with consultation with the local community—we definitely want more consultation with communities upstream in the local plan development process—to determine which of the sites in a “call for sites” are the most suitable to meet the requirements.
While I recognise the intentions behind it, the new clause would ultimately undermine the Government priority for extensive coverage of local plans across England, which is the key mechanism that enables sustainable development and housing delivery to take place. Although I understand the spirit of the new clause, the Government oppose it, as these important matters are already being considered and addressed through existing laws, systems, national planning policy and associated guidance—which are obviously kept under review at all times. On that basis, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.
Ellie Chowns
I honestly do not entirely follow the Minister’s argument about this measure potentially replacing the work of local authorities in driving development plans, because that is specifically what the new clause is about. It is about putting more power in the hands of local authorities rather than in the hands of the developers. However, given that we have multiple other new clauses to get to, some of which I am especially keen on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 3
Housing plans to include quotas for affordable and social housing
“(1) Any national or local plan or strategy which relates to the building or development of housing must include specific quotas for the provision of—
(a) affordable housing, and
(b) social housing.
(2) Where a national or local plan or strategy includes quotas for the provision of affordable and social housing, the plan or strategy must include justification for the quotas.”—(Ellie Chowns.)
This new clause would require national and local housing plans to include, and justify, quotas for the provision of both affordable and social housing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 8—Local planning authority discretion over affordability of housing—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, provide guidance to local planning authorities on how to define or classify new or prospective developments as affordable housing.
(2) The guidance must make clear that a local planning authority may, while having regard to national or general guidelines, determine what is to be understood to be affordable housing in its area based on local needs and circumstances.”
This new clause would enable local planning authorities to use their discretion to determine whether certain housing is to be “affordable housing”.
New clause 26—Provision of Older Persons Housing and Later Living Homes—
“The Secretary of State must, within 1 year of the passing of this Act—
(a) require 10% of homes delivered through the Affordable Homes Programme to be Older Persons Housing or Later Living Homes, and
(b) provide grant funding to support the capital costs of developing Older Persons Housing and Later Living Homes.”
This new clause would support the capital costs of developing affordable and inclusive housing for older people and support the provision of adequate supply.
New clause 37—Local planning authority powers relating to new towns—
“(1) A local planning authority whose area includes the whole or any part of a new town may—
(a) include any of the area of the new town as land to be developed in any local plan which covers a period between the designation of the new town and the completion of development,
(b) include in the local planning authority’s housing target any houses expected to be provided by or in the new town during the period covered by the local planning authority’s local plan, and
(c) include any housing expected to be provided by or in the new town in any consideration of the local planning authority’s 5 year housing land supply.
(2) A local planning authority whose area includes the whole or more than 2,500 houses of a new town ma—
(a) disregard National Planning Policy Framework guidance relating to the duty on local planning authorities and county councils to cooperate on strategic matters crossing administrative boundaries, and
(b) extend the area designated for the new town through its local plan process.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘new town’ means a town developed by a corporation under section 1 of the New Towns Act 1981.”
This new clause would provide local planning authorities with the ability to include new towns in local plans and housing targets, and give planning authorities certain powers with regard to new towns.
New clause 48—Review of method for assessing local housing need—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, review the standard method for assessing local housing need.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) how the method for assessing local housing need should consider different types of property;
(b) basing calculations on price per square metre rather than price per unit.
(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) local councils; and
(b) any other parties the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) Upon completion of the review, the Secretary of State must—
(a) lay before Parliament a report which summarises the evidence considered in the review and the review’s final conclusions or recommendations;
(b) provide guidance to local planning authorities and other relevant bodies on how they should calculate and consider local housing need.”
New clause 49—New towns to contribute towards housing targets—
“In any national or local plan or strategy which sets targets for the building of new houses, houses built as part of new towns may contribute to the meeting of such targets.”
New clause 50—Local Housing Plans—
“(1) A local planning authority must develop a Local Housing Plan for its area for the purposes of informing its local plan.
(2) A Local Housing Plan must outline the number and type of homes—
(a) required, and
(b) proposed to be built,
in the authority’s area.”
New clause 75—Requirement for 20% of housing to be on small sites—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue or update guidance for local planning authorities regarding the identification of sites for housing development.
(2) The guidance must outline a requirement for at least 20% of an authority’s housing requirement to be accommodated on sites no larger than one hectare.”
New clause 92—Housing needs of ageing population—
“Any plan or strategy produced by a local planning authority which proposes the development of housing must include an assessment of the housing needs of an ageing population.”
Ellie Chowns
It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The new clause was tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire, and I give the Minister notice that I am particularly keen on it. It would require any national or local housing plan to include and justify quotas for the provision of affordable and social housing.
To me, the new clause seems like a no-brainer, and a measure that we should already have, given that we have such a huge housing crisis, have had no coherent Government housing strategy over the last decade or more, and have no serious goal to end homelessness or deal with the social housing waiting list or affordability issues. I recognise that the Government are making some efforts in the legislation they are introducing. I am particularly excited by the Minister’s promise of disruptive measures to tackle some of the remaining problems in the housing market.
We absolutely have to build more homes for social rent. In the 10 years between 2014-15 and 2023-24, England built 2.2 million homes. Would anybody like to guess what percentage of them were for social rent? Only 3% of them were for social rent, which is the only tenure that is genuinely affordable to those on the lowest incomes. I recently saw stats about the changes in planning permissions in the last six months: 6% of the permissions granted in that time have been for social rented homes. It is nowhere near enough. We desperately need more homes for social rent.
Paul Holmes
I understand and agree that we need to build more social rented homes, but does the hon. Lady not agree that the figures she gave could be perceived as being slightly simplistic, because they do not take into account the regional variations in where housing lists and social homes are most needed? I accept that social rent made up 3% of the total, and permissions recently increased to 6%, but in areas such as Southampton, London, Basingstoke or big urban centres, the proportion will be dramatically higher.
Ellie Chowns
I would be more than happy to go through spreadsheets with the hon. Member, because I like a nice spreadsheet. Although the figures might be slightly higher in London, I do not think anybody would argue that there is therefore sufficient affordable housing in London, or anywhere close to sufficient.
Ellie Chowns
I am delighted that the hon. Member agrees. We can all agree that there is a crisis in affordable and social housing. Unless we set targets to tackle that at every level of housing planning, we will be guaranteed to fail to create the affordable and social housing we need.
Nesil Caliskan
Does the hon. Member recognise that targets were in place for a number of years, and that in most cases local authorities failed to meet them, not because of a lack of trying, but because market circumstances meant that viability did not work and planning permissions could not get through, and for a variety of other reasons? Targets do not, in and of themselves, drive delivery in the numbers we need in this country.
Ellie Chowns
I recognise that multiple factors drive the delivery of social and affordable housing—and, indeed, the achievement of any targets so to do—but what the hon. Member said is a bit inconsistent, because the Government have just introduced huge new housing targets based on an argument that we have to have targets for particular numbers in particular locations, no matter how well suited or otherwise they might be to the circumstances of the local planning authorities. Members cannot argue that housing targets are really useful at the level of overall numbers but not useful in relation to affordable and social housing, which is the point of crisis.
The Minister said, in his response to a previous new clause that I spoke to, that we need to recognise that building any sort of housing is helpful. I kind of get his point; I think he is trying to make a sort of “trickle up” point—that people can trickle up out of the most affordable housing and into more expensive housing, and that vacates the cheaper housing—but the fundamental problem is that we have nowhere close to enough genuinely affordable housing, by which I mean social rented housing, being built.
This is therefore a very reasonable amendment, simply asking that, at every level of housing plan—local and national—targets are set. It does not say what those targets should be; it just says that each plan should set a target for affordable housing and social housing.
Lewis Cocking
Does the hon. Member not agree that, in most local plans—if not all local plans that come forward; I took one through for Broxbourne when I was leader of the council—we do have targets for affordable and social homes? The reason lots of those do not get built out is because of the issues that we discussed earlier around viability. Just having a target does not necessarily deliver what she and I want to deliver: more social homes. We can have that target, but it is about the viability and the costs that developers try to get out of. That is why they do not get built.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the hon. Member for his point, which is actually exactly the same point that the hon. Member for Barking made, essentially—
Ellie Chowns
Yes—both singing from the same hymn sheet on this. I refer the hon. Member for Broxbourne to the answer that I gave two minutes ago to those comments: I am not saying that just setting a target for social and affordable housing will magic it up, and I am not denying that multiple factors impact on the delivery. In fact, I think the hon. Gentleman might be so gracious as to recognise that, in many of the previous measures—and ones coming up—that I have tabled to the Bill, I have been trying to address some of those issues, for example, in relation to hope value, restrictions on local authorities, and so forth.
I am not saying that the new clause is a magic bullet, and I welcome the fact that many local plans contain targets for affordable and social housing. I certainly do not think that just having the targets will ensure that they are achieved, but if the Government are to be consistent in their own rhetoric, that setting targets is important because it gives people something to aim for, then I very much hope that they will support the setting of targets for affordable homes, and particularly social rented homes, because that is where the crisis is in our housing supply. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Olly Glover
I rise to speak to new clauses 8, 26 and 92, just to introduce briefly what they do. New clause 8 is about coming up with a more sophisticated definition of what “affordable housing” is, taking into account local needs and circumstances, while new clauses 92 and 26 are about quotas, funding and the assessment of the housing needs of an ageing and older population.
I shall keep my remarks on new clause 8 concise, because the hon. Member for North Herefordshire has made many of the points that I would otherwise have made. I agree with her that there seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance going on when those on the Government Benches express scepticism about the ability of targets for affordable and social housing to deliver progress, yet are adamant that targets for housing overall will do that. Perhaps the Minister will address that point in his remarks.
The key issue in terms of new clauses 26 and 92 is that the current definition of “affordable housing” is not considered affordable by many organisations. That particularly applies to people of an older age on a low income, who are still subject to many aspects of housing costs. It is not just me who thinks that the current definition of “affordable” is nothing of the sort. Shelter agrees, calling it
“unaffordable for those on average incomes”.
Similarly, Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have argued for affordability to be linked to local incomes, not market rates, and the Town and Country Planning Association also recommends local flexibility, stating in its housing guides that the 80% rule does not work in areas of high market distortion. Even the Labour-run Greater London Authority operates its own model, with the Mayor, Sadiq Khan, introducing a new category of “genuinely affordable” rent, which includes social rent, London living rent and shared-ownership schemes, as a way of creating a better benchmark.
As mentioned previously in this Bill Committee, house prices in constituencies such as mine still reflect a distorted market in which housing remains inordinately expensive despite enormous housing growth. Residents would certainly benefit from local authorities’ having the power to set what is meant by affordable housing, taking into account local circumstances on issues such as wages.
We also need to be more detailed and thoughtful about how we go about the issue of our ageing population. This is not just about the older old in care homes and similar facilities; it is also about people becoming old. For example, 40% of homeowners and 60% of renters aged 70 will have moved into their homes since the age of 50. Those homes may suit them when they move in, but they may not suit them as they age and will need to be adaptable. That is something that local authorities and all of us need to consider a lot more.
Equally, 50% of renters aged between 45 and 64 have no savings, and many will struggle to afford their rent in retirement. The Pensions Policy Institute estimates that if current trends continue, the cost of housing benefit for older renters will increase by 40%, or an additional £2 billion per annum.
Thinking more carefully about how we provide for an ageing population, as these new clauses propose, would benefit not just those who are affected by the cost of housing, but the public finances, given the ever-increasing housing benefit bill that we will face if we do not take serious action and change our approach. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Paul Holmes
I rise to speak to new clauses 48, 49, 50 and 75, most of which are in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—I do not know whether he intends to intervene or to speak after me, but he is more than welcome to do so, because he drafted the new clauses and can do them a lot more justice then I can.
These wide-ranging provisions would help strengthen the legislation. We tabled new clause 48 because we want to review the method for assessing local housing need. The current method does not adequately account for the type of home being built. For example, a family home can accommodate more people than a one-bedroom flat, and it should count for more because it goes further towards meeting a local area’s housing need. Under the current methodology, we often end up with the wrong stock being built and with people being displaced or having to move away from long-standing connections in their local area.
New clause 48 states:
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, review the standard method for assessing local housing need…A review under this section must consider…how the method for assessing local housing need should consider different types of property”—
as we have indicated, that should be based on demographics and local housing lists—
“basing calculations on price per square metre rather than price per unit…In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult…local councils; and…any other parties the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend is making an excellent and eloquent speech—far more excellent and eloquent than my contribution will be. Does he agree that one of the big concerns the Bill needs to address is the sense among some constituents that new housing development is not built for them or their community? We need to make sure that this debate is about homes, and that means we need greater subtlety and nuance in housing plans and the targets we set. It is not simply about delivering units—the dark towers we see in parts of central London, whose units are not available to or occupied by the local community—but about having a housing supply that reflects the needs of a particular place.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Who can say the Conservative party is divided when we have a bromance like this? My hon. Friend and I agree with each other all the time. He says that my speech is better than his, which is untrue, but he makes a serious point. The whole point of the Bill, and of our being here, is to ensure that housing is deliverable and accountable, and that it adapts to the will and the needs of local people. We are in Parliament and we stand for election predominantly to make our areas better and to leave the world in a better place, with people feeling better.
In my constituency, we have many four-bed and five-bed family homes. We also have a huge housing waiting list. Those homes cost £250,000 each. Of course, I aspire to being able to afford a house like that myself one day, but we need to ensure that the right housing is being built for people in Eastleigh and Fareham town centres. Often, they are displaced down the road to Southampton and Portsmouth, or to other areas of the country with which they have no connection. That is simply not fair. We tabled the new clause to see, first, whether the Minister agrees with it—I suspect he will do more resisting—and secondly, whether he will try to ascertain how we genuinely improve the method for assessing local housing need.
We had a brief debate about whether housing targets were warranted and whether people think they are good or bad. The Minister knows my position: I think they have been set for a particular reason, but that was a debate on a different clause. We want new towns to contribute towards meeting housing targets. As the Minister knows, new towns do not currently do that and are not included among those that can meet housing needs in local plans. New clause 49, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner tabled, would change that to include new towns, for several reasons.
First, that would give certainty to constituents that once a local plan had been developed and proposals had gone forward for consultation, they would not be surprised by the Government’s suddenly announcing a new town. The Government are prone to doing that at the moment—I say that neutrally. When that happens, an area seems to have to take much more housing because the new town does not, on paper, contribute to the targets. I believe that, because new towns do not contribute to those targets, they suffer in terms of their services and infrastructure. The new clause would help with fairness in the system and with housing targets and planning. It is not nimbyism—I agree with the Minister that the terms yimby and nimby are reductive. To provide clarity for the consumer, as well as stability for local areas, the Government should make new towns contribute to housing targets.
The Minister should view new clause 50 as productive. If he is worth his mettle, he will see that. Its purpose is to require local authorities to have a housing plan for their areas to inform their local plans. The housing plans would cover types of home, demographics and first-time buyer homes. Subsection (2) of the new clause provides that the local housing plan
“must outline the number and type of homes…(a) required, and…(b) proposed to be built…in the authority’s area.”
That would strengthen local authorities’ and local people’s ability to have a say about what they want to be built for them in their areas.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and I had an interesting meeting with several house builders. The Government should embrace and look to expand retirement villages in local plans. People are getting older, and many older people prefer to stay at home, but the system is slightly broken in terms of service charges and the leasehold model. That is not working.
David Simmonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way during a speech that is as eloquent as it is stylish. He makes a serious point. One change in the UK housing market is the collapse in the provision of small developers; something like 93% of homes are now built by very large housing providers. Particularly in pursuit of developing some of the smaller sites, in which the Minister has expressed a clear interest, we need to bring those types of development to market at scale. That is what new clause 75 seeks to do, and I hope that the Minister will—in a speech that will no doubt be equally eloquent and stylish as that of the shadow Minister—set out his thinking to ensure that that happens, so that the Bill does not become purely a charter for large developers while the huge number of smaller sites, which could deliver so much additional housing, are left undeveloped.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend raises a good point; in fact, we have tabled some amendments on targets regarding small and medium-sized enterprises. He is right that we must ensure that development is not just carried out by the usual large-scale developers; we must bring vibrancy into the sector and, more importantly, allow local authorities to make those decisions.
On retirement villages, the system does not work, but new clause 50 would allow local authorities to have the authority to focus on the demographics and first-time buyers. It would ensure that SME builders are allowed to be designated by the local authority to build those houses.
It is shameful that, for the first time in a long time, housing policy in this country does not have any incentives for first-time buyers. This point relates to the new clause, Ms Jardine. For the first time, we do not have incentives such as stamp duty relief or Help to Buy, so I hope that the Minister’s disruptive and radical solutions, which he teasingly announced, will include incentivisation. That would allow local authorities to say, “We have a lot of young people who should be entitled to be on the housing ladder; we want to put some first-time incentives into our local plans.”
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
On assistance for first-time buyers, is the lifetime ISA not still in operation?
Paul Holmes
Yes, the lifetime ISA is still in operation—the last Government brought it in—but it does not deliver the real numbers that we need, as the Help to Buy and stamp duty relief systems did. We brought those in, but they have been reversed.
Paul Holmes
Not yet. Those have been reversed by a lot of the things that this Government have done. For the first time, the sector does not have any incentivisation.
Paul Holmes
If he has a quote, then I am not giving way. I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow East that the local housing plans that we are proposing must also include social housing. Local authorities need to put forward a proper housing mix.
Luke Murphy
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and apologise to the rest of the Committee—I do not have a quote. Under its new leadership, his party is reflecting on the policies of the previous 14 years, so given that he is making an argument about first-time buyers and SME builders, why did the number of SME builders in the UK catastrophically decline over the past 14 years while the average age of the first-time buyer increased?
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman does not have a quote, but his intervention is still misguided. He fails to realise that under the past 14 years of the Conservative Government, 800,000 people bought their first home through schemes such as Help to Buy and the stamp duty relief, and 2 million homes for first-time buyers were built. This Government have not even shown that they have the aspiration to match that, because they have cut a lot of the products that turbocharged first-time buyers’ getting on to the housing ladder.
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that if he wants to, he can come for an appointment. By the way, we are under new leadership, and we are constantly reviewing our policies. We will be making announcements on the new products we will be bringing to people to fill the void that this Government have simply left for the first-time buyer.
Ellie Chowns
The hon. Member has issued a paean to Help to Buy, which at the time it was introduced was identified as a policy that would likely drive up housing prices and do nothing to address the real problems in the housing market. As I have repeatedly emphasised in this Committee, those problems relate particularly to affordable and social rent housing.
I have a quote for the hon. Member. A report published by the House of Lords Built Environment Committee in 2022 concluded that the
“Help to Buy scheme…inflates prices by more than its subsidy value”
and does
“not provide good value for money, which would be better spent on increasing housing supply.”
It pointed out that it cost the taxpayer £29 billion—more than £29 billion—over a decade, and that cash should have been used, as I have said, to replenish England’s falling stock of social housing.
The London School of Economics has found that Help to Buy boosted house prices in London by 8%—just that policy boosted house prices in London by 8%— and it boosted developers’ revenues by 57%. Does the hon. Member recognise that it is not a panacea for the problems in the housing market that we face, and that investing in social rent housing should be our priority?
The Chair
Order. Before we go on, could we keep to these new clauses, please, because we are getting a little off-track?
Paul Holmes
I will heed your advice, Ms Jardine, and bring this back to new clause 50.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire said there should be more social homes, but that comes under the remit of local authorities to set in their housing plan. In response to what she said about Help to Buy versus social homes being a panacea, I gently say to her that I never at any stage said that Help to Buy was a panacea. I said it was part of the mix in which we could help people, if they so wished, to get on to the housing ladder for the first time.
Paul Holmes
I have not finished my point, if the hon. Lady would let me do so. I feel like the Minister last week.
I am saying that Help to Buy was part of a wider mix. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to focus on building more social housing, but I have a fundamental political disagreement with her, which is that social housing is not a panacea either. There are people who want to buy and there are people who want to be helped to buy, and that is why I say that, under this Government, the incentivisation for first-time buyers in the context of that argument has been abandoned, and that happened when we left office.
Ellie Chowns
My point is brief: given that the Government have a limited amount of money available, should it not be spent on the things that are most effective in tackling the reality of the housing crisis? It is clear that Help to Buy was not that.
Paul Holmes
I agree with the hon. Lady that the Government should be focusing on social housing. However, to be fair to them, they have announced a huge amount of money for it, as we discussed in the Westminster Hall debate six or seven weeks ago. I cannot remember the figure, but it was a great figure for building social housing. They have gone further than the last Government did on social housing, and I said in that Westminster Hall debate that I welcomed the Minister’s and the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment to building that affordable and social housing, but we need a housing mix that also allows for first-time buyers. That is the argument I originally made, and I do not think many people in the House or out there would disagree that we need such a mix.
Briefly, new clause 75 relates to small site allocations in local plans. Currently, local planning authorities are expected to allocate 10% to small sites in local plans, unless they can provide a strong explanation why that is not possible. The Government have recognised the strength of feeling that small site policy generally is not working for both planning authorities and small and medium-sized developers, and they are strengthening the wording in the Bill. However, this new clause is designed to reverse that, and to up the percentage of small sites that should be accessible to SME developers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner outlined in his intervention. I think the Minister should be able to agree to it.
We discussed this morning how SME developers could be enabled to build more homes. There would be a requirement for 20% of housing to be on small sites, and:
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue or update guidance for local planning authorities regarding the identification of sites for housing development…The guidance must outline a requirement for at least 20% of an authority’s housing requirement to be accommodated on sites no larger than one hectare.”
I hope that also shows many Members across the House that we believe in a solid and varied housing mix, built by a solid and varied housing sector. A number of these measures will help deliver just that. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts.
The Chair
Before we go on, let me say that the Minister is under no obligation to discuss Help to Buy in his response.
Matthew Pennycook
I will obey your strictures, Ms Jardine, and avoid a debate on Help to Buy. I welcome hon. Members moving this group of new clauses, but I will be fairly brief. Although they may not want to, I am keen to debate all the other new clauses they have tabled and to make good progress through them. However, I am more than happy to address these new clauses.
It will not surprise hon. Members that the Government do not feel able to accept the new clauses, but for good reason. I am happy to discuss why and to set out, where applicable, how our proposals to disrupt—these are not disruptive proposals, just to clarify that for the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley—the housing system, so that it functions better, play a part in that.
I will first address new clauses 3 and 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington respectively. It is true that the Government have not yet set a social and affordable housing target, but we are clear that we need to significantly increase the number of social and affordable homes built each year. There is a particular focus on that under this Government, because I would argue that we have seen the engineered decline of social rented housing over the previous 14 years. That included not only the significant cuts the coalition Government made to affordable housing grant, but other measures that were introduced. I think, in particular, of the generous right-to-buy discounts introduced by Grant Shapps when he was Housing Minister, which have seen our stock sold off in too large a quantity. We are determined to build more and, through the changes we are making to right to buy, to retain more of our stock, while recognising that long-term tenants should still have a right to buy, where applicable.
We do not believe that the new clauses are the right way forward. I think there is a difference—I am more than happy to debate the issue outside the Committee Room, but it is probably too extensive to go into now—between the standard method for calculating assessed housing need in the national planning policy framework, which sets overall assessed housing need numbers, with those being translated into local targets for housing as a whole, and affordable targets.
As I said, we have not set a target yet, but we are clear, through the NPPF, that local authorities should, in producing their local plan, assess their need for affordable housing and social rented homes, and then plan to meet those needs. That includes establishing the total need for affordable housing and setting out the amount of affordable housing that should be secured on development. Those plans are then obviously independently examined as to whether they are sound. We have also made changes to the NPPF to provide greater flexibility for local authorities to deliver the right tenure mix to suit the particular housing needs in their areas.
In addition, we are introducing new measures in the Bill to allow spatial development strategies to specify an amount or distribution of affordable housing to be delivered. I have also already committed to considering further steps to support social and affordable housing as part of our intent to produce a set of national policies for decision making in 2025. It is as part of those changes that further steps will, in many instances, best be taken, including on the content and timing of further updates to guidance. I really do recognise the point behind the new clauses, and we are keeping the matter under review, but for the reasons that I have given, I would ask that the new clauses are not pressed to a vote.
I now turn to new clause 49. Our approach to housing targets has been put in place to support our ambition to build 1.5 million new homes over the next five years. In our view, that reflects the scale of house building needed to address the current acute and entrenched housing crisis in this country, which I think we all recognise, and we have heard the statistics. As things stand, there are nearly 30,000 people on my local housing waiting list, and huge numbers are in temporary accommodation. Everywhere I go, I say that this is an acute and entrenched crisis; in many parts of the country, particularly for those of us in urban areas, it is nothing short of an emergency, and we need to take steps to respond to that.
The Government have been clear that new towns—this is our preferred approach as we proceed now—will deliver over and above the targets produced by the standard method across the country. I say that for the following reason, but with the caveat that we are keeping the matter under review: I do not know what precise list of recommended sites the new towns taskforce will bring forward, and some of those sites may build out in this Parliament, but a great number will either not have started building out in this Parliament or will only just have started. For that reason, I do not think it is reasonable, in many instances, to say that a significant proportion of the LHN we are asking local authorities to meet can be absorbed by a new town that is to come in a future Parliament.
Lewis Cocking
Local plans are done over a 15-year period, so they are over multiple Parliaments. When the Government set the housing targets for local councils—if what the Minister has just said is the Government’s position on new towns—should the situation not be the same as for local plans? Broxbourne has a local plan over 15 years, which is three Parliaments, so all the housing targets given to local authorities will not be done in one Parliament.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Local plans are set over a longer time horizon. There is an issue, as he knows, with the number of local plans across the country that are up to date. There are other, corresponding issues about the date at which those local plans that are brought forward begin, and whether they are brought forward at all. Our general position—I will not go any further than that—is that we are keeping this under review. It has been our stated position so far that new towns will deliver over and above the targets produced by the standard method.
When a new town might build out will be highly place-dependent; it will depend on the particular circumstances and delivery vehicle. Let us see what sites the new towns taskforce recommends. We are keeping this under review because we recognise that we need the right incentives in place to support proactive local authorities to work with us to bring new towns together. Although we have been clear that the site selection will ultimately be in the national interest, in terms of building these large-scale new communities out quickly and effectively, and ensuring that they are exemplary developments, it will obviously be far easier if local authorities are proactive and constructive.
Gideon Amos
The Minister is making a very important point. He will no doubt recall that, on a number of occasions, I have argued that those new towns should be within the housing targets. Our view is that if they are going to be successful, they need to be community led and embedded in the mission of that council area or community.
To the Minister’s point about aligning incentives, we encourage him to continue to keep that matter under review and open for a further reason: the scale of the increase in allocations. For example, my council has to find a 46% increase in housing allocations, which is extremely challenging, as it is in areas where, for example, there are green belts or protected land. It is extremely challenging for some authorities to identify land for housing, and if that has to be on top of a new town, it will be even more challenging. I welcome the Minister’s statement that he is keeping the matter under review, and we encourage him to do that.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman’s position on the matter is very clear. We will keep under review how the taskforce’s recommendations on new towns interact with housing targets.
Although I appreciate that the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is seeking, understandably, to prevent areas with a new town from taking unmet need from neighbouring areas, his new clause would have the effect of discouraging effective cross-boundary co-operation on a much wider range of matters, which could lead to issues with local plans in those areas. For that reason, I ask him not to press it.
I turn to new clause 48. In our manifesto, the Government committed to restoring mandatory housing targets and reversing the supply-negative changes introduced by the previous Government in December 2023. In December 2024, we therefore implemented a new standard method for assessing housing needs that aligns with our ambition for 1.5 million new homes over this Parliament and better directs homes to where they are most needed and where housing is least affordable. The standard method is an important tool to ensure that housing is delivered in the right places, which is critical to tackling the chronic shortages facing the country across all areas and all tenures.
We consulted extensively on our changes to the standard method. Our public consultation received more than 10,000 responses from a range of relevant parties, including 387 submissions from local authorities. Our response to the consultation sets out the evidence received and how the Government have responded to the points raised. We have also published revised guidance to support authorities utilising the standard method. Given the recent consultation exercise on the revised standard method, I do not believe that new clause 48, which seeks further consultation and procedural steps, is the right way forward. I ask the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner not to press it.
I turn to the hon. Member’s new clause 50. National planning policy—specifically paragraph 72 of the NPPF—already expects local planning authorities to prepare strategic housing land availability assessments to provide evidence on land availability within their area. Authorities should then set out, through their local plans, a sufficient supply and mix of sites that can be brought forward over the plan period. Through this existing policy, local planning authorities are already expected to make an assessment of the number and type of homes that are required and proposed to be built in the authority’s area. I note the comment that several hon. Members have made about older people’s housing. I think it fair to say that the housing and planning system has not kept pace with demographic change, but that is why the Government are exploring the recommendations of the older people’s housing taskforce, for example.
In addition, we are committed to introducing the new plan-making system, which includes the following provision set out in new section 15C(8) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as inserted by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023:
“The local plan must take account of an assessment of the amount, and type, of housing that is needed in the local planning authority’s area, including the amount of affordable housing that is needed.”
New clause 50 would therefore duplicate national planning policy and legislation that we anticipate will come into effect later this year. It would create new burdens on local planning authorities, with the effect of delaying plan making. It would also undermine the Government’s priority for extensive coverage of local plans across England, reducing much-needed housing supply. I ask the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner not to press it.
I fully understand and support the principle behind new clause 75, tabled by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. The Government fully recognise the benefits that small sites can offer in contributing to house building, diversifying the housing market and supporting faster build-out. We are therefore fully committed to increasing delivery on small sites and supporting our SME developers. This is a real priority for the Government. The statistics show that back in the 1980s SMEs built something like 40% of housing supply; the figure now is less than 10%. That is a large part of the reason that we are not bringing homes forward in the numbers we would want. Council house building is another example.
Via the NPPF, local authorities are already expected to allocate 10% to small sites in local plans unless they can provide a strong explanation why this is not possible. If such an explanation proves wanting, the plan can be found unsound when it is examined by an independent inspector. In line with the thinking behind new clause 75, we consulted on strengthening that requirement by making it wholly mandatory in local plans. That was part of the summer 2024 consultation on the NPPF, but the responses we received were clear that making the target fully mandatory would be resource-intensive, would put significant pressure on local authorities, would be unworkable in many areas and might lead to delays in plan making.
In the Government response to the NPPF consultation in December, we therefore made clear our intention to explore other options to support small site delivery as part of the upcoming national development management policies. I do not want to tease the Committee again, but details will be forthcoming and will be subject to consultation. Although I appreciate the principle behind new clause 75, I therefore do not believe that it is the best way to support small site delivery. I ask the hon. Member for Hamble Valley not to press it.
Paul Holmes
I am a pragmatist, so if the Minister says that he will make announcements in due course to strengthen what he already has a track record of doing, which is what the new clause seeks, we will welcome that. I must press him slightly, however. I grant that he has only been in his position for 10 months, but if the 10% is already in the NPPF and has not made any real change, and if he is reluctant to make legislative changes to enforce it, what other measures can he introduce to increase the number of houses that SME builders can build?
Matthew Pennycook
It is worth referring to the NPPF consultation in the summer and the Government response. We think that there was good reason not to make the 10% allocation mandatory. Local authorities, in particular, told us that they had concerns in that regard. There are many other things we could do. Without using this as a defence, in fairly short order the shadow Minister will see some of the measures that we want to introduce to support SME house builders. Access to land is a concern, and access to finance is another issue, as is the cumulative burden of regulation on SME house builders, which, for obvious reasons, are less able to cope with that than large-volume house builders. All of that is part of the answer, but I am sure we will have further debates on the matter once the Government have brought forth new measures in that area.
I turn to new clauses 92 and 26. I share the commitment of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to enhancing provision and choice for older people in the housing market. I agree that the need to provide sufficient housing to meet older people’s specific needs is critical. We must ensure that the housing market is moving with demographic change. I also recognise that well-designed, suitable housing can improve the quality of life, health and wellbeing of older people, as well as supporting wider Government objectives.
That is why the revised national planning policy framework already makes it clear that local authorities producing a local plan should, as I have said before, assess the size, types and tenure of housing for different groups in their communities, including older people, and reflect that in their planning policies. Supporting guidance also makes it clear that an understanding of how the ageing population affects housing needs should be considered from the early stages of plan making through to decision making.
Furthermore, clause 47 contains provision for spatial development strategies to take account of that factor. It provides that SDSs
“may specify or describe…an amount or distribution of affordable housing or any other kind of housing”
if the provision of that housing is considered
“to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.”
One can well imagine how, in particular sub-regions of the country with high proportions of older people, SDSs may want to take particular account of that factor.
We will of course consider how we can continue to make progress on delivering sufficient housing for older people, as we develop our long-term housing strategy, which we will publish later this year. I recognise that that will have benefits not only in meeting housing need for older people, but further down the housing chain, by unlocking homes that are inappropriate for older people. Those people may wish to move if they have a better offer and if challenges such as those mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, such as the excessive service charges on some older people’s residential housing, are dealt with.
On new clause 26, I do not believe that introducing legislation to impose targets and capital funding for the affordable homes programme is the best way to incentivise the market to increase the supply of older people’s housing and later living homes. The Government’s view is that local housing authorities are best placed to bring forward the right amount of new housing for older persons and later living homes in their areas through the planning and care systems, and based on local need. The Government will obviously support them to do that when they set out the full details of a new grant funding programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme at the spending review on 11 June. Alongside wider investment across this Parliament, the new programme will help to deliver our commitment to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. For that reason, I respectfully ask that none of the new clauses in this very large group are pressed to a vote.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister for his comments. I will briefly pick up on a couple of the issues he mentioned. On housing for older people, and new clause 92, I welcome the Government’s recognition that this is a serious issue, and that there are real benefits to enabling greater provision of housing for older members of the community—not least that it would also unlock housing for others. I look forward very much to the measures with which he is tantalising us coming forward. Likewise, as support for SME house builders is an issue close to the hearts of those in my constituency of North Herefordshire, I am on tenterhooks waiting for his forthcoming announcements.
However, I do intend to push new clause 3 to a vote. The Minister has not explained why he thinks that mandatory housing targets are essential, but targets for affordable and social housing are apparently unacceptable.
Matthew Pennycook
In part, I would like to correct the hon. Lady, because at no point did I say that such targets are unacceptable; I said that we have not, to date, set one. I will give her an idea of some of the reasons. The hon. Member for Broxbourne will remember discussion of this in my evidence to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee: there are factors that bear on the delivery of social and affordable housing that sit outside the control of a local authority area.
For example, while a lot of social and affordable housing comes through section 106 agreements, large amounts come through grant funding from Government, and we cannot impose an arbitrary target without other measures, which the Government are bringing forward, being in place. We have not set a target for now; we think it is right that local authorities lead on assessing that need and ensuring that it is reflected in local plans. However, at no point did I say that it is unacceptable—
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Ms Jardine, we had agreed, through the usual channels, that the Whip would move the Adjournment for the Committee at 4 pm—that was agreed with the Labour Whip yesterday. I appreciate that, for very good reasons, she is not here today. I also understand that Ministers may have a preference, given our progress, to continue a degree further. I will not move the Adjournment if the Ministers indicate that they wish to continue a little later, but may I seek your guidance, Ms Jardine, on how to resolve that, given that the schedule on which hon. Members’ diaries have been constructed included an adjournment at 4 pm?
The Chair
I am sorry, but I have had no instruction about that. There has been no mention of it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I am standing in as both Energy Minister and a Whip, Ms Jardine. As far as I know, the assumption was that we would have made speedier progress on various clauses today, and might have concluded line-by-line scrutiny by 4 pm. I do not think it was agreed that we would adjourn at 4 pm, but I am not party to any of those conversations, so I am afraid I cannot help. I think all other hon. Members have 5 pm in their diaries—and, given the lack of progress that we have made, we probably should proceed.
David Simmonds
Further to that point of order, Ms Jardine, I accept that it was a discussion between me, as the Opposition Whip, and the Labour Whip yesterday, which is the usual channel through which times are agreed. That being the case, and in her absence, I will not move the adjournment, in order to enable the Committee to proceed. However, I respect that hon. Members may have to leave—including me, because I have built my diary around that agreement and I have childcare responsibilities.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Ms Jardine—I do not wish to waste any more of the Committee’s time—for my part, I am content for the Committee to sit until 5 pm to ensure that business gets through. However, given my own diary, I would take a dim view if the Government should seek to continue beyond 5 pm.
The Chair
To clarify, the Committee sits until the Government moves the adjournment, so it is entirely up to the Government as to what they wish to do.
Michael Shanks
In all our diaries, the session was from 2 pm until 5 pm. That is when the Government will adjourn.
The Chair
We will continue; I believe the hon. Member for North Herefordshire was speaking.
Ellie Chowns
I was not speaking at the moment of the point of order—the Minister was. I confess have been slightly thrown by the intervention from the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, but I think that at the time of the point of order, the Minister was intervening on my summing-up speech, which was about pushing new clause 3 to a vote. I take the Minister’s point that he did not say that such targets were unacceptable; however, if he fails to support the new clause, he is effectively indicating that it is fine for the Government to specify where houses must be built, but not to say that local authorities should specify that certain types of housing must be built, as they see fit.
Matthew Pennycook
I would genuinely like to understand the hon. Lady’s thinking in this area. Does she think that it is the role of Government to prescribe, for every local planning authority in England, the precise mixes of tenure and affordable housing, and, for example, the number of older people’s homes they bring forward? It would be helpful to have clarity on where the line is drawn.
Ellie Chowns
I am pleased to clarify that no, that is not my proposal, nor is it what the new clause says. It simply states:
“Any national or local plan or strategy which relates to the building or development of housing must include specific quotas for the provision of—
(a) affordable housing, and
(b) social housing.”
The elaboration of those national and local plans remains in the hands of those who are responsible for producing them under existing legislation. There is nothing in the new clause that says that it has to be at a specific level.
If the Government take the provision of affordable and social housing seriously, and recognise that the existing level of social rented housing—whether it is 3% or 6%—is nowhere near sufficient, then why not have the Bill specify that a quota for affordable and social housing should be set by the authorities that write the local plans? The new clause is moderate, reasonable and proportionate, and is entirely in line with the Government’s commitment to setting targets for housing overall.
The net effect of not accepting the new clause may well be that the housing market continues to be just as distorted as it currently is, so I warmly encourage the Minister to consider supporting it. I think that others will find it difficult to understand why a Labour Government would not support targets for affordable and social housing—not specifying the numbers, but requiring that such targets are a necessary part of achieving what the Government say they want to achieve in improving access to housing.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
Before we move on, I think we could all do with a brief comfort break. I will suspend the sitting until 4.15 pm, which will give us eight minutes.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 11—Accessibility requirements to be made mandatory—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act—
(a) make provision for M4(2) (Access to and use of dwellings) in Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2010 to be made mandatory, and
(b) issue guidance for developers and other relevant stakeholders on how M4(2) is to be complied with.”
This new clause would make the existing Building Regulations requirements in relation to accessibility, which are currently optional, mandatory.
New clause 110—Accessibility standards for new homes—
It must be a condition of any grant of planning permission for new homes that—
(a) all planned homes meet Building Regulation M4(2) (accessible and adaptable dwellings); and
(b) where an application for planning permission is for 20 or more homes, a minimum of 15% of planned homes meet Building Regulation M4(3) (wheelchair user dwellings).”
Gideon Amos
It is a privilege to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine.
New clause 5 would require building regulations to be made that require new homes to meet the zero carbon standard and to include renewable energy. Back in 2006, the then Labour Government rightly set out plans to achieve zero carbon in new housing. The same Government made a commitment in the carbon plan that there would be a regulatory requirement for zero carbon homes from 2016, which was the key date. That 2016 commitment was renewed by the coalition Government in 2011 and was included in the 2014 Infrastructure Bill. However, all the commitments to on-site efficiency standards and allowable solutions—the extra bit to make new homes zero carbon—were cancelled by the incoming Conservative Government in 2015, in a shocking retrograde step in addressing carbon emissions.
We came so close to achieving the zero carbon homes standard back then. A cross-sector ministerial taskforce had been in place from around 2008. Two preparatory upgrades to building regulations had already been made—by the Labour Government in 2010, and by the coalition Government in 2013—and regulations were drafted for the 2016 upgrade that would have delivered zero carbon homes.
Labour housing and planning Ministers who are now in the Cabinet—I will not name them in case they do not want to be named—chaired the ministerial taskforce and took the programme forward. Under the coalition Government, a predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), Andrew Stunell—to whom I pay tribute, and who introduced his first Bill on this subject back in 2004—continued the zero carbon homes programme as a Minister until 2015.
We then had the complete cancellation of the programme in 2015. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has estimated that, had the zero carbon standard been reached, residents would have paid £5 billion less in energy bills since 2016 as a result of living in better insulated and more energy-efficient homes.
My noble Friend Baroness Parminter tabled a zero carbon homes amendment to the 2015-16 Housing and Planning Bill on Report, but the then Government did not support it. The Minister at the time in the Lords said that the Government would
“introduce nearly zero energy building standards”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 April 2016; Vol. 771, c. 925.]
Of course, that falls well short. Undeterred, the Lords voted in favour again; the then Government ultimately tabled their own amendment that committed to reviewing energy performance requirements under building regulations, but they never did so—and, again, that fell a long way short.
Almost 20 years on, we still do not have a zero carbon standard for new homes. It was, and still should be, a cross-party and cross-sector issue. There is a legal commitment to reduce carbon emissions in this country, and mandating zero carbon new homes would ensure that we do not make the task even harder for ourselves than it already is. Zero carbon homes insulate households not just in terms of energy but from fluctuations in energy prices. They reduce demand for electricity from the national grid and obviously reduce carbon footprint.
Much more recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) tried again to acquire a degree of solar generation on new homes with a private Member’s Bill—his sunshine Bill. When the Minister responded to that debate back in January, he said that
“the Government already intend to amend building regulations later this year...that will set more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emissions requirements for new homes.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 652.]
I am not sure why I am quoting the Minister to himself, but he will no doubt recall saying that rooftop solar deployment will increase significantly as a result.
We look forward to a response on the new clause, which moves us towards and helps to deliver zero carbon homes. It would give the Government six months to set out regulations, and it merely seeks to hold the Minister to his word on the topic. The Minister ought to emulate once more the forward-looking approach of the Labour Government back in 2006, who committed this country to a trajectory of zero carbon homes. Almost 20 years on, we and many others want the certainty of a legislative provision to secure a zero carbon future for British housing and bring the benefits of solar generation to all residents.
After all, we could have avoided building an entire new power station had this standard been introduced in 2016, as was proposed through cross-party agreement at the time. It is now almost a decade since the first zero carbon homes plan would have been introduced. This will be a lost opportunity if Parliament does not commit, finally, to taking that last step to make all new homes zero carbon.
Ellie Chowns
I warmly welcome the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I refer colleagues to the fact that I have proposed a private Member’s Bill on exactly this topic—the Carbon Emissions from Buildings (Net Zero) Bill—and my very first Westminster Hall debate was on environmental building standards, so I am fully behind the new clause.
It is essential that we build new housing to the best possible standards, and that we build new homes that are fully fit for the future. We know that doing so has social, environmental and economic benefits. It has social benefits, because it reduces people’s fuel bills and tackles issues such as mould in homes. It has environmental benefits, because, of course, there are huge energy efficiency advantages. It has economic benefits, not least because it is much more economically efficient in the long run to build houses effectively at the start so that we do not have to retrofit them years down the line. We already have a huge retrofit challenge in the coming years, so the very least we can do is to ensure that all new houses are built to zero carbon standards.
The new clause refers specifically to solar power generation on roofs. I warmly welcome the Government’s announcement—I believe it was on local election day—that they are moving in that direction. However, in zero carbon design, other factors are much more important, including building orientation, design around transport and fabric first. I would like to discuss another factor, namely embodied carbon. I have tabled new clause 91 on the subject, but I am not sure that we will get there. When we talk about zero carbon, we need to recognise both the operational carbon, which is the carbon produced by a building during its lifespan—over the next, say, 80 years—and the embodied carbon in buildings, which is becoming a larger factor in the construction industry. We will soon be at the point where embodied carbon is half of the carbon associated with a building during its lifetime.
Rachel Taylor
I thank the hon. Member for her lengthy and detailed explanation of zero carbon standards. Does she think it is appropriate to constrain the Minister to bringing forward building regulations within the short period of six months? Would that take longer? Not all of us have the same detailed and intricate knowledge of the standards that would be required, although I understand a great deal about building regulations.
Ellie Chowns
In fairness, I did not draft the new clause. I recognise that it says six months, but as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington spoke about so eloquently, we had proposals for net zero carbon building standards on the table 10 years ago. This has been in development for 20 years. The sector itself is way ahead of Government on this. A huge amount of work has been done by the Low Energy Transformation Initiative, the Royal Institute of British Architects and all sorts of organisations to develop zero carbon building standards.
Although bringing regulations forward within six months is arguably ambitious, it is not that the work is not available. The missing thing is political will, and political will can be found, as we have seen—we have passed a bill in less than 24 hours in this House within the last few weeks. Where there is political will, things can be done quickly. This is not an unreasonable proposal in this legislation. All the technical work is there; it is political will that is missing to bring forward a zero carbon standard for new homes. I could not more warmly welcome this new clause.
Olly Glover
I wish to add some concise thoughts to support the new clause, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington, which requires new homes to be built to a net zero carbon building standard and include provision for generation of solar power. My comments relate to the current political context in our country, which is—regrettably, in my view—more and more cynicism about net zero and the feeling that climate change mitigation is a negative, a drag on our lives and something that will cost us loads of money.
These proposals on zero carbon homes and solar panels are the exact opposite of all that. They are a good example of how taking action on climate change and striving for net zero brings economic opportunity by stimulating supply chains and the labour force and helping people to reduce their bills, creating more money for them to spend on the wider economy. Of course, it helps our planet as well. We need to be far more radical on policies like these, and there needs to be far less delay. We really need to get on with it, because they benefit people, planet and economy.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling the new clause, and other hon. Members for speaking to it. They are all right to highlight the damage caused by the scrapping of the zero carbon homes standard back in 2015. It is worth recalling that that was widely criticised at the time, not only by environmentalists, but by house builders that had geared up to be ready to make the change. It is particularly regrettable, not least to me—I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen, will feel the same—to confront the collective costs of the retrofit that is now required because those standards were not in place.
The Government agree that reducing carbon emissions from new homes is a vital part of our ambition to reach net zero by 2050, and increasing solar power in the country must play an important role in that transition. However, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington said when he referenced the debate on the private Member’s Bill that we had a few months back, it is already the Government’s intention to amend building regulations later this year and set more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emission requirements for new homes. The future homes and building standards will set our homes on a path that moves away from relying on volatile fossil fuels.
We are conducting further technical stakeholder engagement on solar energy following feedback from the future homes and building standards consultation. It is our responsibility to make sure that solar provision is included in the new standards in a way that is ambitious, but technically achievable. We are working through the details to get that right. It is also our responsibility to provide industry with sufficient time to prepare to ensure that any transition to new standards is as smooth as possible. The time spent carefully engaging with industry on the future homes standard makes me confident that a smooth transition to higher standards is entirely possible.
Therefore, I can assure hon. Members that the Government remain committed to improving the energy efficiency of new homes and increasing solar panel deployment. Without seeking to tease hon. Members, who will not have to wait too long for further information in this area, we are doing that. I reassure the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington that very fruitful conversations continue with the hon. Member for Cheltenham. I recognise the leadership he has shown in bringing his private Member’s Bill, which has drawn more attention to the issue. For those reasons, and in view of our firm commitment to bring forward those future standards, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington might withdraw his new clause.
Gideon Amos
Before I respond to the Minister, I note that I should have spoken to new clause 11. I will not do so at length, but it would improve accessibility for new homes, make sure they are adaptable and introduce a minimum standard for them.
On the zero carbon standard, I am grateful for the Minister’s generally positive response about the direction of travel, but so far, the rhetoric has been about getting us nearer to zero carbon. We need to be bold and decide that we are finally going to make new homes zero carbon. It is a small step to take. In previous legislation, there was an allowable solution that would compensate for the final balance of emissions in any new house that could not achieve it through fabric first. It is achievable, it needs to be done, and we will push new clause 5 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 34—Sustainable drainage (No. 2)—
“The Secretary of State must, within one month of the passing of this Act—
(a) bring into force Schedule 3 (Sustainable drainage) of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and
(b) provide guidance to local planning authorities, land and property developers and other relevant stakeholders on—
(i) how to incorporate sustainable drainage into new developments, and
(ii) the minimum expected standards for ongoing maintenance of sustainable drainage infrastructure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and provide guidance on the building in of sustainable drainage in future developments.
New clause 89—Review of drainage performance of new developments—
“(1) A review of a development’s drainage performance must take place five years after the completion of the development.
(2) Where a review recommends that action be taken to improve the development’s drainage performance, the developer must implement such recommendations, giving priority to those relating to flood risk.”
This new clause requires developers to review the drainage performance of a development five years after being built.
Gideon Amos
It is a pleasure to speak to new clause 7, which would require schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to be commenced. My Liberal Democrat colleagues have pressed on this matter repeatedly over recent months and years, including in Westminster Hall. The schedule, which was never commenced, would require sustainable drainage systems—SuDS—to be provided in all but the most exceptional cases. It would establish a proper authority for regulations to ensure they are properly designed and maintained. It is not right that because of inadequate regulation and safeguards, the burden of poorly constructed drainage systems should fall on individuals who have saved for years to get their first home. Without proper enforcement of sustainable drainage, there is a real risk that the drive to increase housing numbers will exacerbate the current problems with drainage and flooding.
After the 2007 floods, Sir Michael Pitt recommended the introduction of the provision. It was duly passed as part of the 2010 Act, but it was never commenced. By 2014, the Government had consulted on the necessary guidance and were on track for commencement before the end of 2015. In 2015, the consultation came to an end, the work came to an end and it was not commenced. The policy approach taken by the then Conservative Government was that we would deal with sustainable drainage through policy, and policy would be sufficient. A little later on, in their 2023 review of the implementation of schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, they set out that a previous review had concluded that
“non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems should be made statutory: as the ambiguity makes the role of the planning authority very difficult. The review also found that in general there were no specific checking regimes in place to ensure that SuDS had been constructed as agreed, leaving concerns about unsatisfactory standards of design and construction, and of difficulties of ensuring proper maintenance once the developer has left the site.”
If only that schedule had been brought into effect, a great deal of flooding of people’s homes would have been avoided.
In the past, we have had a body of law to control our sewage and drainage system, originally from the Public Health Act 1936, which dealt with any kind of drain that is
“communicating with a public sewer”,
in the words of the Act. But SuDS are a new way of doing things, and they do not have the same body of regulation. There is therefore no longer any reason why schedule 3 should not be commenced as soon as possible, if not immediately. It should not take another flood to make that happen.
It is time to implement the recommendations of the 2008 review, the Government’s consultation response in 2014, the 2023 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs review that I quoted, and schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 before our constituents find themselves forced into communicating with a public sewer in their homes and gardens in a way that is all too close and personal.
Paul Holmes
I commend the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on tabling the new clause. It is very similar to new clause 34, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). My hon. Friend’s goes slightly further, in that it would ensure
“minimum expected standards for ongoing maintenance”,
but we welcome the sentiment, and we understand why the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Democrats have tabled the new clause.
This is an issue that many of us have faced. The hon. Gentleman and I both attended a Westminster Hall debate about problems with drainage in new developments. I said then that in our constituencies, several of us could point to new developments in which planning officers and constituents had no confidence, even though the planning authority had acted entirely appropriately within the guidelines. I think particularly of Botley parish council in my constituency and Boorley Green, where development is going on along the River Hamble and further up into Winchester Street. Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was supposed to help with the expected standards.
With many new developments, a lot of the water companies are not sufficiently accountable to the people they serve. Local authorities are slightly constrained by the planning system from making the changes that they could make to help the long-standing flooding problems, if schedule 3 was brought in.
I welcome the new clause, and it will have our support. We will work with the hon. Gentleman on Report to strengthen the new clause. I do not mean that there is anything wrong with it, but I would like it to be combined with new clause 33 and the standards on ongoing maintenance. I hope the hon. Gentleman takes that as a helpful suggestion, and we look forward to supporting his new clause.
Ellie Chowns
I rise to speak in support of new clause 7. I have spoken about flooding in the main Chamber at least five times. Constituents have come to see me in my surgeries to tell me that they have been flooded out of their new homes only six months after they were built, because of a lack of appropriate drainage. As climate change brings us greater extremes and severity of weather, we know that frequent flooding will become even more of a problem, so it is imperative that any new building is flood resilient.
I draw the Committee’s attention to my new clauses 85 and 86, which I will move if we have time tomorrow or on Thursday. They are also designed to prevent building on flood plains, and to ensure that flood resilience measures are in place for all new buildings. It is quite extraordinary that 15 years after SuDS were provided for in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, they have still not been brought in. I add my voice to those of my Lib Dem and Conservative colleagues urging the Government to support the new clause, and to ensure that all new building is genuinely flood resilient and does not contribute to further problems downstream for other areas, housing or infrastructure.
Olly Glover
I rise to speak to new clause 89, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). It would support what other hon. Members have been seeking with their amendments by requiring developers to review the drainage performance of a development five years after being built and by clarifying that it is very much for the developer to take remedial action when such drainage performance is found to be inadequate.
My hon. Friend tabled the amendment for a range of reasons, not least because the new house building in his constituency, and indeed in mine, has included a number of areas where drainage installation has not been done adequately. There have subsequently been lots of issues with the local authority not being willing to adopt because of that; then there has been all the usual argy-bargy that many of us are familiar with between developer and local authority.
The amendment also speaks to a concern of many residents that the scale of house building and the drainage facilities put in place contribute to local flood risk and flooding incidents. A couple of examples from my constituency: the Anderson Place estate in East Hanney and the Childrey Park estate of East Challow have had both flooding issues and those arguments between local authority and developer. For those reasons, we have tabled new clause 89 to put greater onus on developers to ensure that they are installing drainage to the required standard, and that assessment takes place subsequently within five years.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Members for proposing these amendments. Once again, the Government very much sympathise with their objectives. I personally found the recent Westminster Hall debate extremely useful in clarifying my thinking on this matter and the wider issue of water infrastructure.
The Government are strongly committed to requiring sustainable drainage systems in new development. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire cites 15 years—we have had 10 months, and within that time we have already taken steps to improve the delivery of SuDS through the planning system. The revised national planning policy framework, published in December, expanded the requirement to provide SuDS to all development with drainage implications. The framework now also makes clear that SuDS provided as part of proposals for major developments should have maintenance arrangements in place to ensure an acceptable standard of operation for the lifetime of the development. The Government also provide planning guidance on sustainable drainage, which supports policies contained within the NPPF.
Some time has passed since the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 came into force, and it is important that we consider the most efficient and effective way of securing its objectives in the current circumstances. More specifically, better delivery of SuDS may be achieved by continuing to improve the delivery of the current policy-based approach, rather than commencing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
I believe that the underlying ambition is shared. We want to improve the take-up of SuDS, but the means of achieving that are under active consideration. I understand why in all these debates hon. Members wish to push the Government because they feel an urgency to use this legislation to enact every change to the planning system that they want to see. However, I say to the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for North Herefordshire that a final decision on this particular matter will be made in the coming months. I hope that on that basis they will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
I turn to new clause 89. It seeks, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage just set out, to introduce a new requirement for developers to undertake a review of the drainage performance of a development five years after being built and to take action when it is needed to improve the development’s drainage performance. As part of the planning application process, developers will need to set out plans for the long-term management of a site, including for drainage infrastructure. That will be agreed as part of the planning permission for the use of the planning conditions or section 106 agreements, and can include arrangements for agreed bodies to take on the management of drainage infrastructure.
When a developer proposes to use SuDS as part of a development, it is clear in planning practice guidance that the proposal should include arrangements for their long-term maintenance. The arrangements will include setting out an agreed body that will adopt the SuDS once the development is completed and take on the maintenance of this infrastructure.
Gideon Amos
I genuinely appreciate the Minister’s constructive response; I know that he is interested in and concerned about the issue.
We all know that the industry will have objections to new regulations—back in the day, house builders objected to being required to put bathrooms inside houses. Objections will come as surely as night follows day. Previous Governments responded by saying, “Don’t worry; we can just change policy—it will be fine.” The 2023 report explicitly states that the policy approach has not worked. We have had 10 years of experimentation and a full Government review by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the response was that the current ambiguity makes the role of the planning authority very difficult—essentially, it has not worked.
Relying on policy is also a departure from the tried-and-tested approach in which things to do with the physical structure of the building—drainage and all those matters—come under the building regulations. All drainage matters come under the building regulations, so why would sustainable drainage not be covered by regulations but be a matter of policy? That leaves the ambiguity that the DEFRA report points out, and it simply has not worked. For all those reasons, I cannot see any alternative to our pressing the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 14—Purposes and principles to be followed by parties exercising planning or development functions—
“(1) Any party exercising any function in relation to planning and development must—
(a) have regard to the purpose of the planning system outlined in subsection (2), and
(b) apply the principles outlined in subsection (3) for the purposes of achieving sustainable development.
(2) The purpose of the planning system is to promote the spatial organisation of land and resources to achieve the long-term sustainable development of the nation and the health and wellbeing of individuals.
(3) The principles are—
(a) living within environmental limits;
(b) ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;
(c) achieving a sustainable economy;
(d) promoting good governance including promoting democratic engagement and accountability; and
(e) using sound science responsibly.
(4) For the purposes of this section, ‘sustainable development’ means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while ensuring the health and integrity of terrestrial and marine ecosystems and the species within them, as well as the wellbeing of future generations.”
The new clause would define the purpose of the planning system and of planning as promoting the efficient spatial organisation of land and resources to achieve the long-term sustainable development of the nation and the health and wellbeing of individuals.
New clause 41—Exercise of planning functions to be compatible with the purpose of planning—
“(1) Any person or body exercising a planning function must do so in a manner that is compatible with the purpose of planning as set out in subsection (2).
(2) The purpose of planning is to manage the development and use of land in the long-term public interest.
(3) Anything which—
(a) addresses the long-term common good and wellbeing of current and future generations,
(b) has full regard to the achievement of the commitments in and under the Climate Change Act 2008 or the Environment Act 2021,
(c) is in accordance with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and
(d) delivers fair planning processes that are open, accessible and efficient,
is to be considered as being in the long-term public interest.
(4) In this section, a planning function means any statutory power or duty relating to the use or development of land in England.”
This new clause would introduce a purpose of planning and provide that anyone exercising a planning function must do so in a manner that is compatible with that purpose.
Gideon Amos
New clause 9 concerns healthy homes, and would ensure that national and local government plans are designed with a clear and explicit aim of improving the physical, mental and social health and wellbeing of people in those homes.
We cannot afford to keep building homes that make people ill. It is instructive to recall that the original planning system and the original planning Act emerged from the garden city movement, the public health movement and the desire to enable people to escape from slums. The first planning Act was the Housing, Town Planning, etc. Act 1909, which was mainly concerned with public health. We need to re-establish the link between planning and health if we are going to improve our health outcomes, prevent health inequalities and address the sicknesses in our society.
Right now, 3.5 million homes, which are lived in by around 15% of households, fail to meet the decent homes standard. That is not just a housing issue; it is a public health issue. According to the Resolution Foundation, poor-quality housing doubles the likelihood of someone experiencing poor general health. It costs the NHS £1.4 billion a year to treat to treat and costs society an estimated £18.5 billion, because it damages productivity, education outcomes and life chances. If we are serious about levelling up and addressing health inequalities, we must start with the homes that people live in.
We know that deregulation has not worked. The extension of permitted developments under the last Government allowed the conversion of offices and shops into substandard housing, flats without windows, and rooms too small for someone to stretch their arms out without touching the walls. Those were “homes” in name only. If the Government enact any further changes to permitted development rights, they should at least adopt this new clause to ensure that those homes are healthy, regardless of how they are built.
Even the revised national planning policy framework, while nodding towards health inequalities, includes no effective levers to address them or to force those making development decisions to consider health outcomes. A vague instruction to have regard to local health inequalities is simply not enough.
Similarly, while the decent homes standard refers to health outcomes, it deals only with fixing the dangers in the existing rental stock. We need to consider health outcomes during the development stage to prevent dangers, rather than considering them only when they have already become a problem. This new clause would do that. It is about designing out risks from the start and embedding health into the DNA of planning once again, and into development policy.
This new clause is backed by the Town and Country Planning Association, which says it will establish clarity on housing standards and wider development quality, setting a level playing field for industry. That is fundamental for promoting positive health outcomes across all new homes and communities.
Surely, it is time that we moved from building homes quickly and at any cost to building them well and making them healthy for the people who live in them. I urge the Committee to support new clause 9.
Ellie Chowns
I rise to speak to new clauses 14 and 41, which have been grouped with new clause 9 and address the same question of what the purpose of planning should be. To be clear, new clause 14 has the support of the Town and Country Planning Association, and new clause 41 has the support of the Royal Town Planning Institute. Indeed, there is a widely held view in the planning sector that it is necessary to have a clear statutory purpose for planning, both to guide planning decisions and to make it more publicly understandable what planning does and what it is for.
The suggestion in these new clauses is that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill should take the opportunity to set out a clear purpose for planning, based on the UN’s sustainable development principles, to which, of course, the UK Government are a signatory and make fairly frequent reference. That would offer an opportunity to build consensus around the purpose of planning in all its diverse glory—not just in plan making, but in decision making.
What we have seen with the Government’s emphasis on reframing national planning policy in the NPPF as being all about economic growth is not just bad for the environment but risks missing out on the opportunity to ensure that all planning policy and decisions are good for people, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington just explained.
Creating a statutory purpose for planning would give a clear foundation for national planning policy and would help to prevent the sudden shifts in national policy direction that have been a feature of the system since 2010. As it currently stands, planning law has only an exceptionally weak duty:
“to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development”.
That duty is limited only to plan making and does not extend to decision making. That existing duty contains no definition of sustainable development and makes no reference to the internationally recognised framework of the sustainable development goals.
I feel that in framing a vision for our future development, as outlined in new clause 14, a specific requirement should be placed on the Secretary of State to have special regard for the wellbeing of present and future generations in planning. Planning decisions are, by definition, long term. The world we inhabit today is shaped by planning decisions made decades in the past, so it can only be right that we explicitly recognise the needs of children and young people in both plan making and decision making.
Although new clauses 14 and 41 have slightly different wording, their intention is effectively the same, which is to ask the Secretary of State to use the Bill as an opportunity to set out a statutory purpose for planning that specifically frames all planning decisions around the broad concept of sustainable development, as very clearly articulated in the SDGs and elsewhere.
Matthew Pennycook
We can all agree that the design and use of the built and natural environment are major determinants of health and wellbeing. That is why this important matter is addressed in the planning system through both policy and guidance such as the NPPF and PPG, which includes the national design guide and the national model design code.
The hon. Lady said that the Government have made the NPPF all about economic growth. No, we are very clear that we made changes to ensure that the NPPF is pro-growth, but the NPPF makes it clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, with a fundamental part of this being to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities.
Ellie Chowns
Will the Minister set out his definition of sustainable development?
Matthew Pennycook
I will do better than that and direct the hon. Lady to the appropriate paragraphs in the NPPF, which set out a clear explanation of what is meant by the purpose and the presumption that runs through it.
The framework further sets out that planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places that promote social interaction. This includes opportunities for meetings between people who might not otherwise come into contact with each other, and that enable and support healthy lives—both by promoting good health and preventing ill health, especially where this addresses identified local health and wellbeing needs and seeks to reduce health inequalities.
The framework also recognises that access to a network of high-quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for health and wellbeing and it is clear that local plans should seek to meet the identified need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and should seek opportunities for new provision.
It is a legal requirement to have regard to national policies and guidance issued by the Secretary of State, such as the NPPF and the national design guide, when preparing a local or strategic plan. Such policies and guidance are also material considerations in planning decisions, where relevant. Therefore, while I understand the intent behind this amendment, we are clear that these important matters are best recognised and addressed through national planning policy and guidance, all of which must be considered in the preparation of local plans and, where relevant, in planning decisions.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for tabling new clauses 14 and 41. They are right that planning should serve a clear purpose, which is why its purpose is front and centre of our NPPF to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of homes, commercial development and supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. What that should mean in practice is set out through the policies in the framework, and through the policies in the development plan for each area. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan in question, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is one of those material considerations and must also be taken into account in preparing the development plan.
Furthermore, there are already well established mechanisms in place to enable communities to engage with planning processes and shape the development that takes place in their area. This includes through statutory consultation, which local planning authorities are required to undertake, as the hon. Lady will be aware, for both plan making and when determining planning applications.
Ellie Chowns
Would the Minister care to explain why the TCPA and the RTPI feel that the existing framework is not adequate?
Matthew Pennycook
No, in short, and I will give the hon. Lady my explanation. I had extensive debates during the last Parliament with the TCPA and Lord Crisp, who is a proponent of healthy homes. I well understand where the TCPA is coming from, but I am not going to purport to set out the reasons why it thinks this issue is important. I am setting out the Government’s position, and why we think that existing national planning policy and guidance are sufficient in this area. However, I accept there may be a genuine difference about how necessary and beneficial it is to define a clear purpose of the planning system. The Government have a view on that, and I concede that the TCPA and others will continue to campaign in this area.
Gideon Amos
I simply make the brief point that there is a whole swathe of statutory requirements on planning—good design, sustainable development, mitigating climate change—and such legal duties can be included in planning legislation.
Matthew Pennycook
I venture to say that the hon. Gentleman almost makes my point for me. There is a whole layering of statute, policy and guidance, and if we had more time, we could have a more extensive debate on the merits or otherwise of including a clear purpose of the planning system. I am sure there would be lots of disagreement about what that purpose should be. However, on the principle, as I have set out, the Government think that planning policy and guidance are adequate to achieve the outcomes we all want to see achieved through the planning system.
Gideon Amos
Thank you, Ms Jardine. You have reminded me that I have the right to sum up, which I am happy to forgo in the interests of time. We will not push new clause 9 to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Thursday 22nd May 2025
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 May 2025 - (22 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I ask Members to send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk and to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are now allowed during sittings.
I remind Members that interventions are taken at the discretion of the Member who has the Floor and that they should be short and relevant. Members may bob to make a speech if they want to speak at more length.
The Committee will be considering new clauses today. As a reminder, new clauses will be considered in numerical order, as on the amendment paper and on the selection and grouping paper. They may be grouped with other new clauses for the purposes of debate, and where a new clause has been debated previously, it cannot be debated further when it is reached. Members should let me know if they wish to push it to a vote.
The Committee will conclude its consideration of the Bill at 5 pm. I refer Members to the detailed advice circulated to them by the Clerks in advance of the sitting. To recap, however, if the Committee is still considering the Bill at 5 pm, the Chair must interrupt and bring proceedings to a close. After 5 pm, there can be no further debate on any remaining propositions. The Chair will, in accordance with the Standing Order, put the questions on the new clause that was under discussion at 5 pm, on any outstanding Government amendment and on any remaining clause stand part questions before reporting the Bill. I also have discretion to put the question on any non-Government new clauses that have previously been debated. New clauses that have not been debated cannot be considered or voted on. Should any Member wish to request a vote on a previously debated new clause, they should let me know in advance.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
On a point of order, Ms Jardine. You said that debate would continue until 5 pm, but I have just been told by the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Wellingborough and Rushden that she intends to stop debate at 1 o’clock.
The Chair
I am sorry. There are two separate things. We will stop at 1 pm and adjourning until the afternoon sitting, unless we are finished at that point, in which case good. The latest that debate can continue to, however, is 5 pm.
Ellie Chowns
Further to that point of order, Ms Jardine. So if we have not got through all the new clauses in this sitting, we will continue this afternoon.
The Chair
Yes, until 5 pm, but if we can get through the new clauses before then it would be helpful.
New Clause 10
New car parks to include solar panels
“(1) No local planning authority may approve an application for the building of an above-ground car park which does not make the required provision of solar panels.
(2) The required provision of solar panels is an amount equivalent to 50% of the surface area of the car park.”—(Olly Glover.)
This new clause would require solar panels to be provided with all new car parks.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 31—Incentives for installing solar panels—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish a scheme under which specified parties who install or incorporate fitted solar panels on a specified property, whether as permitted development or following a grant of planning permission, receive financial benefits or rewards.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
‘specified parties’ means homeowners and the owners of car parks;
‘specified properties’ means the home of the homeowner or the owner’s car park.”
This new clause would create a new scheme to provide financial incentive to homeowners and carpark owners who install solar panels on their properties.
Olly Glover
Once again, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.
I have moved new clause 10 and will speak to new clause 31, both tabled by the Liberal Democrats. New clause 10 would require solar panels to be provided on all new car parks and new clause 31 would create a scheme to provide financial incentives to homeowners and car park owners who install solar panels on their properties.
Clearly, the main driver of the new clauses is the climate change challenge that we face but, as I said previously in Committee, it is not just a challenge, but an opportunity: embracing more solar power generation enables us to become more self-sufficient in energy generation, and homeowners and others to reduce their energy bills. That is a good example of something that helps people, planet and economy.
New and existing car parks could provide 11.4 GW of solar capacity, which would go a long way towards reaching the Government target of 70 GW of solar by 2035. If land is already being used for a car park, why not make more use of that land and generate renewable energy? Generating energy close to where it is used means fewer energy losses, which is more efficient and makes the energy cheaper to the end user. That is an example of the sort of local electricity grids that we need to move towards in the 21st century of power generation.
Existing and new car parks, and non-domestic roofs between 50 kW and 1,000 kW, have costs comparable to solar farms, and so could be similarly economically attractive. Solar farms are predominantly rural and can require extensive planning permission and additional construction costs due to location, such as long-length cables and large transformers. Car parks also provide the opportunity to use the energy generated directly to charge electric vehicles, thereby relieving pressure on the grid and making driving electric vehicles more attractive. The Government have been clear about their aspiration for us to move to electric vehicles as standard.
In 2022, France introduced similar legislation to that which we are proposing, and it took effect in 2023. The French Government calculated that the measure will result in a capacity of between 6.75 GW and 11.25 GW. For context, Drax, the UK’s largest power station, has a capacity of between a quarter and a half of that, at just 2.6 GW. If not mandated, incentivising such schemes should be the minimum requirement. We are not using car parking space to its full potential, so I hope that the Minister will seize the opportunity to change that by supporting the new clause.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I have missed our Wednesday “Politics Scotland” soirées, so it is nice to be with you again. I will begin by speaking to new clause 10. I was going to speak to new clause 31 as well, but I do not know whether anyone intends to move it.
New clause 10, which was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would require the provision of solar panels on at least 50% of the surface area of above-ground car parks. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is proposing, and we share his ambition. Indeed, in the “Clean Power 2030 Action Plan”, which we published just before Christmas, we outlined the pathway to achieving a clean power system. Solar photovoltaic deployment is a key component of that, and through the plan we hope to increase solar output from 18 GW to between 45 GW and 47 GW by 2030.
We were very clear in the plan that we saw solar PV as a real opportunity, but we also stated our intention to gather evidence on the potential of putting solar canopies on car parks. As the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage pointed out, although that principle seems entirely sensible and something that I would entirely agree with, there are some details that we would want to work out on how it could be delivered and the economics of it. That is why we are consulting right now. Our call for evidence is open on the potential for mandatory installation of solar canopies on new car parks, and indeed on increasing the potential for solar on current car parks. It is important that we properly engage with industry on this question, particularly on the economics of how it could be delivered because we want to be really clear on the impact that it could have on car parks and of course on the users of car parks if costs are passed on.
I assure both hon. Members that we are in favour of the idea. Fundamentally, we want solar to be part of our pathway to clean power. If it can be deployed on the rooftops of industrial buildings, car parks, warehouses or any rooftop we can use, that clearly is the best and easiest way to do it, but we want an adequate evidence base before we do that. For that reason, we will not support the new clause, but I hope the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage appreciates that we broadly agree with the general direction that he is proposing.
Olly Glover
I thank the Minister for his thoughtful comments. We understand that there will be some technical details to look into, although of course that is the case for many aspects of the Bill overall. We wish to press the new clause to a vote, because we think this is a very important topic and that this is an opportunity to be progressed.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—Dismissal of appeal or referral—
“In section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (determination of appeals), after subsection (6A) insert—
‘(6B) The Secretary of State may dismiss an appeal or referral where, having considered the appeal or referral, the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the appeal or referral is—
(a) vexatious, frivolous or without substance or foundation, or
(b) made with the sole intention of—
(i) delaying the development, or
(ii) securing the payment of money, gifts or other inducement by any person.’”
This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to dismiss appeals or referrals in certain circumstances.
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. New clauses 12 and 13 relate to the introduction of a community right of appeal against planning applications that are approved contrary to the local development plan. That includes policy in local and neighbourhood plans.
New clause 12 reflects the wider need to rebuild public trust in a system that is perceived to be dominated by the power of private sector development interests. It has additional importance in the context of the provisions in the Bill to restrict democratic oversight of planning decisions by locally elected members, which would mean that planning officers and not councillors would decide on the final outcomes of major planning applications.
New clause 12 would address the unfairness in our planning system, whereby only applicants have a right to appeal planning decisions. It would create a strictly limited community right of appeal that applies only when decisions are approved contrary to local planning policy; it would balance things up by creating a reciprocal right of appeal, essentially. That reflects the minimal opportunities that are currently available to the public in the taking of development management decisions and the frustration caused when decisions are made that go against local and neighbourhood plans that have been agreed by communities. New clause 13 is an additional safeguard to give the Secretary of State powers to intervene if the community appeal is considered to be vexatious. Taken together, the new clauses are proportionate and limited measures that could begin to rebuild public trust in the planning system.
Creating such a qualified right was an important recommendation of the Raynsford review of planning in 2018, which was produced by the Town and Country Planning Association. I warmly commend the new clauses to the Committee.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine, and I thank the hon. Lady for speaking to the two new clauses, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff).
We have a long-established and much-valued right of appeal in the planning system. It recognises that the system acts as a control on how an individual may use their land. That existing right of appeal compensates for the removal of the individual’s right to develop.
The planning system already enables community involvement through the preparation of local development plans and neighbourhood plans, and through consultation on individual planning applications. Given that these opportunities already exist, the Government do not believe that it is either necessary or helpful to introduce a right of appeal for interested parties.
New clause 12 would serve only to discourage early involvement in the planning process or lead to repeated consideration of issues that have already been raised and addressed during the planning application process. In our view, adding a new appeal process to the planning system would create more delay, costs, complexity and unpredictability, undermining confidence in the system and ultimately delaying the delivery of new housing and economic development at a time when we need to get Britain building again, which we have been very clear about. For that reason, we will not be able to accept new clause 12.
I turn to new clause 13. We do not believe that we should extend appeal rights to third parties, which again would serve only to delay the planning process and hinder the development of new housing and economic development. Although I welcome the sentiment behind the new clause—namely, to deter appeals submitted for spurious or non-planning reasons—in our view there are already appropriate measures in place to respond to such appeals through the awards of cost regime. The appeal system in the awards of cost regime helps to stop unmeritorious appeals by making those who submit them pay costs, thereby discouraging vexatious or frivolous cases.
For those reasons, the Government will not be able to accept either new clause.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 16
Refusal of planning permission for countryside development close to large electricity pylons
“(1) If an application is made for planning permission or permission in principle relating to large scale housing development in the countryside which—
(a) may lead to affordable housing being built within 100m of the centreline of any high voltage overhead electrical transmission system; or
(b) may lead to any new residential dwelling or new residential garden being within 50m of the centreline of any high voltage overhead electrical transmission system
the local planning authority must refuse the application.
(2) This section applies to any planning permission for large scale housing development in the countryside for which a decision notice has been issued by a local planning authority since 11 May 2022.
(3) If planning permission has been granted for development to which this section applies which contravenes subsection (1), that planning permission shall be revoked.
(4) The revocation of planning permission for the carrying out of building or other operations shall not affect so much of those operations as has been previously carried out.
(5) In this section—
‘large scale housing development’ means any development which includes more than 500 houses;
‘countryside’ includes any predominantly agricultural, rural or greenfield land;
‘may lead to’ includes plans for housing shown in any outline or illustrative masterplan;
‘high voltage overhead electrical transmission system’ means any overhead electrical transmission system at or over 275kV.”—(Gideon Amos.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 29—Inclusion of wildbelt in planning considerations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act—
(a) create a category of protection for wildbelt areas in England for the purpose of permanently protecting such areas from or during development, and
(b) issue guidance for local planning authorities and other relevant parties on how wildbelt land is to be protected.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), ‘permanently protecting’ areas means protecting or restoring the natural environment in a wildbelt area, and in ecosystems functionally connected to a wildbelt area.
(3) Guidance issued under subsection (1)(b) must—
(a) provide assistance to local planning authorities and others on the identification of wildbelt sites;
(b) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the development of spatial development strategies regarding—
(i) the use of Local Nature Recovery Strategies to protect and enhance wildbelt;
(ii) the reporting of progress towards the development of wildbelt sites; and
(iii) the reporting of progress towards the use of wildbelt designation to increase public access to nature.
(4) For the purposes of this section, ‘wildbelt’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify in guidance, but must include—
(a) areas of land;
(b) bodies of water and adjacent land;
(c) wetlands.”
This new clause would enable the creation of new wildbelt areas and associated ecosystems, and require guidance to be issued regarding the use of provisions of the bill to protect wildbelt areas.
New clause 47—Prohibition of solar development on higher-quality agricultural land—
“No permission may be granted for the building or installation of provision for solar power generation where the development would involve—
(a) the building on or development of agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a, and
(b) building or installation at ground-level.”
This new clause would prohibit the development of solar power generation on higher quality agricultural land.
New clause 74—Conditions for installation of solar panels on productive land—
“Where an application for permission proposes the installation of solar panels on land used or suitable for agricultural production, it must be a condition of any grant of consent that such panels are installed at a minimum height of one metre from the ground.”
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak to new clause 29, which would enable the creation of new wild belt areas and associated ecosystems, and require guidance to be issued regarding them. In January, the Office for Environmental Protection reported that the Government are off track for meeting the nature recovery target set out in the Environment Act 2024 and the related commitment to protect 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030—the 30 by 30 target, which was really important.
Getting nature recovery back on track will require the restoration of hundreds of thousands of natural habitats. A new claim designation will be needed to achieve that upgrading and uprating of habitat protection land. For example, sites where habitats are in recovery are not yet at the point where they could qualify for existing protections, such as sites of special scientific interest. Put simply, there is no mechanism to safeguard the next generation of nature sites. We desperately need these new sites for nature to emerge if we are going to achieve the doubling of nature that the Liberal Democrats had in our manifesto. That includes the doubling of protected areas and/or meeting the 30 by 30 target.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to create the new wild belt designation within six months of the passing of the Act, and to limit development in those areas. It would also require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on implementing the new wild belt sites. The new wild belt would be protection for the next generation of nature sites, and would ensure that early habitat restoration is not upended by a change in land use or by new development proposals.
As well as turbocharging efforts to meet nature recovery targets, the increase in habitat recovery provided by wild belts could also help with the climate, by protecting land and reducing carbon emissions. Finally, wild belt sites could create a new space that people can use to connect with nature. The guidance required by the new clause would require local authorities to increase public access to nature through wild belt designations and to report on progress towards this objective. Increased access to nature is associated with improved health outcomes and life satisfaction, as well.
New wild belt sites could be assets for local communities. Community use of wild belts can include space for outdoor education, shared wildlife-friendly gardening spaces, and new river walks to help people of all ages enjoy the benefits of access to nature. Similarly, wild belt designation would not cause undue problems for development or landowners. Many landowners would welcome the designation as a way of securing the protection and nature management of their land, which could be aligned with schemes such as environmental land management schemes. The Government could give extra weighting to ELMS applications where landowners are applying for wild belt areas.
In summary, the wild belt clause would significantly increase the contribution the Bill makes to achieving nature recovery targets, while also helping net zero efforts and ensuring that new homes are progressed alongside flourishing wild spaces that local communities can enjoy. Wild belt would be a win-win for nature, climate and people, and we urge the Committee to support it.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to continue with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak to new clause 16, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). The new clause goes some of the way to address what I spoke about on Second Reading, about how we must create communities. When we are designing new large-scale housing in the countryside, community and design must be at the forefront.
I want the Government to look at what more they can do, because we do not want affordable homes to be put next to large electricity transmission systems. In the interests of time, I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to write to me on this issue, setting out the Government’s position and explaining what they are doing, when we have large-scale development in the countryside, to stop the social housing element of the development being placed in these locations.
Matthew Pennycook
I will respond briefly to new clauses 16 and 29, but I am more than happy to expand on what I say in writing to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. New clause 16 relates to the refusal of planning permission for large-scale housing developments where they are close to large electricity pylons in the countryside.
The new clause seeks to require local planning authorities to refuse applications for planning permission, or permission in principle, for large-scale residential development in the countryside that falls within specific distances of overhead electricity lines. It would also require any planning permission granted since 11 May 2022—a specific date—to be revoked where the development meets the criteria set out in the new clause.
There is nothing in current planning legislation that prohibits development near to overhead electricity lines. However, there are mechanisms within the existing system that ensure decision makers are aware of and—to the extent that they are material—take into account potential safety or other issues of siting development near overhead lines. When developing sites that are close to overhead lines, in practical terms, developers are more likely to position less sensitive elements of their development under these, such as roads rather than homes, which can further minimise any impact.
In the Government’s view, including a clause within legislation that requires the refusal of certain large-scale residential developments together with the revocation of existing permissions would be a major departure from the current approach in planning legislation. It would have a significant impact and would therefore need to be supported by strong justification. That is particularly the case given that other types of safety risk, such as residential development near oil pipes, are deal with adequately under the current framework.
I would also highlight that in the case where an existing planning permission is revoked, which happens very rarely at present, it can be subject to compensation payable to the developer in particular circumstances. That could be significant in the context of large-scale housing development. National Grid has published guidance relevant for development near overhead lines, which ensures that decision makers are aware of safety and amenity issues that may arise from development within close proximity of electricity pylons and overhead lines, citing statutory safety clearances. It also encourages early and proactive engagement with National Grid on plans and individual schemes, which are brought forward within proximity of its infrastructure. That is precisely so that matters can be considered and addressed at the outset.
Given the mechanisms already in place to address impacts on development near high-voltage lines, the new clause would place unnecessary restrictions on the decision-making powers of local planning authorities. For those reasons, we cannot accept it, but, as I said, I am more than happy to set out some further detail to hopefully reassure the hon. Members for Broxbourne and for South Leicestershire.
I turn to new clause 29, as tabled by and spoken to by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. The Government are committed to ensuring that our goal of building 1.5 million homes does not come at the expense of nature. We have had several debates where the Government have reinforced our position in that respect. We are taking steps towards achieving our commitment of protecting 30% of our land for nature by 2030.
I again highlight, as I have in previous debates, local nature recovery strategies, which were introduced under the Environment Act 2021 and are being rolled out across England. They are vehicles to agree priorities for nature’s recovery, to map the most valuable existing areas for nature and to identify proposals for creating or improving habitats for nature and wider environmental goals. They will provide a basis for local decision makers to take informed decisions about where to protect and restore areas that are of importance for nature recovery. They will be able to identify the best opportunities to create or improve habitats, while enabling the development that is needed in their area.
It is important that local areas have flexibility in how they do that. We are not convinced that we need a new category of designated area in law to achieve that end. Development plans at both the local and strategic level will be required to take account of local nature recovery strategies under provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and this Bill when brought into force, and will be able to identify area for environmental improvement.
The Government published guidance setting out the role of local nature recovery strategies in the planning system in February this year. We are considering how the creation of a national set of policies for decision making can further support the goal of protecting and restoring land, which will become of importance to nature’s recovery, using those strategies. I hope that in the light of that information, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington might consider withdrawing his new clause.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. We believe that wild belts could be a significant new designation and would add something of real value to help to restore the species that I discussed—those that are in recovery and need their habitats to be developed and further protected, such that they reach protected status. When we reach that point, we will be pressing new clause 29 to a vote.
Lewis Cocking
I am happy with the Government’s considered approach to new clause 16, and I am happy that the Minister will write to me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire.
Gideon Amos
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 20
Swift bricks and boxes
“(1) It must be a condition of any grant of planning permission that there must be a minimum of one swift brick or nest box per dwelling or unit greater than 5 metres in height.
(2) Swift bricks integrated into walls are to be installed in preference to external swift nest boxes wherever practicable, following best practice.
(3) A planning authority may grant planning permission with exceptions or modifications to the condition specified in subsection (1) in exceptional circumstances, where possible following best practice.
(4) Where a planning authority grants exceptions or modifications, it must publish the exceptional circumstances in which the exceptions or modifications were granted.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
‘swift brick’ means an integral nest box integrated into the wall of a building suitable for the nesting of the Common Swift;
‘swift nest box’ means an external nest box suitable for the nesting of the Common Swift and
‘best practice guidance’ means the British Standard BS 42021:2022.”—(Ellie Chowns.)
This new clause would make planning permission for buildings greater than 5 metres high conditional on the provision of a minimum number of swift bricks. Swift bricks and boxes provide nesting habitat for small urban birds reliant on cavity nesting habitat in buildings to breed.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 22—Building regulations: biodiversity—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must bring forward regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 for the purposes of—
(a) protecting and enhancing biodiversity, and
(b) contributing to the achievement of biodiversity targets and interim targets set out under the Environment Act 2021.
(2) Regulations under this section must include provision—
(a) for the appropriate installation and maintenance of measures including—
(i) bird boxes,
(ii) bat boxes,
(iii) swift bricks,
(iv) hedgehog highways,
(v) splash-free pavements, and
(vi) biodiverse roofs and walls,
(b) limiting the use of artificial grass in a garden or in or on land associated with a dwelling or building covered by the regulations.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to require new developments to include design features that will contribute to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and the achievement of Environment Act targets.
New clause 23—Biodiversity gain in nationally significant infrastructure projects—
“(1) In Schedule 15 of the Environment Act 2021 (biodiversity gain in nationally significant infrastructure projects), in paragraph 5 omit ‘10%’ and insert ‘20% for all terrestrial and intertidal development.’
(2) The Secretary of State must, within 1 year of the passing of this Act, bring into force section 99 of the Environment Act 2021 (biodiversity gain in nationally significant infrastructure projects).”
This amendment increases the biodiversity net gain requirement and includes intertidal development.
New clause 27—Environmental infrastructure in new developments—
“(1) Within six months of to the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 for the purpose of protecting and enhancing biodiversity.
(2) Regulations made under this section must—
(a) take account of biodiversity targets and interim targets set out in sections 1(2), 1(3)(c), 11 and 14 of the Environment Act 2021;
(b) include measures to enable the provision in new developments of—
(i) bird boxes;
(ii) bat boxes;
(iii) swift bricks;
(iv) hedgehog highways; and
(v) biodiverse roofs and walls.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to protect and enhance biodiversity in new developments.
Ellie Chowns
I rise to speak in defence of the swift. I have tabled a private Member’s Bill to achieve essentially what this proposed new clause would achieve, but what an opportunity we have in this Bill to take a fantastic step that would make a crucial difference to the future of a species that is under threat.
I will start with an extract from a parliamentary speech made in 2023 by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, of Labour. She said
“We believe that specifically including swift bricks as a measure in the Bill, to be incorporated in planning law, is justified because of the unique nature of these precious birds’ nesting habits… If there is anything we can do to either halt that decline or hopefully turn it around, we should certainly do so. There is definitely a clear and present threat to these species. We hope the Government”—
the Tory Government of the time—
“will accept this relatively a small step, which could make a world of difference to protecting our swift population”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 September 2023; Vol. 832, c. 541.]
Baroness Taylor spoke on behalf of Labour, when it was in Opposition, to support the exact swift brick provisions we now discuss. The need for this measure is now two years more urgent. Labour’s former words present the case perfectly, so I urge the Government to embrace their own sentiments and safeguard the future of these iconic birds.
Cavity nesting birds, as a category, are reliant on cavities in buildings to breed. House martins and swifts are 100% dependent on buildings. That breeding dependence means that not only are swift bricks different in character from other types of supplementary biodiversity measures, but the mechanism to make them operable is already in place. That is a key point: there is a specific British standard that makes this new clause feasible. That is why there is a national campaign solely for swift bricks, and a specific swift brick new clause.
Swift bricks would secure cavity nesting habitat by indirectly mitigating the national-scale loss of nesting habitats in our existing buildings. That loss of nesting habitat is inadvertent, due to renovation, demolition and changes to the character of housing. Without legislative protection of their nesting sites or mitigation of loss, it is not surprising that four cavity nesting birds are redlisted, a term defined by the need for urgent action. If these birds cannot breed here, they have no future here.
Swift bricks are therefore a critical nesting habitat measure. They are not merely supplementary. They require zero maintenance, are fully sustainable and are effective, providing eight species of bird with nesting habitat. The new clause poses no risk of delaying or blocking development since swift bricks, first, are bricks and secondly, can be laid alongside all the other bricks without any additional expertise. Actually, this measure would, uniquely for a nature-protection measure, contribute to development and building. Natural England has urged the Government to embrace this proposal, as has the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Non-compliance of developers in installing bird boxes, as per conditions stated by their local planning authorities, is 75%. Swift bricks are not included in biodiversity net gain or the Environment Act, and the national planning policy framework guidance is not enough for a critical nesting habitat measure. The swift brick campaign is supported by the nature sector, including Wildlife and Countryside Link, and has seen sustained media interest, showing just how much public concern there is to support these birds. We have had a number of public petitions with over 100,000 signatures. The latest one has 80,000—I just checked it this morning.
Without swift bricks, we lose out too, because our new buildings will never accommodate these urban birds, so our connection with them will also be lost. This measure is a giant, tangible legacy for the public. Even if we live in inner cities, or are unable to get to green spaces easily, we can access these birds—but that will not be true in new homes without swift bricks.
Swifts have been dubbed “our icons of summer”. They are on the brink after 50 million years and they just need a brick with a hole in it. The Bill will enable millions of brick walls to be built. In urging the Committee to include this lifeline for our urban birds, I represent the almost half a million people, in total, who have signed swift brick petitions, including the fastest growing Government petition in 2023. Our homes are, quite literally, these birds’ homes. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is once again a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine.
We broadly support the aim of this new clause. I know my colleague the noble Lord Goldsmith proposed a similar amendment in the House of Lords, which Baroness Taylor and the Secretary of State at DEFRA have indicated they are supportive of. However, there are some flaws in the new clause. It is clear that rather than just habitats for swifts, there are creatures—insects in particular—that would also benefit from similar arrangements within the building industry. Creatures such as starlings, which are something of an iconic British bird and also nest in buildings, would require an alternative design provision.
I am not inclined to seek a vote, but it would be helpful to hear from the Minister that there will be consideration given to ensuring that new buildings—both homes and, where possible, commercial buildings—incorporate features designed to support the nesting of birds and other creatures that may use those habitats in a way that is sympathetic to the use of the building.
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak to new clause 26, which would increase biodiversity net gain to 20% for nationally significant infrastructure projects, and new clause 27 on swift bricks. The Committee will be relieved to know that I will not repeat all the points that have been made on this. It is worth saying that the swift bricks proposal has widespread public support and would be a very small and limited change to introduce to building practices. Swifts fly thousands of miles from the Congo basin and back across the Sahara desert twice. When they get here, quite often they find that their nesting places have gone, have been sealed up or are not available. This new clause would make a significant contribution to providing better habitats for swifts and other bird species. We are in support of this new clause.
Matthew Pennycook
I take from that that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is not seeking a debate on new clause 27. Is that right?
Matthew Pennycook
Sorry—and 23 as well? I could also address that, if we come on to debate it, but let me first respond to new clauses 20 and 27 relating to swift bricks.
I am well aware of the serious population decline of swifts in the UK. There are numerous reasons behind that decline. It is not just the loss of nesting sites; there are other factors, such as the decline of insect food, but nesting sites are a certainly a contributory factor and the Government recognise that. The objective of increasing the coverage of swift bricks is one that we absolutely share.
However, there are different ways of advancing that aim and this is where a fruitful debate can take place. We are not convinced that legislating to mandate the use of specific wildlife features is the right approach, whether that is done through building regulations or a freestanding legal requirement. If the hon. Member for North Herefordshire wants a good summary of my own views, which I have been very clear on over many years, she can find it in a 10 July 2023 Westminster Hall debate we had on the subject, where I expressed similar reservations about the approach that the new clause dictates. Measures such as swift bricks and hedgehog highways are beneficial in many cases, but they will not be feasible or effective for every single development across the country.
The way that new clause 20 tries to provide for exceptions demonstrates that, so there is obviously an awareness of the issue, but it also shows the complexity which arises from a blanket approach. I have real concerns that it would be difficult to operate in practice and risks more legal challenges seeking to block development, rather than securing better uptake of the right features in the right places.
Progress is already being made in expanding the use of wildlife features in homes across the country. The Future Homes Hub, representing 29 home builders who have a large share of the market, operates a voluntary commitment to install a bird nesting brick or box for every new home built. There are factories across the country producing large numbers of swift bricks, so they—and similarly hedgehog highways—are being rolled out as a standard on every new development. That action is welcome, but we absolutely accept that more can be done.
That is why our revisions to the national planning policy framework, published last December, make clear that developments should incorporate features that support priority or threatened species such as swifts, bats and hedgehogs. That is supported by both the national model design code and Natural England’s green infrastructure framework, which set out how developers can do this.
Gideon Amos
It is good to hear the support for this measure. It is a very standard practice that could be expanded. Would the Minister be willing to meet with the hon. Members who support this new clause, including the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), myself and others, to discuss how the use of swift bricks and related features could be encouraged further across the development industry?
Matthew Pennycook
I am always happy to have conversations with hon. Members about the Government’s thinking in this area and other areas, although a particular spin on recent conversations I have had with hon. Members found its way into The Guardian, which is a warning to Ministers. We are trying, as a Government, to feel our way to the most appropriate way to boost the coverage of swift bricks. As I have said, that is an objective that we absolutely share.
In that regard in particular, I point once again to the fact that we are committed to producing a set of national policies for decision making to set out policy requirements in a variety of areas in a more explicit manner. As part of that, we will assess how existing policy is operating, and whether there are any changes to wording in that area that would be beneficial to that objective. Although I fully support the aim of securing both an increase in swift brick coverage and more nature-friendly features in new developments more generally, I cannot support these new clauses, for the reasons I have given. I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will be content to withdraw them. Given that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington has not spoken to new clause 23, which relates to biodiversity net gain, I will—
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for correcting the numbering. When I referred to new clause 26, I meant to refer to new clause 23. I spoke only briefly on that, so I understand why the Minister is not responding to that detail.
Ellie Chowns
I welcome the Minister’s warm words regarding the protection of swifts—I am glad to hear them. I do not, however, feel that he has made a strong case against this new clause. If the Government are serious about protecting swifts, why not vote for it? It contains the ability to make exceptions and is an opportunity to drive forward this agenda.
As the Minister has recognised, swifts are still in terrible decline. Although I acknowledge that this measure alone will not in itself magically resolve the full issue, as well as the point made by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner that there are also other necessary measures and required species, there is something unique about swifts because they are dependent on these breeding sites.
It is true that they need food, but without breeding sites they are completely stuck, and those sites must be in our buildings. I will be pressing this new clause to a vote, and if the Government vote against it I hope they will come back with an amendment in their own words at Report to achieve exactly the same outcome, if the Minister is genuinely committed to saving and safeguarding the future of these iconic birds.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 21 would introduce a mechanism compensating small businesses and organisations that incur operational losses due to significant roadworks. This is an important measure for us. I am disappointed that it appears that the Government may be foreclosing a whole half day of debate of this Bill Committee. None the less, I will proceed as rapidly as I can. It will be very disappointing if that does indeed occur, Ms Jardine, but they are the powers that be.
The purpose of this measure is to ensure a fairer distribution of impact when infrastructure projects take place. At present, the law is such that the Land Compensation Act 1973 covers only property damage and loss of land value. There is a clear legislative gap when it comes to consequential non-property-based losses.
Small businesses in Wellington, in my own constituency, are experiencing this at first hand. This summer’s unavoidable closure of the M5’s junction 26 and link road to Wellington, for reconstruction, has huge implications for the local economy. Several small businesses on the Foxmoor business park in particular, which depend on daily access to the M5 corridor, will see that closed off for up to three months. A scaffolding company showed me its estimates; it expects to lose around £14,000 over that three-month period. This is not speculative; those are real impacts.
A whole series of other companies will be affected: Adler & Allan, Moss Joinery, Apple Campers, Weston Recovery Services and TLC Garage Services and Recovery. Many of those have emergency services contracts with the police, the RAC and the AA. They are required by the police to be on-site, on the motorway, in 30 minutes. They will lose that business because they will no longer be able to get on to the motorway, because the motorway junction they are situated on will be closed. They are eligible for no compensation at all, despite those significant losses.
That situation is mirrored in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), in whose name the new clause was tabled, where redevelopment of the M25’s junction 10 has already run beyond its original deadline. By the time it is complete, it will have taken four years, causing serious disruption to both large and small organisations. RHS Wisley is projected to lose £11 million, and Ockham Bites, a small local café, is losing £600 per day. Those are real impacts on small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy, and they need support when they are experiencing massive losses due to roadworks.
We believe that infrastructure investment must balance public benefit with the private burden that they often incur. This is a targeted measure that would introduce pragmatic, proportionate reform, and means to support businesses that are being hardest hit during the delivery of major projects.
Matthew Pennycook
I note and appreciate the case that the hon. Gentleman has just made, but successive Governments have taken the view that businesses should not have the right in law to any particular given level of passing trade, and that traders, or other organisations, must take the risk of loss due to temporary disruption of traffic flows along with all of the other various risks of running a business or organisation. The same businesses or organisations may also profit from new developments once works have been completed.
If planning permission is needed, affected organisations can express concerns as part of that process if they are worried about how works will affect them. Temporary traffic regulation orders are needed for some road closures, and affected organisations can also express concerns as part of that process to the relevant local planning authority.
Lewis Cocking
Does the Minister not appreciate that lots of utility companies dig up roads under emergency procedures, so do not have to let the local authority know? As it is an emergency, one would expect someone to be working, maybe not around the clock, but for a long period of the day over multiple days to get it fixed. When people drive past roadworks in those scenarios, and they do not see anyone working on them, they get incredibly frustrated. Could he just outline what the Government are doing to make sure that roadworks are finished as quickly as possible, in a timely manner?
Matthew Pennycook
Well, I do not begrudge the hon. Gentleman for asking, but he tempts me to move into areas far beyond my ministerial remit and, I would argue, outside the scope of the Bill. In the interests of time, and of ensuring that all of the other worthy new clauses that I see before me on the selection list are debated, I will write to him on that particular point.
On this new clause, following on from what I have just said, we must bear in mind that local planning and highway authorities can take concerns into account when approving planning permission or road closures. They can also amend the timings of road closures and make other arrangements to ensure that access to properties and businesses is maintained. On that basis, we cannot accept the new clause.
Gideon Amos
I have nothing further to add, but we will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Olly Glover
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 30 would require the Secretary of State to conduct an annual review of the capacity of local planning authorities. The Bill’s passage appears likely, given the size of the Government’s majority, but it will impose a number of additional duties and responsibilities on local planning authorities, and meeting the proposals for housing growth will also stretch their capacity. Our new clause would require a review of their capacity and resources, as well as the impact of issues, such as lack of capacity in the construction sector or supply chains, on achieving some of the housing goals that are being put forward.
While this Government have an ambition to build lots of homes, it is important that we pay attention to how that happens. We know that local authorities are already under-resourced. I am sure that the Government appreciate the need to support local authorities in delivering housing and all the accompanying infrastructure, and we feel that this new clause would go some way towards doing that. At the risk of anticipating that the Minister is unlikely to support the new clause, we look forward to hearing what alternative solutions he may have to these challenges in planning capacity.
David Simmonds
I briefly draw the Committee’s attention to the Planning Advisory Service. As a result of a long-standing arrangement with the Local Government Association, through a funding set-up whereby local authorities and Government provide resources, both peer-support services and these activities are already provided in partnership with local authorities. For that reason, I would be reluctant to seek a legislative method of delivering something that is already, in practice, working well on a voluntary basis. There will always be a debate about whether local authorities feel that their resources are sufficient, but in supporting them to undertake the capacity assessment and build their capacity by working with their peers, that arrangement has been in place and working well for several decades.
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Ms Jardine. I should declare that I am an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of the Local Government Association, which I referred to in my contribution.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome that clarification from the shadow Minister and thank him for his comments. He highlighted the important role that the Planning Advisory Service plays.
Skilled planners are essential to delivering efficient, proactive planning services and ensuring that new development supports growth and high-quality design of places and homes. The Government recognise the mounting pressures on local planning authorities as they adapt to significant reforms, both in how we want to reform the house building system and in boosting housing supply. That is why we have legislated in the Bill to allow all local planning authorities to set their own planning fees in order to increase resources in a way that responds to the individual needs of each authority and, as we have debated at length on previous clauses, ensure those fees are ringfenced.
Furthermore, the Chancellor announced—I have said this before, but it is worth my pointing to the Government’s good efforts in this area at every opportunity—a £46 million investment for 2025–26 at the Budget last year, supporting planning capacity and capability, including the recruitment and training of at least 300 graduate and apprentice planners. Funding is also being used to support implementation of the revised national planning policy framework. For example, we allocated substantial funds to local planning authorities to assist them with green belt reviews.
Alongside that, our planning capacity and capability programme works with sector partners to build long-term skills, modernise local plans and speed up decision making, using innovation and digital tools. Importantly, we are closely tracking the impact of those interventions through an embedded research and evaluation team. A national survey conducted in 2023 informs our approach; a further survey, now concluding, will build on that baseline. Given the robust programme of support and evaluation already in place, we are of the view that the new clause is not necessary, and I hope that with those reassurances he might be minded to withdraw it.
Olly Glover
I thank the Minister for his comments, and I welcome his overview of the Government’s endeavours in tackling the issue of local planning authority capacity. I also note the comments from the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. I understand his point, but nevertheless, there are still considerable challenges in this area that need to be tackled. Notwithstanding that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 32
Register of planning applications from political donors
“(1) A local planning authority must maintain and publish a register of planning applications in its area where—
(a) a determination has been made by the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning, and
(b) the applicant has made a donation to the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning within the period of ten years prior to the application being made.
(2) A register maintained under this section must be published at least once each year.”—(Gideon Amos.)
This new clause would require a local planning authority to keep and publish a register of applications decided by the Secretary of State where that Secretary of State has received a donation from the applicant.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 32 would require local planning authorities to keep and publish a register of applications decided by the Secretary of State where the Secretary of State had received a donation from the applicant. We are fortunate to live in a country where the planning system is, generally, free of corruption. The United Kingdom is ranked by the Corruption Perceptions Index as among the least corrupt countries in the world. It is in the top 20 alongside Japan and other countries, but perceptions, as in that perceptions index, matter. It is important that justice is not only done, but seen to be done.
We believe there is a need for better control of situations where donations have been made to Ministers, and those Ministers have themselves then made decisions. I will not name any individual, but there has been a well-known scheme involving the Isle of Dogs in which that occurred. I do not allege any corruption in that instance, but, as I say, it is important that justice is not only done but seen to be done. The new clause would be an important contribution to ensuring that our planning system remains as free of undue influence as possible.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving new clause 32. In short, we think it is unnecessary, but I take on board his points and I share his concerns about the particular case that he raised.
Local planning register authorities are already required to maintain and publish a register of every application for planning permission that relates to their area. The register must include details on application decisions, including where the Secretary of State has made the decision either via a called-in application or a recovered appeal. That is set out in article 40 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. Secretary of State decisions on planning casework are also published on gov.uk in order to provide additional transparency. That includes the decision letters that set out the reasons for the decision in question.
When determining applications for planning permission, the Secretary of State operates—obviously—within the ministerial code and planning propriety guidance. The planning propriety guidance makes it clear that decisions on planning proposals should be made with an open mind, based on the facts before them at that time. Any conflicts of interest between the decision-making role of Ministers and their other interests should be avoided.
To that end, planning Ministers are required to declare their interests as part of their responsibilities under the ministerial code. The ministerial code makes specific provision for the declaration of gifts given to Ministers in their ministerial capacity, and gifts given to Ministers in their capacity as constituency MPs or members of a political party fall within the rules relating to the Registers of Members’ and Lords’ Financial Interests. In addition, before any planning Minister takes decisions, the planning propriety guidance reiterates that they are required to declare anything that could give rise to a conflict of interest, or—this is equally important—the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The planning casework unit within my Department uses that information to ensure that planning Ministers do not deal with decisions that could give rise to an appearance of impropriety. For example, if the Minister in question has declared that the applicant of the proposal is a political donor, they would be recused from making the decision. We therefore feel that there is sufficient transparency on planning casework decisions made by the Secretary of State, and the Ministers, including myself, who act on her behalf, and it is not necessary to impose an additional administrative burden on local planning authorities.
I hope that, with those assurances, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will withdraw his amendment.
Gideon Amos
I have nothing further to add. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 35
Prohibition of development on functional floodplains
“(1) No local planning authority may grant planning permission for any development which is to take place on a functional floodplain.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, issue new guidance, or update existing guidance where such guidance exists, relating to development in flood zones and the management of flood risk.”—(Ellie Chowns.)
This new clause would prevent local planning authorities from allowing developments on functional floodplains.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 85—Regard to flood risk guidance when considering development on flood plains—
“(1) When preparing a local plan for an area which includes a flood plain or considering an application for development on a flood plain, a local planning authority must have regard to—
(a) the sequential and exception tests;
(b) the most up to date guidance on flood risk produced by the Government.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
‘sequential test’ means steering new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding, taking all sources of flood risk and climate change into account. Where it is not possible to locate development in low-risk areas, reasonably available sites within medium risk areas should be considered, with sites within high-risk areas only considered where there are no reasonably available sites in low and medium risk areas;
‘exception test’ means that it has been demonstrated that the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk and that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.”
This new clause would require local planning authorities to have regard to the sequential and exception tests on managing flood risk when considering applications for development on flood plains.
New clause 86—Requirement for installation of flood resilience measures—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, amend relevant Approved Documents to require the installation of flood resilience measures in properties being developed on land which is at risk of flooding.
(2) Flood resilience measures must be specified and installed in accordance with the Construction Industry Research and Information Association’s code of practice for property flood resilience.”
This new clause would require Approved Documents to require the installation, to CIRIA’s code of practice, of property flood resilience measures in properties being developed on land which is at risk of flooding.
Ellie Chowns
These new clauses relate to flood resilience. New clause 85 would ensure that local planning authorities have regard to the sequential and exception tests on managing flood risk when considering applications for development on flood plains. New clause 86 would ensure that there is a requirement for the installation of flood resilience measures.
When we considered the topic of sustainable drainage systems, I spoke about the importance of ensuring that we bear flood resilience in mind. It bears repeating that flooding—already a huge problem in our country—will become even more of a challenge as we continue to wrestle with the effects of climate change. I refer colleagues to the work of the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sit, which is currently conducting an inquiry into flood resilience. We heard evidence from a number of witnesses earlier this week about the importance of property flood resilience measures, which new clause 86 concerns.
Matthew Pennycook
I will speak to new clauses 85 and 86, for which the hon. Lady has just made the case. The Government are committed to building the homes that the country needs while ensuring that they are safe from flooding. The national planning policy framework contains strong policies on flood risk, which, along with associated guidance, must be considered when local plans are made. They are also an important material consideration when planning applications are being determined.
The framework is clear that inappropriate development in areas of flood risk should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, including flood plains. That means that new housing and most other forms of development are not appropriate in a functional flood plain. Where the strict tests set out in national policy for flood risk are not met, it is clear that new development should not be allowed. I believe we share the same ambition to protect development from the risk of flooding. To that end, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, local planning authorities are already required to follow the sequential and exception tests through the NPPF, associated planning guidance and the underpinning legislation that requires them to be taken into account.
New clause 86 seeks to require the installation of flood resilience measures in new build homes in areas at risk of flooding through an amendment to approved documents to the building regulations. I assure hon. Members that I agree with the intent of the new clause. As I said, the Government are committed to building the homes the country needs while ensuring that they are safe from flooding. Building regulations set a minimum standard to protect people’s safety, health and welfare. They are supported by approved documents that provide guidance in common building situations towards meeting outcome-based standards. Specifically, approved document C promotes the use of flood resilient and resistant construction in flood-prone areas, while avoiding placing undue costs on any properties that do not require further flood resilience measures.
Those designing homes can choose to use the Construction Industry Research and Information Association’s code of practice if they so wish, while ensuring that the building is compliant with the building regulations. However, to establish that as a minimum standard for all new dwellings would be, in our view, disproportionate. The revised national planning policy framework, published in December 2024, is clear that development should be directed to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. Where no alternative sites are available, permission should be granted only where it can be demonstrated that it will be safe for the building’s lifetime, taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Where possible, it should reduce flood risk overall.
The use of property-level flood protections, as recommended through the proposed Construction Industry Research and Information Association’s code of practice, such as flood doors, flood barriers and automatic air bricks, should only be considered as part of a wider package of measures to ensure that the development would be safe for its lifetime. Where they are used, they must be in compliance with the requirements of the building regulations. In addition, there are well-established means for ensuring that developments are not approved where there is unacceptable flood risk, with the Environment Agency and local authority bodies overseeing the maintenance of existing mitigation methods.
The Environment Agency has also commissioned an independent review of property flood resilience, which is due to report in the autumn, and we would not like to pre-empt its recommendations with any action that might be contradictory. Although I agree with the intent of the new clause, introducing additional building-level requirements through the approved documents to the building regulations is not a proportionate measure in the context of our wider policy framework. On that basis, I hope the hon. Lady might withdraw it.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. “(zg) Any development in an area covered by an Internal Drainage Board. The relevant Internal Drainage Board.””
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 36
Internal Drainage Boards to be statutory consultees
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
Brought up, and read the First time .
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: “(zg) Development likely to affect a water company The relevant water company””. “(zg) Development involving a building or property for which insurance will be required The Association of British Insurers””. (zg) Development likely to affect an area covered by a National Landscape Partnership The relevant National Landscape Partnership””. “(zg) Development involving Battery Energy Storage Solutions The relevant fire authority””. “(zg) Development likely to affect historic parks or gardens The Gardens Trust””. “(zg) Development which is likely to affect operations of ambulance services The ambulance trust concerned (zh)Development which is likely to affect operations of fire and rescue services The fire and rescue service concerned””.
New clause 62—Water companies to be statutory consultees for planning applications —
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
This new clause would make water companies statutory consultees on planning applications.
New clause 63—Association of British Insurers to be a statutory consultee —
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
New clause 64—National Landscape Partnerships to be statutory consultees for planning applications —
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
New clause 87—Fire authorities to be statutory consultees for applications relating to Battery Energy Storage Solutions —
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
This new clause would ensure that fire authorities are included as statutory consultees in planning applications involving Battery Energy Storage Solutions (BESS’s).
New clause 90—Gardens Trust to be statutory consultees for planning applications —
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
New clause 97—Removal of statutory consultees —
“(1) A party may only be removed from the list of consultees—
(a) in or under section 42 of the Planning Act 2008, or
(b) in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009,
once Parliamentary approval for the removal has been signified.
(2) Parliamentary approval may be signified by—
(a) the approval of a relevant statutory instrument;
(b) the agreement of a relevant motion.”
New clause 100—Pre-application consultation of emergency services —
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
Gideon Amos
This group of new clauses relates to statutory consultees. We are concerned that the Government are reducing the number of statutory consultees. We do not believe that reducing consultation with expert bodies is the right approach. Some of the new clauses in this group relate to introducing certain organisations as statutory consultees into the system. Our new clause 62 would require water companies to be consulted. At present they are not consulted, but they are also obliged to provide connections. They are unable to state whether there is capacity to provide water supply for new development.
New clause 63 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) would introduce the Association of British Insurers into the statutory consultation list, which would mean that insurance companies would be able to indicate whether they would be able to insure properties, particularly those vulnerable to flood risk. At present they have no role in the planning process to do that.
New clause 64 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) refers to national landscape partnerships being involved. Areas of outstanding natural beauty are now called national landscapes. The partnerships that oversee them are incredibly important and do not have any statutory voice in the planning system at present.
New clause 87 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) would require fire authorities to be consulted, and new clause 90, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), would require historic parks and gardens to be consulted. New clause 97 is also included in this group. We believe Parliament should be required to agree when statutory consultees are removed from the list.
With regard to national landscape partnerships, in my constituency the Blackdown Hills national landscape partnership covers a wide number of local authorities that are unable to provide a single voice in the planning system. The partnership covers probably tens of different parishes and certainly three council areas. It has asked us to put forward the case for it to have a single voice, a seat at the table. If our national landscapes are of importance, they should have a seat at the table in the planning process.
Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester points out that national landscapes such as Chichester harbour are just asking for a seat at the table in the same way that other organisations do. Chichester harbour national landscape currently responds to 300 planning applications a year, so there would be no increase in resource or funding required to become a statutory consultee. The pressures on Chichester harbour, with the loss of 58% of its salt marsh in 80 years—two and a half hectares a year—mean that it is under considerable stress and needs its voice to be heard in the planning process.
Matthew Pennycook
I will respond to this large group of new clauses by taking seven of them together and then responding separately to new clause 97.
New clauses 36, 62 to 64, 87, 90 and 100 seek to introduce internal drainage boards, water companies, the Association of British Insurers, landscape partnerships, fire authorities, the Gardens Trust and emergency services as statutory consultees in the planning application process. As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will be aware, on 26 January my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a moratorium on any new statutory consultees in the planning application process and a review of existing arrangements for statutory consultees to ensure that they align with the Government’s ambitions for growth.
I set out the Government’s concern in this area in more detail in the written ministerial statement that I made on 10 March. It responds to concerns—I think this is an important point to get on the record—not only from developers about the operation of the statutory consultee system at present, but from local planning authorities. In that written ministerial statement, I outlined a package of measures to reform statutory consultees in the planning system, so that they meet their goal of supporting high-quality development through the swift provision of expert relevant advice to inform decision making.
The Government have committed to reviewing the system of statutory consultees and will soon be consulting on proposals. At that point, I will expect and welcome a more extensive dialogue with the hon. Gentleman and others about the changes that we might have in mind. Decisions about the long-term operation of the system will be taken as part of the review, with any changes to statutory consultees being taken forward through changes to secondary legislation at a later date.
The new clauses are broadly framed and would result in the various bodies being consulted on a wide range of applications, including for small-scale housing and householder development. That could result, in our view, in many tens of thousands of applications requiring to be consulted on, which would be likely to have severe resourcing implications for the bodies in question—we have spoken about the resource pressures and challenges placed on local planning authorities, and hon. Members might like to have that in mind when drafting amendments that would increase pressure on them—and slow down the planning process. That would be especially acute in relation to application consultations for any building or property requiring insurance or any building that needs connecting to the water mains, and for fire and emergency services.
The Environment Agency and lead local flood authorities are statutory consultees in relation to flood risk issues. Internal drainage boards are not statutory consultees, but they do work proactively with local authorities, which are represented on their management boards, and they can comment on proposals within the statutory public consultation period. Where an internal drainage board raises issues that are material to the determination of the application in question, local authorities must take those into account in reaching a decision.
I should note that the Gardens Trust is currently a statutory consultee for development likely to affect any registered battlefields, gardens or parks. We have committed to consulting on the impact of removing its statutory consultee status, as part of the review. Any decision will obviously be taken in the light of the evidence provided through the consultation.
This Government take fire safety extremely seriously, but we do not feel that making fire authorities statutory consultees for planning applications involving battery energy storage solutions is necessary or proportionate. BESS grid-scale batteries are regulated by the Health and Safety Executive within a robust framework that mandates battery designers, installers and operators to uphold high safety standards. Developers of BESS sites are already expected, under guidance from the National Fire Chiefs Council, to engage with the local fire and rescue services prior to the submission of their planning application.
The Government are considering further measures to enhance the regulation of environmental and safety risks from BESS. DEFRA intends to consult by June 2025 on incorporating BESS in the environmental permitting regulations. That will provide further oversight to safeguard both people and the environment.
We must also consider at what stage in the planning process engagement is most effective. For instance, where particular emergency service concerns exist, such as in relation to high-growth areas, new settlements or developments with complex infrastructure needs, we believe that these are more appropriately addressed through local plan policies and strategic infrastructure planning. It is important to note that local planning authorities have the discretion to consult emergency services where that is relevant to a specific application.
Lastly on this large grouping of new clauses, I note that many organisations can meaningfully contribute to planning decisions through their responses within the statutory public consultation period. That includes charities that promote particular interests, as well as bodies performing public functions. However, the role of statutory consultee creates an obligation not just on the part of the planning authority to consult, but on the part of the consultee to respond within statutory timelines.
I set out in my written ministerial statement the ways in which the system, in various respects, is not performing in the way we believe is most conducive to the outcomes we seek. The burden is substantial, and existing statutory consultees, in some cases, can struggle to deliver. Under a streamlined and effective planning system, the bar for becoming a statutory consultee, in our view, must necessarily be high.
Gideon Amos
I will be brief. I know the Committee wants to move on to the remaining new clauses, and I will facilitate that—we will not push this new clause to a vote. I simply observe that, historically, there was not an issue of local authorities saying that they could not cope with statutory consultees and bodies. What we have now is a system that is not well enough funded, and consulting important bodies should not be seen as a cause of unnecessary delay in the planning process. We think the case is made for the bodies I set out, but we will not press the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 47
Prohibition of solar development on higher-quality agricultural land
“No permission may be granted for the building or installation of provision for solar power generation where the development would involve—
(a) the building on or development of agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a, and
(b) building or installation at ground-level.”—(David Simmonds.)
This new clause would prohibit the development of solar power generation on higher quality agricultural land.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
Olly Glover
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 58 would impose a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to contribute to targets set out in the Environment Act 2021 and the Climate Change Act 2008. The Environment Act is the UK’s framework for environmental protection. It was particularly important after the UK left the European Union to maintain rules on nature protection, water quality, clean air and other environmental protections that were at risk. The Climate Change Act established a legally binding framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, making the UK the first country to do so. It set a target of net zero emissions by 2050 and established the Climate Change Committee.
The activities of local authorities inherently have an impact on carbon emissions, and UK100 has estimated that it amounts to between 4% and 9% of the UK’s total carbon emissions, which is of course a non-trivial impact. As we know, and as I believe we largely agree on this Committee, climate change is one of the biggest issues facing us today and has wide-reaching consequences. It is right that any organisation should take reasonable steps to reduce its carbon footprint, and local authorities are no exception.
New clause 58 would impose a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps in relation to Environment Act and Climate Change Act targets, as they do not have such a statutory duty today. As the Committee has discussed, that presents opportunities as well as challenges for councils and our communities.
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Gentleman has just made clear, new clause 58 would place a statutory duty on local planning authorities to contribute to targets set under the Environment Act, the Climate Change Act and the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010, and to contribute to the programme for adaptation to climate change under the Climate Change Act.
Many local authorities already have a high level of ambition to tackle climate change, restore nature and address wider environmental issues, including air quality. In our view, it is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a new statutory duty would bring. Local authorities already have statutory duties to improve air quality in their areas. Thanks to the combined efforts of local and central Government, air quality in the UK is improving, although we accept that there is more to do. The Government will continue to work with local authorities to reduce air pollution and its harmful effects.
Existing tools and duties also support efforts to contribute to targets for nature, such as local nature recovery strategies, which we have discussed, and the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which was strengthened by the Environment Act 2021. The latter requires all public authorities to consider and take action to conserve and enhance biodiversity, which must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy and any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England.
On climate adaptation, the Government already work closely with local authorities, a number of which are developing dedicated climate risk assessments. In October, the Government launched the local authority climate service, which provides tailored data on climate change impacts. The Government also ran the first adaptation reporting power trial for local authorities last year, providing guidance and support on how to assess climate risks to their functions and services.
The Government also provide a range of net zero support to local authorities. This includes funding five local net zero hubs, which support local authorities to develop net zero projects and attract commercial investment, and funding the local net zero accelerator pilot programme to test how to support local places to leverage commercial investment at scale to accelerate the move to net zero.
Given such existing support, and the fact that many local authorities are already taking great strides in tackling the combined issues of environmental decline and climate change impacts, we do not think a statutory duty for local authorities to contribute to environmental, net zero or air quality targets, or towards the Climate Change Act’s programme for climate adaptation, is necessary. For that reason, I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the new clause.
Olly Glover
I thank the Minister for his response, and we note his comments. Yes, many local authorities are making significant contributions, but I am sure he would agree that it is patchy and inconsistent at the moment. Nevertheless, we will not press the new clause to a Division, but we will observe local authority progress and Government support in the future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 75
Requirement for 20% of housing to be on small sites
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue or update guidance for local planning authorities regarding the identification of sites for housing development.
(2) The guidance must outline a requirement for at least 20% of an authority’s housing requirement to be accommodated on sites no larger than one hectare.”—(David Simmonds.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Thursday 22nd May 2025
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 May 2025 - (22 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 78—Cooling hierarchy guidance—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local planning authorities which—
(a) outlines a cooling hierarchy; and
(b) provides guidance on the application of the cooling hierarchy in the exercise of a local planning authority’s planning and development functions.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance for local planning authorities on applying the "cooling hierarchy"—a structured approach to reducing overheating risk in buildings, prioritising passive and sustainable design measures.
New clause 79—Overheating risk assessments—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, require all applications for planning permission for residential development to include an overheating risk assessment.
(2) An overheating risk assessment must be conducted in accordance with—
(a) the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers’ design methodology for the assessment of overheating risk in homes, or
(b) any successor standard designated by the Secretary of State.”
This new clause would require all planning applications for residential development to include an overheating risk assessment, conducted in line with the latest recognised technical standard, such as those of the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE).
New clause 80—Incorporation of features to mitigate overheating risk—
“(1) When preparing any plan or strategy relating to the development of housing under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, a local planning authority must have regard to the need for residential developments to incorporate passive design features that mitigate the risk of overheating.
(2) Passive design features may include—
(a) cross-ventilation,
(b) external shading,
(c) solar control glazing, and
(d) thermal mass.”
This new clause would require local planning authorities, when preparing housing-related plans or strategies, to have regard to the need for residential developments to include passive design features that reduce the risk of overheating, such as cross-ventilation, external shading, solar control glazing, and thermal mass.
New clause 81—Access to data on overheating risk—
“(1) For the purposes of supporting the making of local plans, spatial development strategies and planning decisions, the Secretary of State must make provision for local planning authorities to have access to relevant data relating to overheating risk.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that data on overheating risk made available to local planning authorities is updated at intervals not exceeding five years.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local planning authorities have access to up-to-date data on overheating risk, to support the making of local plans, spatial development strategies, and planning decisions.
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once more, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise to speak in strong support of a group of new clauses that address a clear and growing risk to public health, quality of life and economic productivity: domestic overheating. It may surprise some—hopefully no one in this room—to know that the risk of overheating in homes is now one of the most severe climate-related threats in the UK. The Climate Change Committee’s independent climate risk assessment identifies overheating in homes as one of the most severe climate risks, requiring urgent action. Over half of UK homes are already at risk of overheating, and that is projected to increase to 90% homes under a 2°C global warming scenario, which unfortunately is a possibility.
This is not some distant hypothetical; the Met Office recorded the UK’s first ever 40°C day in 2022. Already around 2,000 deaths per year in England are attributed to heat waves, a number that is projected to more than triple by the 2050s under even a medium-emissions scenario. This is not just a health issue but an economic one. Evidence shows that overheating in buildings could cost the UK economy £60 billion a year—the equivalent of 1.5% to 2% of GDP—through lost productivity. That is on top of the economic costs of heat-related mortality, estimated to already be £6.4 billion per year in England, which is likely to increase to £14.7 billion per year by the 2050s. These are huge figures.
As highlighted by the Climate Change Committee,
“early adaptation investments deliver high value for money”,
with every £1 invested in adaptation delivering £10 in net economic benefits. That is a huge rate of return and a huge benefit-cost ratio. As heard by the Environmental Audit Committee, passive measures supported through planning, such as installing external shutters, can reduce incidence of heat mortality by around 40%.
Given the urgency, I draw the Committee’s attention to a regrettable decision made more than a decade ago. In 2012, the coalition Government removed references to “overheating” from the national planning policy framework. This left a significant gap in our planning system’s ability to deal with overheating risks—one that has not been adequately addressed since. That is precisely why we need the new clauses. There are five in the group, each of which deals with a particular element that needs addressing, and I will go through them now.
New clause 77 would empower local authorities to impose conditions on planning permissions where there is demonstrable overheating risk, such as single-aspect flatted developments with no cross-ventilation. It is a targeted, proportionate provision that would allow planning authorities to respond to local climatic data with appropriate preventive conditions, and it would undo the short-sighted change introduced by the previous Government.
New clause 78 would introduce statutory guidance on the cooling hierarchy, an approach that is already familiar in London planning policy. The hierarchy prioritises passive design strategies, such as shading and ventilation, before resorting to energy-intensive cooling. This aligns with our net zero goals and ensures resilience, without placing undue burden on developers and the grid. Why would we not ensure that our buildings can effectively cool themselves before going to measures such as installing air conditioning?
New clause 79 would address a significant gap by requiring all full planning applications for residential developments to include an overheating risk assessment, using the established TM59 standard, or its successor, from the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers. At present, many new homes are being designed with large, south-facing windows, poor ventilation and inadequate shading. Building regulations alone do not capture this risk at the early design stage, so the planning system must intervene. Overheating is a planning issue, not just a building regulations issue. Building regulations govern how buildings are constructed; planning dictates what gets built and where.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a long-standing norm that building regulations deal not just with the construction of buildings but their thermal efficiency and performance. That is why energy performance certificates were introduced, and there are regulations on windows, glazing and glass roofs all found within the building regulations. Surely these provisions on overheating need to go hand in hand with those provisions on thermal efficiency in housing, and therefore sit far better within building regulations than in this Bill.
Ellie Chowns
I do not at all dispute that there is potential to go further and faster within the framework of building regulations to address the risks that I am outlining. However, there is also potential within the planning framework to do it, which is exactly the point that I have made. The removal of “overheating” from the planning framework in 2022 meant that things have got worse. We have an opportunity in the Bill to ensure that we tackle overheating through the planning framework, as well as the building regulations framework. It really is not an either/or. There is scope and need within both those frameworks to address the risks that I am outlining.
New clause 80 would ensure that local plans must consider passive design in residential development, from cross-ventilation to thermal mass. These are well-established strategies that can drastically reduce indoor temperatures during extreme heat events without energy use.
Finally, new clause 81 would ensure that local authorities have access to up-to-date, localised overheating risk data. Evidence-based planning is possible only when planners are equipped with timely, spatially accurate information. Datasets such as these have already been pioneered in places like Bristol, with its Keep Bristol Cool map and local plan policies. Likewise, the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs has been developing national data on overheating, and that could form the basis of rolling out such support nationally.
We really must not miss this opportunity. Climate adaptation cannot be an afterthought; it needs to be embedded in our planning framework and how we plan our communities, protect our citizens and shape the homes of tomorrow. These five new clauses offer a clear, practical and urgently needed framework to ensure that our planning system is fit for a warmer world. I urge the Committee to support them.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for tabling the new clauses and raising the very real social and economic issue of overheating in our homes. I absolutely agree with her aims to ensure that homes being built do not give rise to the health and lifestyle risks that come with overheating.
In 2021, a new part of the building regulations—part O —was introduced, which was designed specifically to ensure that new homes are built to mitigate the risk of overheating. As the hon. Lady will know, compliance with building regulations is mandatory. Given the transitional arrangements that accompany new building regulations, it is only relatively recently that we have seen new homes built specifically to mitigate the risk of overheating, so we are seeing that effect come through the planning system. As part of the future homes and buildings standards consultation, which ran from December 2023 to March 2024, my Department ran a call for evidence on part O. This was to investigate how industry was finding part O, how it was being implemented and whether further improvements could be made. The Government response to that call for evidence, with details of next steps, will be issued later this year.
Different regulatory regimes exist for different purposes, and aspects of building construction concerned with heating and cooling are best addressed through these regulations. The planning system absolutely has a role in mitigating the risks of overheating, but in the Government’s view, that is more in the overall layout and form of development—matters that are covered in national planning policy. Notwithstanding the comments that the hon. Lady made about changes introduced by the coalition Government, paragraph 161 of the national planning policy framework sets out that concern must be given to
“taking into account the long-term implications”
of a range of matters, including overheating.
I reassure the hon. Lady that there is specific reference to overheating in the NPPF as it stands. As we have discussed several times, the framework was partially revised in December last year, but we have again committed to consult on clearer policies for development purposes, which is how decisions on applications are made. These will cover the full range of planning considerations, including how the planning system can address the risks posed by climate change. This is a really important topic, but we think that we are addressing it through our work to strengthen building regulations and planning policy in the future. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady is somewhat reassured and will withdraw the motion.
Ellie Chowns
I am somewhat reassured that the Minister recognises the severity of the problem. None the less, I maintain that there is need and scope to go further in ensuring that the planning system specifically enables us to address this issue. In the interests of gently encouraging the Minister further in the direction of tackling overheating, I will press this new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is once again a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, in the final hour of this Bill Committee—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—metaphorically speaking, of course. I rise to speak to new clause 88 on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). The new clause is intended to update the guidance on the use of compulsory purchase orders for active travel routes. One of the reasons the Liberal Democrats tabled the new clause is because, not unlike many other forms of infrastructure, building active travel routes seems to take a disproportionately long time and involve a huge amount of legal complexity. This is one idea to help make it a little easier.
The new clause calls on the Secretary of State to review existing guidance and remove barriers to using compulsory purchase orders for active travel routes—I have previously pledged not to use that term—by which I mean walking, cycling and wheeling routes. Such orders can be used to acquire land for a project or development that is in the public interest, but local authorities seem currently reluctant to use them, although they regularly do so for road projects.
To give an example, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame, the Thame to Haddenham greenway is a cycleway that will connect Thame to the village Haddenham, just three miles away, which would also help to improve connectivity between Thame itself and the Haddenham and Thame Parkway station on the Chiltern main line. Currently, reaching one from the other requires a cycle down the very busy A418. It is an important link, as it would provide safer pedestrian and cycle routes for tourism, for visiting friends and family in the area, and for commuting to and from London. I could bore the Committee with many similar examples in my own constituency, but I shall restrain myself on this occasion.
The delay is being caused by a variety of issues, but the biggest in this case is trying to acquire the land. Because of the number of owners, it is often the case that one may refuse, even if many others are willing, making the whole route or project impossible. Using a compulsory purchase order would allow the local authority to bypass such obstacles to build the project, as it would be seen as delivering a public good.
While there are a few cases of CPOs being used successfully for active travel, it is difficult because local authorities are reluctant, and the new clause would improve that situation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for speaking to new clause 88, tabled by the hon. Member for Henley and Thame. The new clause would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish guidance within 12 months of the Bill becoming law on what is considered a compelling case in the public interest for the use of compulsory purchase powers, and to clarify that active travel schemes are in the public interest. The Government already publish guidance on the compulsory purchase process, including advice on how local authorities can demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest for the use of their CPO powers in general terms. It also provides more detailed guidance on the most commonly used local authority powers.
The Government are keen to support local authorities to use their CPO powers in the public interest, and we published updated guidance in October last year. We also intend to publish updated guidance to reflect the reforms being implemented through the Bill. In addition, CPO powers can already be used for active travel routes and can be executed by local authorities as part of their wider statutory functions. To assist authorities in deploying the powers more effectively, Active Travel England is developing guidance to support local authorities in the design and delivery of active travel routes. The guidance will be published in consultation with local authorities in due course.
Given that the guidance that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage has requested on the CPO process already exists, and further guidance is set to be published by Active Travel England, we believe the new clause is unnecessary, and I am afraid I cannot accept it for those reasons.
Olly Glover
I thank the Minister for his comments. I was very pleased to hear him reference Active Travel England; as one of the vice-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking, I have been very impressed by the leadership of Chris Boardman, and it is good to hear the Minister making encouraging noises in that direction. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 91
Embodied carbon assessments
“(1) Local planning authorities must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act—
(a) require applications for permission for developments which exceed a specified gross internal area and number of dwellings to include an embodied carbon assessment;
(b) consider a relevant embodied carbon assessment as a material factor when considering whether to grant permission for the development.
(2) The Secretary of State must—
(a) approve a methodology for calculating embodied carbon emissions;
(b) provide guidance on how the whole-life carbon emissions of buildings must be expressed; and
(c) establish a centralised reporting platform to which embodied carbon and whole life carbon assessments must be submitted.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
‘embodied carbon’ means the total emissions associated with materials and construction processes involved in the full life cycle of a project;
‘whole life carbon’ means the combination of embodied and operational emissions across the full life cycle of a project;
‘operational emissions’ means the carbon emissions from the energy used once a project is operational, including from heating, lighting and cooling.”—(Ellie Chowns.)
This new clause would require the submission of embodied carbon assessments for larger developments as part of the planning application and consideration of these by local planning authorities. The Secretary of State will be required to approve a methodology, issue guidance, and establish a centralised reporting platform for whole-life carbon emissions.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 108—Repeal of section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961—
“In the Land Compensation Act 1961, omit section 14A.”
Ellie Chowns
New clause 91 would require the submission of embodied carbon assessments for larger developments as part of the planning process. It is a practical, forward-looking measure that I think will make a significant difference. It has been called for widely by industry, and indeed by parliamentarians, for some years, and it relates to a critical and currently unregulated area of the UK’s built environment emissions. The new clause would require planning applications for development only over a certain size to include an embodied carbon assessment, and it would provide for the Secretary of State to approve a methodology, issue guidance on how the assessments should be carried out, and establish a centralised reporting platform. Crucially, it would require that local planning authorities consider these assessments as a material factor when reviewing an application.
Embodied carbon refers to the emissions associated with materials and construction processes throughout the whole life cycle of a building or of infrastructure. This is typically from any processes, materials or products used to construct, maintain, repair, refurbish or repurpose a building. The UK Green Building Council estimates that the UK releases around 60 million tonnes of embodied carbon per year. That is more than aviation and shipping combined, and it accounts for over 10% of UK emissions. This is really significant. As I mentioned on a previous day, as we become more efficient in the operational carbon in our buildings, the embodied carbon in them becomes an increasingly significant part of the carbon reduction challenge in the building sector.
Embodied carbon has not substantially reduced over the last 30 years, unlike operational carbon, despite initiatives to decarbonise material manufacturing. Unlike operational carbon, which can be regulated through building performance standards, embodied carbon remains unaddressed by policy. As a result, decisions with very significant long-term climate implications are being made every day without a consistent framework for assessing their carbon impact. It is a huge unregulated problem.
The new clause seeks to close that gap in a measured and industry-ready way. It would not impose a burden on small-scale development—only major schemes, where carbon savings from early design choices are both most impactful and most achievable. It would buils on existing tools and industry momentum, and industry actually really wants this. There are already widely used standards and guidance available, including the whole life carbon assessment guidance from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the UK net zero carbon buildings standard and the embodied carbon primer from the London Energy Transformation Initiative.
Many local authorities, such as the Greater London Authority, Bristol and Manchester, have begun requiring whole life carbon assessment as part of planning. Embedding this requirement in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would provide clarity and consistency, saving time and minimising potential legal challenge by ensuring that planning authorities are demonstrably committing to the fulfilment of statutory climate duties. It would empower local planning authorities to make more informed, balanced decisions that take account of our legally binding net zero commitments and provide a consistent policy environment in which developers can operate.
This next bit is really important: there is strong consensus from industry that there is a need for this requirement to be widespread. Over 140 organisations have signed up to Part Z, a proposal developed by industry that calls for embodied carbon regulation. The industry is ahead of the politicians on this, and they are calling for it. This new clause requires a central database and consistent measurement framework to streamline and simplify the current diversity of approaches. Standardisation of embodied carbon measurement is a major priority, with leading industry organisations—such as UKGBC, the Royal Institute of British Architects, CIBSE, the Institution of Structural Engineers and RICS—calling for a national framework to ensure consistency between planning authorities.
Importantly—this is my final paragraph—this new clause aligns with the Bill’s aim to accelerate the delivery of housing and infrastructure while ensuring that the system is fit for future needs. The decisions that we make today about what we build and how we build it will lock in emissions for decades. This new clause is not a barrier to development: it is a tool to build better, more responsibly, more efficiently and more sustainably. It enables early intervention, supports innovation and ensures that the carbon cost of our buildings is not ignored in the rush to meet targets. It is pragmatic, proportionate and backed by industry. If the Minister is not inclined to accept the new clause, I would very much welcome a meeting with him to discuss how we can ensure that embodied carbon is taken forward and we use Government policy to address this important issue.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling this new clause, and I very much recognise the challenge that she has outlined. The Government are committed to the 2050 net zero carbon emissions target, and we recognise that embodied carbon can account for a significant proportion of a building’s whole life carbon emissions. Climate change is obviously one of the greatest challenges facing the world today, and managing carbon emissions and carbon storage is vital to mitigating the speed and impact of climate change. The national planning policy framework is clear that the planning system should contribute to and support the transition to a low-carbon future. Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications, in line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008.
Our consultation in the summer of last year on changes to the NPPF deliberately sought views on whether carbon can be accurately measured and accounted for in plan-making and planning decisions to establish industry readiness and identify any challenges to widespread use of carbon assessments in planning. We received a wide range of views on this topic, and based on the responses received, we do not consider it appropriate to make carbon assessments a mandatory requirement using a standardised methodology at this stage. However, we consider that both local authorities and developers could benefit from clearer guidance on the use of appropriate tools to assist in reducing the use of embodied carbon and operational carbon in the built environment, and we have committed to updating the relevant planning policy guidance to support this.
Addressing embodied carbon is a challenge across the built environment and construction supply chains, not just in buildings. As other policies take effect, and industries that supply construction decarbonise, the embodied carbon emissions of buildings will fall in turn. I am happy to give the matter further thought, and I am more than happy to have the hon. Member for North Herefordshire take one of my Tea Room surgery appointment slots.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister, and look forward to discussing this with him further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 94
Considerations when deciding an application for development consent
“In section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (acceptance of applications), after subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) When deciding whether to accept an application, the Secretary of State must have regard to the extent to which consultation with affected communities has—
(a) identified and resolved issues at the earliest opportunity;
(b) enabled interested parties to understand and influence the proposed project, provided feedback on potential options, and encouraged the community to help shape the proposal to maximise local benefits and minimise any disbenefits;
(c) enabled applicants to obtain relevant information about the economic, social, community and environmental effects of the project; and
(d) enabled appropriate mitigation measures to be identified, considered and, if appropriate, embedded into the proposed application before the application was submitted.’”—(Gideon Amos.)
This amendment to the Planning Act 2008 would require the Secretary of State to consider the content and adequacy of consultation undertaken with affected communities when deciding an application for development consent.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will be brief, Mrs Hobhouse. Earlier in the progression of the Bill, we debated the removal of the pre-application requirement—all the statutory requirements for pre-application consultation under the Planning Act 2008. It may be wishful thinking, but it seemed to me that it was a generally held view that a qualitative test of some sort was needed for the consultation carried out by applicants before a DCO NSIP application is accepted for examination. That is certainly the opinion among the Liberal Democrats.
We therefore drafted the new clause, which repeats the four key paragraphs on the requirements for good consultations, which are in Government guidance, and places them on the face of the Bill as something to which the Secretary of State should have regard when considering whether to accept an application for development. In other words, in simple terms, when an application comes in, the Secretary of State and the inspector should consider the extent to which the applicant has consulted people and how well they have consulted people. That seems to be a basic, straightforward and simple requirement. I am sure the Government will have many complicated reasons for why this cannot be done, but to my mind it seems a straightforward way of dealing with it: introducing a qualitative test for Government to apply, given that they are removing all the pre-application consultation requirements from the primary legislation.
I have a quotation from Suffolk county council. As many will know, Suffolk has had more than its fair share of nationally significant infrastructure projects, far more than anywhere else in the country, starting with the Ipswich rail chord a number of years ago, with which I had some involvement. Suffolk is the site of numerous offshore wind farms, solar farms, Sizewell and huge numbers of cable routes and substations so, as the council describes it:
“Suffolk County Council has been involved with the delivery of projects under the Planning Act…since 2010”.
It states:
“The proposed replacement of a statutory requirement, by statutory guidance alone, is therefore, neither sufficient nor robust.”
I will not continue the quotation in the interests of time. I am sure that the Committee gets the gist. We offer the new clause as a way of securing sensible test, so that there is proper pre-application consultation, and that that continues to occur despite the removal of all the requirements under the Act.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving the new clause. Without testing the patience of the Committee too far, I will speak fairly briefly to set out the Government’s position, because I recognise the concerns that were expressed in previous debates. As he described, the new clause would result in the Secretary of State having to take into account how community consultation has taken place in the determination of whether an NSIP application should be accepted for examination. Specifically, the new clause would require the Secretary of State to consider whether the application has sought to resolve issues, enabled interested parties to influence the project during early phases, obtained relevant information about the locality, and enabled appropriate mitigation through community consultation.
We recognise the crucial role that communities’ engagement and consultation can play in building infra-structure that mitigates impacts and increases benefits for communities, but the Government do not agree that a statutory test is the right way to achieve that objective. Evidence shows that the statutory consultation requirements —as debated at length in an earlier part of the Bill—which are unique to the NSIP regime, are creating perverse alternatives. Risk-averse developers end up producing lengthy documentation that is aimed at lawyers and not communities. Moreover, developers are disincentivised to change their schemes in light of responses to those consultations for fear that they would have to go out to consultation again. Let us be clear; this slows down delivery and increases cost to all our detriment.
As we discussed with the pre-application stage, the times have nearly doubled since 2013 to over two years, and we estimate that our proposals could save businesses up to £1 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. For this reason, as we have already debated, the Government have tabled amendments to remove all statutory consultation requirements during pre-application. This includes amending the acceptance test in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 to remove the adequacy of consultation test.
Gideon Amos
It continues to be a privilege to serve the Committee with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse, and a pleasure to serve under my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). I am very grateful for the opportunity to respond to what the Minister has said on this new clause. It is worth pointing out that the new clause would not reintroduce all the procedural requirements that are being removed from the Planning Act 2008. It would place a test in the Bill that, as the Minister has just said, will already be applied, because it is in the guidance. If it is already being applied under guidance, I am not sure why the Government feel that it will be so detrimental and delay applications to such a great extent.
Including this provision in the Bill would give the Secretary of State the clear ability to refuse an application where that consultation has been wholly and completely inadequate. Take, for example, an applicant who comes forward after completely refusing to consult anybody on anything. There would be nothing in the Bill that expressly allows the Minister to take that into account when deciding whether to accept the application for examination. I know that the Committee would like to make progress, so I will not press the new clause to a vote. I think the point has been made, and I hope the Government will consider it further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 95
Repeal of requirement for agreement to removal of consent in DCOs
“In the Planning Act 2008, omit section 150 (removal of consent requirements).”—(Gideon Amos.)
This amendment to the Planning Act 2008 would remove the existing requirement that development consent orders can only remove a requirement for consent or authorisation with the agreement of the relevant consenting body.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would remove section 150 from the Planning Act 2008, which would restore the ability to elected Ministers, when making decisions on NSIPs, to make decisions on other consents, which is currently reserved to executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies.
In other aspects of the Planning Act, these big development consent order projects are intended to follow a single-consenting regime, which works reasonably well. As we discussed earlier today, it includes a listed building consent, conservation area consent and a whole range of other matters. Certain consents are reserved to other executive agencies—or quangos, we might say. That is time consuming, as it obstructs the principle of a single, one-stop shop for these big projects. It is also less democratic even than the Secretary of State taking the decision.
Industry is keen on this new clause. Another reason to table it was to show the Minister that we also have proposals to speed up the process, where that does not remove people’s democratic say. The new clause would enhance that democratic say, because it would restore to elected Ministers some of the decisions that are currently reserved to unelected arm’s length bodies. The new clause is offered in the spirit of improving the Planning Act 2008 regime.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving the new clause. As he says, it seeks to repeal section 150 of the Planning Act 2008. I recognise the issue touched on, and it is one that the Government have considered but ultimately decided not to make the changes that he seeks, for reasons that I will outline.
In addition to the planning permit granted through the DCO, NSIPs have to secure a range of other, secondary consents. Those can be temporary permits if only needed for construction, or permanent permits if needed for operating the development. Section 150 enables applicants to include those secondary consents in the DCO, instead of having to seek them separately. That speeds up the consenting process, but it is subject to the agreement of a relevant consenting authority, such as the Environment Agency.
The Government agree that the consenting and permitting process for NSIPs needs to be streamlined, and work is ongoing to achieve that. Seeking permits after the DCO has been granted causes unnecessary delays to the construction of significant infrastructure schemes. As the hon. Gentleman referenced, section 150 was intended to support the one-stop shop ambition of the NSIP regime, but in practice is rarely used. Consenting bodies require a large amount of information to decide on a permit application, but applicants rarely have such information this early in the planning application process.
As we said in the planning reform working paper, the Government want to deliver the one-stop shop vision for the NSIP regime. We considered potential reforms, such as a deemed consent framework, or indeed to repeal section 150, to reduce barriers and increase uptake. However, after speaking extensively with stakeholders, we think that those are not viable options.
The new clause repealing section 150 would allow applicants to include consents and permits in their draft DCO application without the agreement of the consenting body. The secondary consents would then be included in the DCO under section 120, which does not require permission from the relevant consenting authority. That risks, however, lessening the robustness of the permitting process for the following reasons.
As the draft DCO is submitted at an early stage, most applicants do not have enough information about their project to underpin a permitting decision, and consenting bodies would need to evaluate applications based on incomplete information. The Secretary of State making the decision on the DCO would likely have insufficient information to make a robust and legally sound decision. In particular for environmental permits, there is a risk of regression on environmental standards. Some consents are also not suitable to be included in the DCO, because they relate to ongoing activities that a regulating body needs to monitor, and where permits may need to be amended or revoked. I therefore disagree—the Government took this view on the balance of serious consideration, after engaging with a wide range of stakeholders—that repealing section 150 would be beneficial.
Instead, we will reduce the permitting burden by reforming the permitting system. Many NSIPs need environmental permits for low-risk temporary construction activities. Our wide-ranging reforms will modernise, accelerate and simplify decisions to get projects and developments moving, while upholding protections for the environment and local communities. The reforms by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will further empower regulators to make risk-based decisions on which activities should be exempt from needing environmental permits.
Easing permitting requirements for low-risk activities will help to speed up consenting and construction, as well as incentivise more investment in infrastructure. Further operational and service improvements to the Environment Agency’s permitting service will enable permits to be issued faster. Additionally, we will provide clearer guidance to applicants and consenting authorities to improve the usage of section 150 in its current form.
I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington accepts that we recognise the problem, but think that there is a different way to address the challenges he has highlighted that does not involve a full repeal of section 150. We agree that change is needed, but we are focusing on alternative and what we consider more effective solutions. On that basis, I hope that he is reassured, although I recognise the point he makes.
Gideon Amos
I am concerned that this smacks of certain parts of Government reserving to themselves decisions that could easily come under one Secretary of State, and would be the one-stop shop that we would all like to see. In the interests of time, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 96
Review of land value capture
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of land value capture.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the benefits of different methods of land value capture;
(b) international best practice;
(c) how changes to existing practice could assist in the meeting of housing targets and the delivery of critical infrastructure and public services; and
(d) how any changes to existing practice could be incorporated into UK planning law.
(e) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the conclusion of the review, lay before Parliament a report on the findings of the review.”—(Olly Glover.)
This new clause would require a review into methods of land value capture, to ensure the public benefit from instances where land value rises sharply, and for this to be considered to be incorporated into UK planning legislation.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Olly Glover
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require a review into methods of land value capture, for reasons that I shall explain. As the Minister will be aware, currently the primary mechanisms to capture land value uplifts in England are developer contributions, in the form of section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy. While those mechanisms bring some benefits, they are not without their challenges.
Earlier this year, the Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee launched an inquiry to examine how land value capture policies can contribute to the delivery of the Government’s house building plans and, crucially, help to fund affordable housing and public infrastructure. The Committee gathered valuable insights from experts, and one finding was that in high- value locations such as the greater south-east, to put it in affordable housing terms, only 19.6% is being achieved on average at the moment, whereas one could achieve 40% to 50%.
Land value capture is not unknown in this country—indeed, it is being used to finance the ongoing operational costs of the newly reopened Northumberland line between Newcastle, Blyth and Ashington in the north-east of England—but we need a land value capture system more widely that is fair and delivers what communities need: genuinely affordable housing, and public infrastructure and services that people can rely on. Moving to more mechanisms for local authorities to use land value capture methods other than section 106 and CIL might enable them to fund some more expensive elements of infrastructure, such as new railway stations or lines, that are currently neglected.
The new clause would require a review into land value capture methods, building on the work of the Select Committee inquiry. National Government should consult with local government. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the important issue of land value capture. As he says, local planning authorities can use developer contributions secured through section 106 planning obligations and the community infrastructure levy to capture a proportion of the increases in land value that occur as a result of planning permission being granted.
Developer contributions play a vital role in the planning system: nearly half of affordable homes delivered in England each year are through section 106 planning obligations, and contributions from developers fund essential infrastructure to support new development and mitigate its impacts. That is why, as I made clear previously in relation to earlier amendments and clauses, the Government are committed to strengthening the system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide the necessary affordable homes and local infrastructure.
To that end, we chose not to implement the alternative proposal for land value capture provided for in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023—namely, a mandatory infrastructure levy, which the previous Government would have had replace section 106 and CIL—given the concerns raised by many involved in the planning system. I remember extensive debates on that point in Committee; if hon. Members think that some of the debates that we have had lasted a long time, I refer them back to the Hansard reports of the debates on that infrastructure levy. There were real risks that it would, overall, have led to our receiving less affordable housing than under the present system, so we are not taking it forward.
We have already made progress through the revised national planning policy framework published on 12 December last year in other areas—for example, the new golden rules for green belt development, which are designed to capture more of the land value uplift to fund central infrastructure and high levels of affordable housing—and we will legislate to give mayors of strategic authorities the power to raise a mayoral CIL, alongside the requirement to have a spatial development strategy in place, enabling them to raise revenue for strategic growth-supporting infrastructure where that is balanced with viability.
We welcome an ongoing discussion about how we improve the system of developer contributions—I look forward to hearing the thoughts of the hon. Gentleman’s when we bring the Government’s proposals forward in due course—and I personally look forward to engaging with the findings of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s important inquiry into this subject. However, we believe that the Government’s focus is better directed on delivery at this stage, reporting to Parliament through the usual procedures. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member is content to withdraw the motion.
Olly Glover
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments; the Committee will be delighted to learn that I will not rise to his challenge to debate at inordinate length. It is good to hear that the Government are taking forward some proposals in this area and, given that there is an ongoing Select Committee inquiry, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 98
Electricity distribution networks: land and access rights
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, consult on and implement measures to give electricity distribution network operators powers in relation, but not limited, to—
(a) the acquisition of rights over land for new and existing overhead lines and underground cables;
(b) the acquisition of land for new substations or the extension of existing substations;
(c) the entering into of land for the purposes of maintaining existing equipment;
(d) the entering into of land for the purposes of managing vegetation growth which is interfering with the safety or operation of overhead equipment.
(2) Any powers granted must be compatible with the need to complete works related to development in a timely, inexpensive and uncomplicated manner, and may include the provision of compensation to relevant landowners.”—(Gideon Amos.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on giving electricity distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 99—Extension of permitted development—
“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act—
(a) make provision for the following to be included as permitted development—
(i) upgrading of existing lines from single to three phase;
(ii) alteration of conductor type;
(iii) increase in the height of distribution network supports to maintain minimum ground clearances under the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002;
(iv) increase in the distance of supporting structures by up to 60m from their existing position when replacing an existing overhead line;
(v) in relation to new connections from an existing line, an increase in nominal voltage to a maximum of 33kV and related increase in pole heights;
(vi) upgrading of existing lines from 6.6kV to 11kV;
(vii) installation of additional stays supporting wood poles;
(viii) upgrading of existing apparatus, including the increase of capacity of pole mounted transformers, subject to the provisions of section 37(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 and the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002;
(ix) temporary placement of a line for a period of up to two years.
(b) consult on the introduction of further measures for the purposes of enabling distribution network upgrades and reinforcements to be delivered as permitted development.”
Gideon Amos
New clauses 98 and 99 would require the Government to review permitted development rights and land acquisition rights for the electricity distribution network. The electricity distribution network is about 200,000 kilometres of bending overhead lines. If we are going to deliver net zero and economic growth, the anomalies now appearing in the system need to be addressed. There is a massive challenge for us in delivering more local renewable energy installations, as more farmers want batteries and more people want solar panels on their roofs.
The stress on the distribution network is significant—the Minister will know a lot more about this than I do—and we need to upgrade our distribution network as rapidly as possible. That reminds me of a seminar I once organised, when someone from National Grid said, “You can tell the road with all the solar panels on the roofs by the substation on fire at the end of it.” We really need to find a way to resolve the overloading of the distribution network, which can pose risks—though hopefully not fires—and challenges to those trying to upgrade their local network.
I have a couple of examples. Where there is a row of poles with two cables on them going across a field, just to put a third cable on there requires a planning application. When we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of kilometres of electricity line, that seems overly rigorous and constrained. Similarly, if someone wishes to increase the height of the poles by more than 10%—let us say they want to increase them by 12%—that would require a full planning application process. We hope these new clauses are self-explanatory in their aim of to moving us closer and faster towards delivering on communities’ net zero ambitions.
I have growing confidence that the Government will accept these new clauses without any further debate—but I have always been an optimist. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I hate to let the hon. Gentleman down at this hour of the Committee, but I will outline why we cannot accept his new clauses. I think he will, however, be pleased with the Government’s position on this. I will turn first to new clause 98, which requires the Government to consult on the implementation of measures to give distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land.
First, we completely agree with the case that the hon. Gentleman outlined. The distribution network does the vast majority of the heavy lifting to get electricity to all our homes and businesses, and it plays a critical role. It will require significant upgrading over the coming years, not least with the increase in demand that we expect. We agree that the current regime for infrastructure is not fit for purpose, as do developers and landowners.
We are all in agreement, which is fantastic at this hour of the Committee. The reason I cannot support this new clause is that we want to propose—if I may say so—a more ambitious set of reforms to land rights and consenting processes later this year. While we agree with the principle of many of the proposed changes, it is important that we get their detail right and ensure that they are developed with particular consideration of the rights of landowners. We will consult on reforms in this area, and following that consultation, we will look at including appropriate measures in future legislation, where necessary.
Gideon Amos
I wonder whether the Minister could be a little more definite. He referred to future legislation and some time this year, but I cannot help but think that I have heard those phrases before on some other topics. Is there a concrete proposal to bring forward legislation in this area?
Michael Shanks
A working group, involving people from across the Department and all those involved in this area, has been working on these proposals, and a consultation will be brought forward shortly. In the King’s Speech, we committed to a Bill that addresses a number of different areas in the energy space, and we hope that this area could be included. However, it is necessary to complete the consultation process in order to know what those measures might look like.
On new clause 99, I broadly agree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman has raised. Reform is necessary for us to meet the increasing demand for clean energy, and upgrading the distribution network will play a crucial role, particularly in connecting small-scale renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind, as well as the widespread adoption on the demand side, which we do not often speak about, with the roll-out of electric vehicles and heat pumps. Without upgrades in this space, we risk falling short of our climate goals and hindering progress towards our sustainable future.
While we are in complete agreement with the hon. Gentleman on the need for change, we do not support this particular new clause because it is possible for us to complete many of these changes through secondary legislation. As with new clause 98, it is also crucial that landowners’ views are heard and understood before any of these changes are implemented. We may wish to consider other reforms as part of this process or to discount certain proposals based on the evidence from those relevant stakeholders. That is why the Government have committed to consult on these and other reforms in the summer. That is the most appropriate way forward, rather than the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw new clause 98.
Gideon Amos
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 101
Preservation of playing fields and pitches
“(1) A local planning authority must, when exercising any of its functions, ensure the preservation of playing fields and playing pitches.
(2) The duty in subsection (1) may, when granting permission for development, be met through the imposition of conditions or requirements relating to—
(a) the protection of playing fields or playing pitches affected by the development; or
(b) the provision of alternative, additional or expanded playing fields or playing pitches.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘playing fields’ and ‘playing pitches’ have the same meanings as in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.”—(Gideon Amos.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 111—Protection of villages—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local planning authorities, or update any relevant existing guidance, relating to the protection of villages.
(2) Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate, as is provided for towns in relation to—
(a) preventing villages from merging into one another,
(b) preventing villages merging into towns, and
(c) preserving the setting and special character of historic villages.”
Gideon Amos
New clause 101 concerns the protection of playing fields, which are vital to people’s health and wellbeing by creating important opportunities for physical activity, with multiple benefits for mental health and physical health. Following the Government’s decision to withdraw Fields in Trust from the list of statutory consultees, there is widespread concern about the loss of playing fields and the under-provision of play and green spaces—[Interruption.]
Gideon Amos
I will be brief as we come to the last couple of new clauses that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches wish to speak to today. I was speaking to new clause 101, which relates to playing fields. Fields in Trust is a charity that helps to protect playing fields and green spaces. Its public green space index is a way to track change over time, and it consistently finds inequality of access: one in three children do not have a playground close to home and 6.3 million people live more than 10 minutes away in walking time from a green space.
The new clause would place a duty on local planning authorities to protect playing fields and pitches from development. In March this year—a couple of months ago—the Government announced that some organisations, including Sport England, will no longer be statutory consultees on planning decisions, in order to speed up development. The press release states:
“The NPPF is clear that existing open spaces, sports, recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless an assessment has shown the space to be surplus to requirements or it will be replaced by equivalent or better provision.”
The Government argued that such protections were sufficient, but Sport England states that:
“from 2022-23 alone it protected more than 1,000 playing fields across the country.”
That was in a Guardian article where it was reported that thousands of playing fields may be lost. The protections in the NPPF are therefore not sufficient. The effect of removing Sport England as a statutory consultee can only be to speed up development on playing fields.
Sport England has also stated that
“it responds to over 98% of applications within 21 days and that in 70% of statutory applications it does not object.”
There is not a source of unnecessary delay as a result of Sport England being involved in the process. If those provisions are being removed, then the Government need to put in place more robust legal provisions for playing fields. The new clause would do that so that important community assets are not lost.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I will be brief: the issues in new clause 111, which it is my privilege to speak to, have already been extensively debated. We have just heard about protections in respect of playing fields; new clause 111 is about protections in respect of villages. Those are relevant to places such as Harefield in my constituency—pretty much the last village in London—and to the concerns highlighted by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), about some recent decisions on infilling, which puts the separation of villages from nearby towns at some degree of risk. We are keen to preserve it. We will press the new clause to a vote in due course.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I rise in support of the important new clause 111, in the name of the shadow Minister. I have six villages in my patch—Goffs Oak, Hertford Heath, Brickendon, Great Amwell, St Margarets and Stanstead Abbotts—all of which have a unique character. We need to protect village life; villages are all unique and different. The new clause is not saying that we do not want any development in villages—of course, to make progress, there has to be developmentbut people in villages in my constituency, and probably across the country, are fearful of having loads of development so that villages all get connected up together and lose their rural identity, village community and spirit.
I would like the Government to really consider the new changes they have made to the national planning policy framework, particularly on villages. As I said, when we drive throughout the country, probably through hundreds of villages, we know they are all unique and have a different character. We should try to maintain that, rather than having an urban sprawl, with no green spaces left and developments that all link together. I fully support the new clause in the shadow Minister’s name.
Matthew Pennycook
I will start with new clause 101. I gently say to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington that I do not agree with his interpretation of the reforms that we set out for the statutory consultee system or our minded reforms; as I have said, we will consult on those in fairly short order.
We want to look at both the scope of statutory consultees and the specific application types on which they provide advice. We know that there are lots of applications where statutory consultees are required to be consulted but do not even engage with the issues for which they have responsibility. We think there is a sensible reform there. But I take issue with the hon. Gentleman’s claim that the in-principle decision to look to consult on the removal of Sport England means that the Government are determined to develop on every playing field across the country.
The Government agree that access to recreational spaces, including playing fields and pitches, is vital for the health and wellbeing of communities. Those spaces play an important role in supporting physical activity, social cohesion and opportunities for young people. The national planning policy framework already includes strong protections for playing fields and pitches. It sets out clear and robust tests that must be met before any development affecting such space can be approved. The policies ensure that playing fields can be lost only where the facility is no longer needed, or where there is a justified and appropriate alternative, such as equivalent or better provision elsewhere.
Given those existing safeguards, we do not believe it is necessary to duplicate them in primary legislation. The risk is that doing so could lead to an overly rigid framework that limits the ability of local planning authorities. We have had a number of debates where in a sense we are trying to restrict the ability of local planning decisions—I do not think advertently, but perhaps inadvertently. We think local planning authorities are best placed to make some of these decisions. We do not want to overly restrict their ability to respond to the specific needs and circumstances of their communities. We need some of that flexibility to be left in the system.
Gideon Amos
We do not agree with the Government’s approach in removing Sport England as a statutory consultee. We are concerned that that will only lead to more development on playing fields. I will not detain the Committee with a vote, but I think that our position is clear. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 103
Local Area Energy Plans
“(1) All local authorities and combined authorities must create a Local Area Energy Plan.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a ‘Local Area Energy Plan’ means an outline of how the relevant authority proposes to transition its area’s energy system to Net Zero.”—(Olly Glover.)
This new clause would require all local and combined authorities to develop Local Area Energy Plans which set out how they will meet their Net Zero goals.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Olly Glover
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would make the adoption of local area energy plans compulsory in England. Local area energy plans are now recognised as the leading method for turning national net zero targets into real, on-the-ground action. They offer a path that is not only strategic and data driven but collaborative and cost-effective.
The plans are driven by local government, working hand in hand with key stakeholders from across the community. The result is a fully costed spatial plan that lays out exactly the changes needed to the local energy system and the built environment. Critically, it includes not just what needs to happen but where, when and by whom it should be delivered. Moreover, local area energy plans break down the big picture into manageable steps. They map out the costs, shifts in energy use and reductions in emissions over time. Such plans can be prepared to align with our national climate goals, including ultimately reaching net zero by 2050.
I am proud to say that in Oxfordshire, where my constituency is, a local area energy plan is under development. However, despite their importance to our planning process and net zero target, such plans are not compulsory in England. That has not stopped many local authorities from preparing them, and I hope that the Government will note that many of those local authorities are controlled by the Labour party. In Greater Manchester, 10 boroughs have a local area energy plan in place. Plans are also in place in York and North Yorkshire, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Peterborough and the borough in which we are holding this debate: Westminster. In Wales, all 22 authorities have produced a local area energy plan because in Wales that is compulsory.
If hon. Members do not believe me, I quote Shaun Gibbons, the head of carbon reduction at York city council:
“The York Local Area Energy Plan has served an important role in articulating the scale of the net zero challenge and setting specific targets against some of our most pressing actions. It has provided a robust evidence base for external funding applications and has resulted in the Council accessing funding several times greater than the original cost of the plan.”
The new clause would require local authorities to prepare local area energy plans and would be a key component in getting to net zero. In the final stages of this Committee, I have hope that the Minister will view the measure favourably, given that there is so much good practice from Labour-run councils.
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling the new clause, and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for speaking to it—and for his praise of Labour councils, which we are always happy to hear from colleagues across the House. I recognise the important work and example of local area energy plans where they are working.
Local authorities are taking a number of other actions right across the country to deliver net zero, many having drafted strategies in different ways and forms to achieve their own local aims, goals and ambitions alongside other strategies that local authorities might have. These are helpful documents to be able to refer to when planning for forthcoming energy projects and investment.
We support the idea that local authorities may wish to look at these kinds of plans as part of the wider context around, for example, local growth plans. However, our view on the new clause is that now is not the right time to place an additional burden on all local authorities to have to develop local area energy plans—during a period of local government reorganisation, and crucially, as we are taking forward the regional energy strategic plans process, which is under way at the moment.
A top-down requirement for a local area energy plan would risk duplicating local and regional energy system planning that the National Energy System Operator is carrying out in line with Ofgem’s recent decision to introduce regional energy strategic plans. Ofgem has set out that regional energy strategic plans will plan how local energy systems need to be developed to reach net zero, considering the national targets set by central Government, and, as part of the strategic planning of our energy system more generally, the local needs and most appropriate approach in each area. They will set out the energy requirements for each region presented spatially. They will also set the foundation for determining capacity required and strategic investment needs on a regional basis.
Ofgem has stated that the National Energy System Operator will set up regional strategic boards, which will be responsible for providing oversight of regional energy plans, and it is anticipated that local government will be properly represented on those boards. We want local government to play an active role in the development of the regional energy plans. I understand that the work that many of them have been doing already, the evidence they have gathered and the experiences that they have had will be hugely helpful in supporting this process. The exact format of how each local government will contribute is still to be decided. Given that that process is ongoing and the huge amount of work as part of the strategic spatial energy plan and the regional plans, now is not the right time to place a new burden on local government to provide a uniform product across the country.
Finally, given that many areas have multiple tiers of local government, the new clause risks a number of different duplicative plans covering the same geographical area. For those reasons, although I completely support the premise of the point about the importance of local participation in planning the energy system, we will not support the new clause.
Olly Glover
I thank the Minister for his comments. It is good to know from him that the topic is being looked at with a geographical scope greater than single local authorities. We shall observe with interest how that goes. In the interests of having time to speak to other new clauses, I will not press this one to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 105
Extension of use classes C5 and C6 to England
“In article 1(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2022, after “Wales” insert “, except in relation to articles 2(e) and 2(f), which apply in relation to England and Wales”.”—(Gideon Amos.)
This amendment of existing regulations would extend use classes C5 (Dwellinghouses, used otherwise than as sole or main residences) and C6 (Short-term lets), which currently only to apply to Wales, to England.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 106—Change of certain use classes to require permission—
“In article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, at end insert “, subject to paragraphs (1AA) and (1AB).
(1AA) Where a building is used for the purpose of Class C3, the use of that building for the purpose of Class C5 or Class C6 (or vice versa) is to be taken to involve development of the land.
(1AB) Where a building is used for the purpose of Class C5, the use of that building for the purpose of Class C6 (or vice versa) is to be taken to involve development of the land.””
This amendment would require planning permission to be obtained to change the use of a dwelling to a second home or to a short term let use class and for changes of use between those classes.
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak on new clauses 105 and 106, which are the final new clauses in these debates—I know how disappointed Government Members will be to hear that news. They are a couple of important new clauses, and I will spend a couple of minutes on them. There are, of course, well discussed and rehearsed arguments about second homes and short-term lets and their effect on existing communities. New clause 105 would take the position in Wales, where there are separate use classes for short-term lets and second homes to enable them to be regulated, and extend that across to England. New clause 106 would ensure that planning permission was required to change a dwelling house to a second home or a short-term let.
The previous Government indicated that they would legislate on short-term lets and allow planning authorities, local councils, to determine their extent, and that is what this is really about. Of course, second homes can be great for the local economy by bringing people to the area to spend money, but when they become a huge proportion of that local town or community, they can lead to businesses being closed and trade going away if the homes are left empty for too long. The same can apply to short-term lets.
In Cornwall, there are 13,000 second homes. In Somerset, my own county, there are 4,200 second homes. In recent years, there has been a staggering 30% increase. The whole point of the two new clauses is that they would give local planning authorities the ability to plan and to say what the appropriate level of short-term lets and second homes in their communities was. It would give them the ability to set those policies themselves and to grant or refuse planning permissions in accordance with the policies, so that they could do what is right for their areas to ensure that they do not suffer from too many short-term lets and second homes, which are pulling resources out of their communities.
We believe that the new clauses are vital and needed by councils around the country, and we urge the Government, at least on short-term lets, to make good on the previous commitment to introduce planning controls, not just taxation controls. Planning controls are needed because they shape the community in which people live and over which councils have a say.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling and speaking to these two new clauses and highlighting this really important issue, which does affect a large number of rural, coastal and, it is important to say, urban communities across the country. I have had a number of extremely fruitful meetings with colleagues on both sides of the House about it—most recently with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who is from the same party as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and whose constituency typifies the problems that can occur from incredibly excessive concentrations of both short-term lets and second homes.
Short-term lets and second homes can benefit local economies. They can be incredibly important for tourism in particular parts of the country. But we are also very aware of the concern that excessive concentrations can affect the affordability and availability of housing to buy and to rent, impact on the sustainability of local services and reduce the sense of local community. There is clearly a balance to be struck. As things stand, it has not been struck correctly. We think that change is needed in this area.
To take action on short-term lets, we still intend to introduce a registration scheme for them to ensure the quality and safety of tourist accommodation, provide better data to local authorities and protect the spirit of our communities. In addition, from April 2025 the furnished holiday lettings tax regime was abolished, eliminating the tax advantages that short-term let owners had over private rented sector landlords. Furnished holiday let owners are now subject to the same income, corporation and capital gains tax rules as other landlords.
Gideon Amos
Would the Minister not agree that the problem of locking-in could be countered by giving a lead-in time of six or 12 months? After that time, there would be a need for planning permission to continue with a short-term let, for example.
Matthew Pennycook
I note and accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, and there are a variety of considerations at play in this area. Locking in was one concern raised; enforcement was another. In response to feedback, we are considering the issue more generally. I make those points simply to say that this needs to be thought through carefully.
I have made this point in the House a number of times, and I am happy to do so again: we recognise the case for further action on short-term lets and second homes. We are very carefully considering what additional powers we might give to local authorities to enable them to respond to the pressures they are facing, but this is a complex area, and we have to think carefully about introducing these types of restrictions. We need to explore various potential levers that could help better strike that balance between housing and the tourism economy before moving forward.
We do not consider the planning changes set out in the new clause to be the most effective route to achieving that aim, but I once again reassure Members that we are taking concerns in this area very seriously and that I am more than happy to continue the dialogue with the hon. Gentleman and other Members who are affected. I know it is an extremely pressing issue in many constituencies. On that basis, I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel content not to push the new clause to a vote.
The Chair
I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson Gideon Amos for the final time in this Bill Committee.
Gideon Amos
I hope you and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) have not been discussing that this is to be my final time as the spokesperson, Mrs Hobhouse, but I am grateful for your introduction. It is the final time in this Committee—I definitely agree with you there.
We believe this is a crucial issue and that the argument is well made for legislating for planning controls. I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for committing to taking further action, but we on the Liberal Democrat Benches remain absolutely resolute that this needs legislation, so we will push the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 101 and 102.
Clause 95 stand part.
Government amendments 68 to 71.
Government amendments 55 and 56.
Clause 96 stand part.
Clause 97 stand part.
Matthew Pennycook
I rise to speak to the final group of clauses and amendments. Clause 94 simply sets out the Crown application of Bill measures.
Government amendments 101 and 102 make minor technical changes to reflect the fact that the amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 in schedule 6 extend only to England and Wales, because there are different versions of those Acts for England and Wales and for Scotland. I hope that the Committee accepts the amendments.
Clause 95 sets out the territorial extent of the provisions in the Bill and whether each part of the Bill extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The devolution position has been debated in relation to each part during the discussion of that part.
Government amendments 68 to 71 make minor consequential changes related to new clauses 44 and 45. To summarise, new clause 44 removes statutory consultation from pre-application, and new clause 45 makes subsequent changes to sections of the Planning Act 2008 and clauses as introduced by the Bill to reflect the changes made in new clause 44, and to remove reference to statutory requirements for consultation and associated documentation. The original clauses were to come into force six months after Royal Assent. These Government amendments now mean that new clauses 44 and 45 will come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.
In my written ministerial statement accompanying the tabling of the amendments, I made it clear that the Government intend to publish statutory guidance setting out strong expectations that developers undertake consultation and engagement prior to submitting an application. As we have discussed, this will be an important component of how we implement the removal of statutory consultation requirements for NSIP projects.
We will work with stakeholders to design the guidance and will launch a public consultation to seek input on how the guidance, regulations and transitional arrangements should be implemented. We are also aware that consequential changes to secondary legislation need to occur, so that associated legislation aligns with those changes. Therefore, the changes to the commencement of new clauses 44 and 45 allow the Government to adhere to commitments, ensure that guidance is in place to support changes and make the necessary changes to associated secondary legislation before the removal of statutory consultation requirements takes effect.
Government amendment 55 relates to new clause 42 and the amendments that the Government are introducing to improve the process for accessing land when needing to survey it in connection with an application or proposed application for development consent, or the implementation of a development consent order. Under new clause 42, the Government will later be introducing regulations associated with the notices that will need to be served on landowners before an applicant, or proposed applicant, enters the land in question. Government amendment 55 will ensure that the amendments under new clause 42 will come into force only when the Secretary of State introduces regulations associated with that new clause.
Government amendment 56 is a consequential change related to new clause 43. The merits of new clause 43 have already been debated. A proportionate and unified process for making changes to development consent orders post consent will be developed following appropriate consultation and engagement with consenting Departments and stakeholders and set out in revised regulations. Transitional provisions will be included in the revised regulations to ensure an efficient transition to the new system. The amendment will permit the clause introduced by new clause 43 to be introduced by regulations at the appropriate time.
Clause 96 sets out how different provisions in the Bill will be commenced, and clause 97 reaffirms that the short title of the Act will be the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. I commend the clauses and amendments to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 94 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 95
Extent
Amendments made: 101, in clause 95, page 134, line 11, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (1A),”.
This amendment, and Amendments 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107 and 108, are technical amendments reflecting the fact that there are different versions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 for England and Wales and for Scotland, and making it clear that the amendments to those Acts in Schedule 6 only extend to England and Wales.
Amendment 102, in clause 95, page 134, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) Paragraphs 37 and 41 of Schedule 6 extend to England and Wales only.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 101.
Clause 95, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 96
Commencement and transition provision
Amendments made: 68, in clause 96, page 134, line 28, leave out “1, 2 and 3” and insert “1 to 4”.
This amendment has the effect that the changes made by the new clauses inserted by NC44 and NC45, and current clauses 4 and 6 of the Bill, are to come into force by regulations.
Amendment 69, in clause 96, page 134, line 30, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 68.
Amendment 70, in clause 96, page 134, line 32, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 60.
Amendment 71, in clause 96, page 134, line 34, leave out paragraph (d).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 68.
Amendment 55, in clause 96, page 135, line 2, at end insert—
“(ea) section (Planning Act 2008: right to enter and survey land) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;”.
This amendment provides that the new clause inserted by NC42 comes into force by regulations.
Amendment 56, in clause 96, page 135, line 3, leave out “section 8 comes” and insert—
“sections (Changes to, and revocation of, development consent orders) and 8 come”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment provides that the new clause inserted by NC43 comes into force by regulations.
Clause 96, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Matthew Pennycook
On a point of order, Mrs Hobhouse. Briefly, I want to take the opportunity to put on the record my thanks to you and the other Chairs of the Committee. I also thank our exemplary Clerks, the Hansard reporters and the Doorkeepers for overseeing our proceedings. I thank my officials and private office team who have supported me and worked tirelessly to bring forward the ambitions of the complex piece of legislation that we have debated over recent weeks.
Finally, I thank my fellow Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen, for his support on the relevant parts of the Bill that pertained to his Department; my other hon. Friends, whose valuable insights have benefited our deliberations; and the shadow Ministers, the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, and the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington, for Didcot and Wantage, and for North Herefordshire for the spirited and constructive dialogue that we have had. I value all the contributions and challenges that have been made.
I know we are all united in wanting to deliver the best piece of legislation that we can for our constituents and the country. I very much look forward to further engagement with all hon. Members as the Bill progresses through its remaining stages.
The Chair
I thank the Minister for his point of order. I understand that it has been a marathon of a Bill. I thank all members of the Committee for their attendance, their great contributions and the respectful tone of the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Monday 9th June 2025
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 9 June 2025 - (9 Jun 2025)
First day | |
|---|---|
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of, and amendments to, Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. | The moment of interruption on the first day. |
Second day | |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of, and amendments to, Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; remaining proceedings on Consideration. | One hour before the moment of interruption on the second day. |
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 9th June 2025
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 9 June 2025 - (9 Jun 2025)
22:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 113 / Noes: 335 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:20 - The House divided: - Ayes: 167 / Noes: 334 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 73 / Noes: 323 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:46 - The House divided: - Ayes: 180 / Noes: 307 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: “(zg) Development likely to affect an area covered by a National Landscape Partnership The relevant National Landscape Partnership”” “(zg) Development likely to affect historic parks or gardens The Gardens Trust”” “(zg) Development which is likely to affect operations of ambulance services The ambulance trust concerned (zh) Development which is likely to affect operations of fire and rescue services The fire and rescue service concerned”” ‘(zg) Development involving Battery Energy Storage Solutions The relevant fire authority’” zg Development falling within any area covered by an Internal Drainage Board The relevant Internal Drainage Board”” Number of homes in development Number required to meet Building Regulation M4(3) Up to and including 9 homes A minimum of 1 home Exceeding 9 homes 10% of all homes, rounded to the nearest whole number” “cross–pavement charging solution section 105(1);”.
New clause 1—Steps to be taken when exercising functions under Part 3—
“When exercising any function or fulfilling any duty under Part 3 of this Act, the Secretary of State and Natural England must take all reasonable steps to—
(a) avoid, prevent and reduce any identified significant adverse effects on the environment, and only permit such adverse effects where they cannot be avoided and where the adverse effects will be compensated for;
(b) enhance biodiversity;
(c) permit a significant adverse effect on a European site or Ramsar site only where justified by imperative reasons of overriding public importance and where the adverse effect will be compensated for, and
(d) prevent the loss of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and veteran and ancient trees, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and any loss will be compensated for.”
This new clause would ensure that the Secretary of State and Natural England must take all reasonable steps to avoid causing adverse environmental effects.
New clause 2—Zero carbon standard for new homes—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 to require that new homes must—
(a) be built to a net zero carbon building standard, and
(b) include provision for solar power generation.
(2) Regulations must include a presumption that, as far as is reasonably practicable, new developments will include facilities for the rooftop generation of solar power.”
This new clause would require that new homes to be built to a net zero carbon building standard and include provision for the generation of solar power.
New clause 3—Transfer of land to local authority following expiry of planning permission—
“After section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, insert—
“91A Transfer of land to local authority following expiry of planning permission
(1) This section applies—
(a) where a development includes the construction of 100 or more homes and has not begun within the applicable period, and
(b) where section 91(4) of this Act does not apply.
(2) There is a compelling case in the public interest for the compulsory purchase under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 of land on which any such development was permitted provided that such purchase is—
(a) in accordance with the terms of the Land Compensation Acts, and
(b) complies with the relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.
(3) In this section—
(a) “applicable period” has the meaning given in section 91(5) of this Act;
(b) ”Land Compensation Acts” means—
(i) the Land Compensation Act 1961;
(ii) the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965;
(iii) the Acquisition of Land Act 1981;
(iv) any other relevant Act which the Secretary of State may specify.””
This new clause would mean that, where permission for a development of 100 homes or more is not used within the applicable period, there is automatically a justifiable case for the compulsory purchase of the land under the Housing Act 1985.
New clause 4—Sustainable drainage—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act—
(a) bring into force Schedule 3 (Sustainable drainage) of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and
(b) provide guidance to local planning authorities, land and property developers and other relevant stakeholders on how to incorporate sustainable drainage into new developments.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and provide guidance on the building in of sustainable drainage in future developments.
New clause 5—Local planning authority discretion over affordability of housing—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, provide guidance to local planning authorities on how to define or classify new or prospective developments as affordable housing.
(2) The guidance must make clear that a local planning authority may, while having regard to national or general guidelines, determine what is to be understood to be affordable housing in its area based on local needs and circumstances.”
This new clause would enable local planning authorities to use their discretion to determine whether certain housing is to be “affordable housing”.
New clause 6—Development plans to aim to improve health and well-being—
“(1) Any national or local plan or strategy relating to the planning or development of an area must be designed to improve the physical, mental and social health and well-being of the people who are to reside in that area.
(2) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local planning authorities on how local plans and strategies can be designed to achieve the aims outlined in subsection (1).”
This new clause would require national or local development plans to be designed in a way that aims to improve the physical, mental and social health and well-being of residents.
New clause 7—New car parks to include solar panels—
“(1) No local planning authority may approve an application for the building of an above-ground car park which does not make the required provision of solar panels.
(2) The required provision of solar panels is an amount equivalent to 50% of the surface area of the car park.”
This new clause would require solar panels to be provided with all new car parks.
New clause 8—Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before Part 3 of this Act comes into force, establish an independent body to monitor the administration of the nature restoration levy by Natural England.
(2) The independent body may request information from Natural England relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy additional to the information and reports provided to the independent body by Natural England under section 66(5).
(3) The independent body may report to the Secretary of State on—
(a) any concerns relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy, and
(b) any other matters relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy as the independent body deems appropriate.”
This new clause would provide for independent oversight of Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy.
New clause 9—Environmental infrastructure in new developments—
“(1) Within six months of to the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 for the purpose of protecting and enhancing biodiversity.
(2) Regulations made under this section must—
(a) take account of biodiversity targets and interim targets set out in sections 1(2), 1(3)(c), 11 and 14 of the Environment Act 2021;
(b) include measures to enable the provision in new developments of—
(i) bird boxes;
(ii) bat boxes;
(iii) swift bricks;
(iv) hedgehog highways; and
(v) biodiverse roofs and walls.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to protect and enhance biodiversity in new developments.
New clause 10—Inclusion of wildbelt in planning considerations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act—
(a) create a category of protection for wildbelt areas in England for the purpose of permanently protecting such areas from or during development, and
(b) issue guidance for local planning authorities and other relevant parties on how wildbelt land is to be protected.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “permanently protecting” areas means protecting or restoring the natural environment in a wildbelt area, and in ecosystems functionally connected to a wildbelt area.
(3) Guidance issued under subsection (1)(b) must—
(a) provide assistance to local planning authorities and others on the identification of wildbelt sites;
(b) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the development of spatial development strategies regarding—
(i) the use of Local Nature Recovery Strategies to protect and enhance wildbelt;
(ii) the reporting of progress towards the development of wildbelt sites; and
(iii) the reporting of progress towards the use of wildbelt designation to increase public access to nature.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “wildbelt” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify in guidance, but must include—
(a) areas of land;
(b) bodies of water and adjacent land;
(c) wetlands.”
This new clause would enable the creation of new wildbelt areas and associated ecosystems, and require guidance to be issued regarding the use of provisions of the bill to protect wildbelt areas.
New clause 11—Register of planning applications from political donors—
“(1) A local planning authority must maintain and publish a register of planning applications in its area where—
(a) a determination has been made by the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning, and
(b) the applicant has made a donation to the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning within the period of ten years prior to the application being made.
(2) A register maintained under this section must be published at least once each year.”
This new clause would require a local planning authority to keep and publish a register of applications decided by the Secretary of State where that Secretary of State has received a donation from the applicant.
New clause 12—Considerations when deciding an application for development consent—
“In section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (acceptance of applications), after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) When deciding whether to accept an application, the Secretary of State must have regard to the extent to which consultation with affected communities has—
(a) identified and resolved issues at the earliest opportunity;
(b) enabled interested parties to understand and influence the proposed project, provided feedback on potential options, and encouraged the community to help shape the proposal to maximise local benefits and minimise any disbenefits;
(c) enabled applicants to obtain relevant information about the economic, social, community and environmental effects of the project; and
(d) enabled appropriate mitigation measures to be identified, considered and, if appropriate, embedded into the proposed application before the application was submitted.””
This new clause to the Planning Act would require the Secretary of State to consider the content and adequacy of consultation undertaken with affected communities when deciding an application for development consent.
New clause 13—Removal of statutory consultees—
“(1) A party may only be removed from the list of consultees—
(a) in or under section 42 of the Planning Act 2008, or
(b) in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009,once Parliamentary approval for the removal has been signified.
(2) Parliamentary approval may be signified by—
(a) the approval of a relevant statutory instrument;
(b) the agreement of a relevant motion.”
This new clause would make the removal of statutory consultees subject to parliamentary approval.
New clause 14—Electricity distribution networks: land and access rights—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, consult on and implement measures to give electricity distribution network operators powers in relation, but not limited, to—
(a) the acquisition of rights over land for new and existing overhead lines and underground cables;
(b) the acquisition of land for new substations or the extension of existing substations;
(c) the entering into of land for the purposes of maintaining existing equipment;
(d) the entering into of land for the purposes of managing vegetation growth which is interfering with the safety or operation of overhead equipment.
(2) Any powers granted must be compatible with the need to complete works related to development in a timely, inexpensive and uncomplicated manner, and may include the provision of compensation to relevant landowners.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on giving electricity distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land.
New clause 15—Extension of permitted development—
“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act—
(a) make provision for the following to be included as permitted development—
(i) upgrading of existing lines from single to three phase;
(ii) alteration of conductor type;
(iii) increase in the height of distribution network supports to maintain minimum ground clearances under the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002;
(iv) increase in the distance of supporting structures by up to 60m from their existing position when replacing an existing overhead line;
(v) in relation to new connections from an existing line, an increase in nominal voltage to a maximum of 33kV and related increase in pole heights;
(vi) upgrading of existing lines from 6.6kV to 11kV;
(vii) installation of additional stays supporting wood poles;
(viii) upgrading of existing apparatus, including the increase of capacity of pole mounted transformers, subject to the provisions of section 37(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 and the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002;
(ix) temporary placement of a line for a period of up to two years.
(b) consult on the introduction of further measures for the purposes of enabling distribution network upgrades and reinforcements to be delivered as permitted development.”
This new clause would expand permitted development rights for upgrades to the transmission network.
New clause 16—Preservation of playing fields and pitches—
“(1) A local planning authority must, when exercising any of its functions, ensure the preservation of playing fields and playing pitches.
(2) The duty in subsection (1) may, when granting permission for development, be met through the imposition of conditions or requirements relating to—
(a) the protection of playing fields or playing pitches affected by the development; or
(b) the provision of alternative, additional or expanded playing fields or playing pitches.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “playing fields” and “playing pitches” have the same meanings as in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.”
This new clause would require local authorities to preserve playing fields when granting permission for development.
New clause 17—Community benefit from major energy infrastructure projects—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a scheme under which communities with a specified connection to a major energy infrastructure project are entitled to financial benefits.
(2) In subsection (1), “major energy infrastructure project” and “specified connection” have such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify, provided that any such definition includes all newly consented renewable energy projects.
(3) Financial benefits provided for by a scheme under this section must—
(a) be provided by the owner of the relevant major energy infrastructure project, and
(b) amount to 5% of the annual revenue of the relevant project.
(4) Where a major energy infrastructure project is onshore, regulations made under this section must—
(a) provide for two-thirds of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid to the council of that community, and
(b) provide for one third of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid into a strategic fund operated by the council.
(5) Where a major energy infrastructure project is offshore, regulations made under this section must provide for the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid into a strategic fund operated by the relevant council.
(6) Regulations made under this section may, among other things—
(a) specify the powers, purposes, responsibilities and constitution of a council strategic fund;
(b) make further provision determining which communities are qualifying under this section, and defining community for this purpose;
(c) confer functions in connection with the scheme;
(d) provide for delegation of functions conferred in connection with the scheme.”
This new clause sets out a scheme for providing financial benefits to communities in areas connected with major energy infrastructure schemes.
New clause 18—Local Area Energy Plans—
“(1) All local authorities and combined authorities must create a Local Area Energy Plan.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a “Local Area Energy Plan” means an outline of how the relevant authority proposes to transition its area’s energy system to Net Zero.”
This new clause would require all local and combined authorities to develop Local Area Energy Plans which set out how they will meet their Net Zero goals.
New clause 19—Extension of use classes C5 and C6 to England—
“In article 1(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2022, after “Wales” insert “, except in relation to articles 2(e) and 2(f), which apply in relation to England and Wales”.”
This new clause of existing regulations would extend use classes C5 (Dwellinghouses, used otherwise than as sole or main residences) and C6 (Short-term lets), which currently only to apply to Wales, to England.
New clause 20—Change of certain use classes to require permission—
“In article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, at end insert “, subject to paragraphs (1AA) and (1AB).
(1AA) Where a building is used for the purpose of Class C3, the use of that building for the purpose of Class C5 or Class C6 (or vice versa) is to be taken to involve development of the land.
(1AB) Where a building is used for the purpose of Class C5, the use of that building for the purpose of Class C6 (or vice versa) is to be taken to involve development of the land.””
This new clause would require planning permission to be obtained to change the use of a dwelling to a second home or to a short term let use class and for changes of use between those classes.
New clause 21—Local plan compliance with Land Use Framework and nature recovery strategies—
“When developing a local plan, a local planning authority must consider whether the plan complies with—
(a) the Land Use Framework, and
(b) any nature recovery strategy relevant to the area covered by the plan.”
This new clause seeks to ensure that Local Plans comply with the Land Use Framework and local nature recovery strategies.
New clause 23—Review of drainage performance of new developments—
“(1) A review of a development’s drainage performance must take place five years after the completion of the development.
(2) Where a review recommends that action be taken to improve the development’s drainage performance, the developer must implement such recommendations, giving priority to those relating to flood risk.”
This new clause requires developers to review the drainage performance of a development five years after being built.
New clause 24—Housing needs of ageing population—
“Any plan or strategy produced by a local planning authority which proposes the development of housing must include an assessment of the housing needs of an ageing population.”
New clause 25—National Landscape Partnerships to be statutory consultees for planning applications—
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
This amendment to the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 would ensure that National Landscape Partnerships are included as statutory consultees in planning applications which impact their areas.
New clause 26—Environmental improvement duty: nature restoration levy—
“(1) Subsection (2) applies where Natural England agrees to a request to pay the nature restoration levy.
(2) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure to a high degree of certainty based on an objective assessment that significant and measurable improvements to the conservation status of each identified environmental feature is achieved within the period covered by the EDP.”
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure significant environmental improvements for protected features during the EDP period.
New clause 27—Gardens Trust to be statutory consultees for planning applications—
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
This new clause would ensure that the Gardens Trust are included as statutory consultees in planning applications.
New clause 28—Pre-application consultation of emergency services—
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
New clause 29—Support for small businesses and charities affected by roadworks—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) any building or development works require or involve works to or on the road network, or otherwise result in road closures,
(b) such roadworks or closures have lasted, or are expected to last, for a period of six months or more, and
(c) any small business or charitable organisation suffers a material financial, access or other detriment resulting from the roadworks or closures.
(2) The Secretary of State must make provision for any affected small business or charitable organisation to receive financial compensation or other equivalent support to recover or mitigate the detriment suffered.”
New clause 30—Permitted development for ponds—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make regulations under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to amend Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 so as to include the creation of ponds with a surface area of less than 0.2 hectares as permitted development.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “pond” means a permanent or seasonal standing body of water with a surface area not exceeding 2 hectares.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow the creation of new ponds under 0.2 hectares in size without planning permission being required.
New clause 31—Thresholds for affordable housing provision—
“Where an application proposes or is required to provide affordable housing, no amendment to the amount of affordable housing to be developed may be made if the amendment would result in the amount of affordable housing to be developed failing to exceed the higher of—
(a) the relevant authority’s affordable housing threshold, or
(b) twenty per cent of the total amount of housing provided in the development.”
This new clause would place lower limits on the amount of affordable housing developments which intend to provide such housing must provide.
New clause 32—Housing plans to include quotas for affordable and social housing—
“(1) Any national or local plan or strategy which relates to the building or development of housing must include specific quotas for the provision of—
(a) affordable housing, and
(b) social housing.
(2) Where a national or local plan or strategy includes quotas for the provision of affordable and social housing, the plan or strategy must include justification for the quotas.”
This new clause would require national and local housing plans to include, and justify, quotas for the provision of both affordable and social housing.
New clause 33—Power to decline applications based on outcomes of previous grants of permission—
“(1) Where a local planning authority has previously given planning permission to a party (the “initial grant”), the planning authority may decline any future planning applications from the party where, in respect of the initial grant of planning permission, the party has failed to—
(a) build out the structure or development,
(b) make sufficient progress towards the building out of the structure or development within a reasonable time period, or
(c) build out the structure or development at a reasonable rate.
(2) A local planning authority may define how it is to interpret “sufficient progress”, “reasonable time period” and “reasonable rate” as part of its local plan.”
This new clause would enable local planning authorities to decline planning applications from parties which have failed to build, or make sufficient progress on, projects for which permission has previously been granted.
New clause 34—Additional business rates for developers not completing approved development—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, hold a public consultation on providing local authorities who exercise the functions of local planning authorities with the power to levy additional business rates on—
(a) land owners, and
(b) developers who fail to complete the development of projects for which permission has been granted within a reasonable period.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of the conclusion of the public consultation, lay before both Houses of Parliament—
(a) a report on the findings of the consultation, and
(b) a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to those findings.”
New clause 35—Review of the setting of local plans under the National Planning Policy Framework—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, review the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to the setting of local plans.
(2) The review must consider in particular replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement for local planning authorities to identify sites within their areas which are necessary to meet—
(a) local housing targets, and
(b) the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the setting of local plans with a view to replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement for local planning authorities to identify sites which meet housing targets and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal.
New clause 36—Purposes and principles to be followed by parties exercising planning or development functions—
“(1) Any party exercising any function in relation to planning and development must—
(a) have regard to the purpose of the planning system outlined in subsection (2), and
(b) apply the principles outlined in subsection (3) for the purposes of achieving sustainable development.
(2) The purpose of the planning system is to promote the spatial organisation of land and resources to achieve the long-term sustainable development of the nation and the health and wellbeing of individuals.
(3) The principles are—
(a) living within environmental limits;
(b) ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;
(c) achieving a sustainable economy;
(d) promoting good governance including promoting democratic engagement and accountability; and
(e) using sound science responsibly.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “sustainable development” means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while ensuring the health and integrity of terrestrial and marine ecosystems and the species within them, as well as the wellbeing of future generations.”
The new clause would define the purpose of the planning system and of planning as promoting the efficient spatial organisation of land and resources to achieve the long-term sustainable development of the nation and the health and wellbeing of individuals.
New clause 37—Right to appeal against approved applications—
“In section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (right to appeal against planning decisions and failure to take such decisions), after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Where a local planning authority approves an application for planning permission which—
(a) does not accord with the provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated, or
(b) is a major application,
the parties specified in subsection (2B) may appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision to approve the application.
(2B) The parties are—
(a) any persons who have lodged a formal objection to the application in writing to the relevant planning authority;
(b) any other persons that a person appointed by the Secretary of State uses their discretion to permit to appeal.
(2C) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to—
(a) define “major application” for the purposes of subsection (2A)(b);
(b) consider parties to be permitted to appeal against a decision to approve an application under subsection (2B)(b).””
This new clause would create a limited third-party right of appeal for certain individuals to appeal to the Secretary of State where a local authority has approved a development that does not accord with a local development plan.
New clause 38—Dismissal of appeal or referral—
“In section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (determination of appeals), after subsection (6A) insert—
“(6B) The Secretary of State may dismiss an appeal or referral where, having considered the appeal or referral, the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the appeal or referral is—
(a) vexatious, frivolous or without substance or foundation, or
(b) made with the sole intention of—
(i) delaying the development, or
(ii) securing the payment of money, gifts or other inducement by any person.””
This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to dismiss appeals or referrals in certain circumstances.
New clause 39—Prohibition of solar development on higher-quality agricultural land—
“No permission may be granted for the building or installation of provision for solar power generation where the development would involve—
(a) the building on or development of agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a, and
(b) building or installation at ground-level.”
This new clause would prohibit the development of solar power generation on higher quality agricultural land.
New clause 40—Review of method for assessing local housing need—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, review the standard method for assessing local housing need.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) how the method for assessing local housing need should consider different types of property;
(b) basing calculations on price per square metre rather than price per unit.
(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) local councils; and
(b) any other parties the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) Upon completion of the review, the Secretary of State must—
(a) lay before Parliament a report which summarises the evidence considered in the review and the review’s final conclusions or recommendations;
(b) provide guidance to local planning authorities and other relevant bodies on how they should calculate and consider local housing need.”
New clause 41—New towns to contribute towards housing targets—
“In any national or local plan or strategy which sets targets for the building of new houses, houses built as part of new towns may contribute to the meeting of such targets.”
New clause 43—Protection of villages—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local planning authorities, or update any relevant existing guidance, relating to the protection of villages.
(2) Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate, as is provided for towns in relation to—
(a) preventing villages from merging into one another,
(b) preventing villages merging into towns, and
(c) preserving the setting and special character of historic villages.”
This new clause would provide existing villages with protection equivalent to that currently provided to towns under the NPPF.
New clause 44—Sustainable drainage (No. 2)—
“The Secretary of State must, within one month of the passing of this Act—
(a) bring into force Schedule 3 (Sustainable drainage) of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and
(b) provide guidance to local planning authorities, land and property developers and other relevant stakeholders on—
(i) how to incorporate sustainable drainage into new developments, and
(ii) the minimum expected standards for ongoing maintenance of sustainable drainage infrastructure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and provide guidance on the building in of sustainable drainage in future developments.
New clause 45—No planning permission to be granted in cases of intentional unauthorised development—
“(1) A local planning authority may not grant consent for development where there has been intentional unauthorised development in respect of the land or properties which are to be subject to that development.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “intentional unauthorised development”—
(a) includes any development of land undertaken in advance of obtaining planning permission;
(b) does not include any unintentional, minor or trivial works undertaken without having obtained the relevant permission.
(3) Where works under subsection (2)(b) are undertaken, the local planning authority may require relevant permissions to be obtained retrospectively.”
New clause 46—Duty to complete development of local infrastructure—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a Development Consent Order is made providing for, or
(b) a Strategic Development Scheme includes provision for, the development of local infrastructure.
(2) Where subsection (1) applies, the developer must deliver the relevant local infrastructure in full.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “local infrastructure” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify, but must include—
(a) schools,
(b) nurseries, and
(c) General Practice clinics.
(4) A duty under this section may be disapplied with the consent of the relevant local planning authority.”
This new clause aims to ensure that commitments to provide local infrastructure such as schools and GP clinics, approved as part of a development, are permanent and legally binding.
New clause 47—Development of land for the public benefit—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a developer has entered into an obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which requires the development of local community infrastructure; and
(b) such development—
(i) has not been completed, and it is not intended or anticipated that the development will be completed; or
(ii) has been subject to a change of circumstance which means that it will not or cannot be used for its intended purpose.
(2) Where this section applies—
(a) the relevant land remains under the ownership of the local planning authority;
(b) the local planning authority may only develop or permit the development of the land for the purposes of providing a community asset;
(c) the local planning authority must, when proposing to develop the land under subsection (2)(b), consult the local community before commencing development or granting permission for any development.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“local community infrastructure” means a development for the benefit of the local community, including schools, nurseries, and medical centres,
“community asset” means—
(a) a public park;
(b) a public leisure facility;
(c) social housing;
(d) such other assets as the local planning authority may specify, provided that their development is to meet the needs of the local community.”
This new clause provides that land designated development as community infrastructure under a S106 agreement will not be returned to a developer to use for other purposes in the event that the original purpose is not fulfilled. It provides instead that land would remain under the control of the local planning authority for development as a community asset.
New clause 48—Neighbourhood plans—
“The Secretary of State may only—
(a) grant a development consent order where the Secretary of State believes that the application for consent gives due consideration to any relevant neighbourhood plan;
(b) permit a variation to a neighbourhood plan which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State—
(i) is clearly justifiable;
(ii) is unlikely to compromise the overall intention of the neighbourhood plan; and
(iii) has been proposed in a clear and timely manner.”
This new clause would require due consideration to be given to neighbourhood plans when deciding on an application for development consent.
New clause 49—Review of land value capture—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of land value capture.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the benefits of different methods of land value capture;
(b) international best practice;
(c) how changes to existing practice could assist in the meeting of housing targets and the delivery of critical infrastructure and public services; and
(d) how any changes to existing practice could be incorporated into UK planning law.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the conclusion of the review, lay before Parliament a report on the findings of the review.”
To require a review into methods of land value capture, to ensure the public benefit from instances where land value rises sharply, and for this to be considered to be incorporated into UK planning legislation.
New clause 50—Guidance relating to social rent homes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, provide or update guidance for all parties involved in local or national planning decisions on how they can contribute to the provision of social rent homes through the exercise of their planning or development functions.
(2) Guidance produced under this section must include reference to the number of social rent homes which the Government intends to be delivered each year.”
This new clause requires the Government to set a national target for the number of Social Rent homes to be delivered per year.
New clause 51—Prohibition of solar development and battery storage facilities on all agricultural land—
“No permission may be granted for the building or installation of provision for solar power generation or battery storage where the development would involve—
(a) the building on or development of any grade of agricultural land used in food production, and
(b) building or installation at ground-level.”
This new clause would prohibit the development of solar power generation and battery storage on all agricultural land.
New clause 52—Local planning authority powers relating to new towns—
“(1) A local planning authority whose area includes the whole or any part of a new town may—
(a) include any of the area of the new town as land to be developed in any local plan which covers a period between the designation of the new town and the completion of development,
(b) include in the local planning authority’s housing target any houses expected to be provided by or in the new town during the period covered by the local planning authority’s local plan,
(c) include any housing expected to be provided by or in the new town in any consideration of the local planning authority’s 5 year housing land supply, and
(d) disregard National Planning Policy Framework guidance relating to the duty on local planning authorities and county councils to cooperate on strategic matters crossing administrative boundaries as it relates to the delivery of housing numbers originally allocated to a neighbouring authority.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “new town” means a town developed by a corporation under section 1 of the New Towns Act 1981.”
This new clause would provide local planning authorities with the ability to include new towns in local plans and housing targets, and give planning authorities certain powers with regard to new towns.
New clause 53—Prohibition of development on functional floodplains—
“(1) No local planning authority may grant planning permission for any development which is to take place on a functional floodplain.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, issue new guidance, or update existing guidance where such guidance exists, relating to development in flood zones and the management of flood risk.”
This new clause would prevent local planning authorities from allowing developments on functional floodplains.
New clause 54—Assessment of impact of nature restoration levy on environmental protections—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual assessment of the impact of the introduction of a nature restoration levy.
(2) Any report published under this section must include—
(a) an analysis of the impact of—
(i) the introduction of a nature restoration levy, and
(ii) the disregarding of obligations under section 65(3)
on environmental protections; and
(b) an overview of each occasion where—
(i) the nature restoration levy has been paid, and
(ii) obligations have been disregarded under section 65(3).”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish assessments of the impact of the nature restoration levy and the disregarding of obligations under the Habitats Regulations 2017 or Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 on environmental protections.
New clause 55—Impact on major infrastructure on local area—
“The presence, or planned presence, of any major infrastructure project in an area may—
(a) exempt the relevant local planning authority from being required to meet national or local housing targets or other development targets;
(b) be a material consideration in any decision-making relating to further development proposed in that area.”
This new clause would ensure that areas hosting pieces of major infrastructure – such as transport projects, prisons and NSIPs – may not be expected to meet their full housing or other development targets and can have such projects taken into account when decisions relating to further planning applications are made.
New clause 56—Building regulations: biodiversity—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must bring forward regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 for the purposes of—
(a) protecting and enhancing biodiversity, and
(b) contributing to the achievement of biodiversity targets and interim targets set out under the Environment Act 2021.
(2) Regulations under this section must include provision—
(a) for the appropriate installation and maintenance of measures including—
(i) bird boxes,
(ii) bat boxes,
(iii) swift bricks,
(iv) hedgehog highways,
(v) splash-free pavements, and
(vi) biodiverse roofs and walls,
(b) limiting the use of artificial grass in a garden or in or on land associated with a dwelling or building covered by the regulations.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to require new developments to include design features that will contribute to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and the achievement of Environment Act targets.
New clause 57—Co-ordination in the development of energy projects—
“(1) Where two or more energy developers are engaged in the development of projects relating to energy infrastructure within the same area, there is a duty on each developer to—
(a) exchange relevant information relating to project design, construction, and environmental impact;
(b) cooperate in the development of shared infrastructure where feasible and appropriate;
(c) take reasonable steps to reduce cumulative impacts on the environment, local communities, and existing infrastructure; and
(d) seek alignment of timelines and operational practices to minimise disruption.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for such developers, which must include—
(a) criteria for determining when coordination is required;
(b) mechanisms for dispute resolution between developers;
(c) standards for joint planning and reporting; and
(d) details of consultation required with affected local authorities and communities.
(3) Where subsection (1) applies, a relevant local planning authority may require the submission of a Joint Coordination Statement by the developers.
(4) A Joint Coordination Statement must include—
(a) an overview of each developer’s proposed works within the area,
(b) an identification of shared infrastructure opportunities,
(c) assessment of cumulative environmental and social impacts,
(d) details of measures proposed to mitigate identified environmental and social impacts, and
(e) a proposed governance structure for ongoing coordination during construction and operation, and must be submitted as part of or in addition to development consent applications.
(5) A party which fails to comply with any of the requirements of this section may be subject to—
(a) a delay in granting, or a refusal of, development consent;
(b) the imposition of conditions on an application for consent requiring such coordination; or
(c) such financial or legal penalties as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(6) For the purposes of this section—
“area” means an area determined by the relevant planning authority or Secretary of State where coordination is deemed necessary due to overlapping or adjacent projects;
“energy developer” means any person or body undertaking or proposing to undertake energy generation, transmission, or distribution infrastructure projects;
“shared infrastructure” includes roads, grid connections, substations, and other physical or operational systems.”
This new clause would require developers to cooperate in the development of energy projects when they are taking place in the same area. It also empowers local planning authorities to require statements detailing such cooperation.
New clause 58—Environment and climate duty: forestry land—
“When exercising any planning or development function relating to forestry land, or when contributing to or participating in the exercise of any such function, the appropriate forestry authority must take all reasonable steps to contribute to—
(a) the achievement of targets set under sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021 and any interim targets set out in the Environmental Improvement Plan;
(b) the achievement of targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008; and
(c) the delivery of the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”
New clause 59—Regard to existing use of land in exercise of planning functions—
“After section 58B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 insert—
“58C Duty of regard to existing use of land in granting permissions
(1) In considering whether to grant planning permission or permission in principle for the development of land in England, the decision maker must have special regard to the existing use of land within the vicinity of the land in relation to which permission is being considered.
(2) In complying with this section, the decision maker must consider whether to grant permission subject to such conditions that would promote the integration of the proposed development of land with any existing use of land, including such conditions as may be necessary to mitigate the impact of noise on the proposed development.
(3) In this section, “decision maker” means the local planning authority or (as the case may be) the Secretary of State.””
This new clause imposes a duty to have special regard to the existing use of land when considering whether to grant planning permission and, in particular, whether there are any planning conditions that would promote the integration of the proposed development (such as conditions relating to mitigation of noise caused by an existing use). This reflects the “agent of change” principle referred to in paragraph 200 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
New clause 60—Time-limited permission for landfill sites—
“Where—
(a) planning permission has previously been granted for a landfill site,
(b) landfill operations at the site have been ceased for a period of ten years, and
(c) a new party wishes to resume landfill operations at the site,
the party who wishes to resume landfill operations at the site must submit a new application for permission to develop or operate the landfill site.”
This new clause would mean that, where a landfill site has been dormant for a period of ten years, a new planning application is required to resume operations at the site.
New clause 61—Minimum depth requirement for underground cables on agricultural land—
“(1) Where a development involves the laying of electrical or communications cables under land currently in active agricultural use, such cables must be buried to a minimum depth of 1.8 metres from the surface level.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “active agricultural use” includes, but is not limited to, land used for arable farming, including the ploughing, sowing, and harvesting of crops.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for exemptions from the requirement in subsection (1) only where—
(a) the developer can demonstrate that installing at such depth is technically unfeasible, and
(b) alternative measures are put in place to ensure active agricultural use is not adversely affected.
(4) Regulations under subsection (4) must be made by statutory instrument and must not come into force until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require electrical or communications cables required as part of a new development to be installed at least 1.8m under agricultural land.
New clause 62—Impact of the Act on biodiversity and nature investment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the impact of the nature restoration levy on–
(a) biodiversity net gain, and
(b) initiatives to encourage investment in nature markets.
(2) A report produced under this section must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
New clause 63—Guidance on planting along highways—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for developers, local planning authorities and other relevant parties on the planting of trees, shrubs, plants or grass alongside highways constructed as part of—
(a) any new transport infrastructure;
(b) any other development for which consent has been granted.
(2) Guidance issued under this section must—
(a) outline how licence conditions under section 142(5) of the Highways Act 1980 (licence to plant trees, shrubs, etc., in a highway) are to be applied and complied with in a way which—
(i) is not unreasonably burdensome on applicants for licences, and
(ii) does not prevent or discourage the planting of trees, shrubs, plants or grass;
(b) provide model licence conditions, standard designs, and planting palettes.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on the planting of trees and other plants alongside new highways.
New clause 64—Rural Exception Sites—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, take steps to support the delivery of housing through the Rural Exception Sites mechanism.
(2) Steps to be taken must include—
(a) reviewing the National Planning Policy Framework;
(b) publishing best practice guidance on—
(i) assessing the viability of Rural Exception Sites;
(ii) the setting of incentives for landowners and delivery partners to deliver housing on Rural Exception Sites.”
New clause 65—Provision of green space in new housing developments—
“Any application for permission for the development of housing must include provision for—
(a) green spaces, including private gardens, balconies, and community gardens;
(b) open green space which can be accessed by residents using active transport within fifteen minutes; and
(c) the care and maintenance of the green spaces provided for under this section.”
New clause 66—Fire authorities to be statutory consultees for applications relating to Battery Energy Storage Solutions—
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
This new clause would ensure that fire authorities are included as statutory consultees in planning applications involving Battery Energy Storage Solutions (BESS’s).
New clause 67—Requirement to undertake planned affordable housing construction—
“(1) Where an application to develop affordable housing has been granted, no amendment to the amount of affordable housing to be developed may be made if the reasons for the amendment include—
(a) the affordability to the applicant; or
(b) that providing such affordable housing would make the development unprofitable for the applicant.
(2) This section applies where the provision of affordable housing forms the whole of or part of the proposed development.
(3) For the purposes of this section “develop” has the meaning given by section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.”
This new clause would mean that, where a developer has committed in their initial application to providing a certain number of affordable homes, they would be prohibited from lowering that provision based on affordability or profitability.
New clause 71—Display of new advertisements—
“In section 220(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (regulations controlling display of advertisements), omit “amenity or public safety” and insert “amenity, environmental impact, public safety or public health.”
This new clause amends the section 220 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to add environmental impact and public health to the considerations for which the Secretary of State can restrict or regulate the display of advertisements.
New clause 73—Building regulations: swift bricks—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, introduce regulations under Section 1 of the Building Act 1984 to make provision for the installation of an average of one swift brick per dwelling or unit greater than 5 metres in height.
(2) Regulations must require the installation of swift bricks in line with best practice guidance, except where such installation is not practicable or appropriate.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“swift brick” means an integral nest box integrated into the wall of a building suitable for the nesting of the Common Swift and other cavity nesting species;
“best practice guidance” means the British Standard BS 42021:2022.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to require the installation of integral bird nest boxes and swift boxes in developments greater than 5 metres in height. Swift bricks provide nesting habitat for all bird species reliant on cavity nesting habitat in buildings to breed.
New clause 74—Refusal of permission to reduce affordable housing in large scale developments—
“(1) If an application is made for reserved planning permission relating to a large scale housing development which seeks to reduce the amount of affordable housing originally proposed by a developer as part of an application for outline planning permission, the local planning authority must refuse the application.
(2) Where—
(a) a local planning authority has agreed an application for a modification or discharge of a planning obligation under section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and
(b) the modification or discharge would reduce the amount of affordable housing from that originally proposed by a developer in the outline planning application, this section applies.
(3) In this section “large scale housing development” means any development which includes more than 500 houses in the outline planning application.”
New clause 75—Change of certain use classes to require permission—
“In article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, at end insert “, subject to paragraphs (1AA) and (1AB).
(1AA) Where a building is used for the purpose of Class C3, the use of that building for the purpose of Class C4 is to be taken to involve development of the land.””
This new clause would mean that converting a residential dwelling into a house of multiple occupation would require planning permission.
New clause 77—Embodied carbon assessments—
“(1) Local planning authorities must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act—
(a) require applications for permission for developments which exceed a specified gross internal area and number of dwellings to include an embodied carbon assessment;
(b) consider a relevant embodied carbon assessment as a material factor when considering whether to grant permission for the development.
(2) The Secretary of State must—
(a) approve a methodology for calculating embodied carbon emissions;
(b) provide guidance on how the whole-life carbon emissions of buildings must be expressed; and
(c) establish a centralised reporting platform to which embodied carbon and whole life carbon assessments must be submitted.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“embodied carbon” means the total emissions associated with materials and construction processes involved in the full life cycle of a project;
“whole life carbon” means the combination of embodied and operational emissions across the full life cycle of a project;
“operational emissions” means the carbon emissions from the energy used once a project is operational, including from heating, lighting and cooling.”
This new clause would require the submission of embodied carbon assessments for larger developments as part of the planning application and consideration of these by local planning authorities. The Secretary of State will be required to approve a methodology, issue guidance, and establish a centralised reporting platform for whole-life carbon emissions.
New clause 78—Requirement regarding the provision of social housing under housing plans—
“(1) Any national or local plan or strategy which relates to the building or development of housing must—
(a) state the proportion of social housing which must be provided as part of any such development; and
(b) require any such housing to be delivered to a net zero carbon building standard.
(2) The proportion of social rent housing to be provided under subsection (1)(a) must be based on an assessment of the need for social rent homes in the relevant area.
(3) Any assessment of the need for social rent homes must consider—
(a) levels of homelessness,
(b) the number of children in temporary accommodation, and
(c) the number of households on social housing waiting lists, in the relevant area.”
This new clause would require housing plans to state the proportion of social rent housing to be provided (based on an assessment of need) and require those homes to be built to a net zero carbon building standard.
New clause 79—Duty of cooperation between neighbouring authorities—
“(1) A local planning authority has a duty to cooperate with neighbouring local planning authorities when considering an application for development consent which could affect the area of a neighbouring local planning authority.
(2) In carrying out a duty to cooperate under this section, a local planning authority must—
(a) consult neighbouring authorities on the content of the application;
(b) take account of any neighbouring authority’s response to such consultation when reaching a decision on the application.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a development affects the area of a neighbouring local planning authority if—
(a) it directly adjoins any land within the area; or
(b) the construction, maintenance and occupation of the development would alter the environment, character, or infrastructure of the area.”
This new clause will ensure that Local Authorities have to work together when considering planning applications that will also impact the neighbouring Authority due to its geographical location.
New clause 80—Distribution of s.106 funding between local planning areas—
“(1) This section applies where a person interested in land in the area of a local planning authority has—
(a) entered into a planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Act 1990,
(b) the planning obligation requires a sum or sums to be paid to the authority on a specified date or dates or periodically, and
(c) the land in question is within a certain proximity of an area of a neighbouring local planning authority.
(2) A local planning authority has a duty to distribute part or parts of the sum or sums to the neighbouring planning authority.
(3) Where the conditions in subsection (1) are met in relation to more than one neighbouring local planning authority, the duty applies in such a way as to require distribution to each neighbouring authority.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument specify—
(a) the method by which any sum payable to a neighbouring local authority is to be calculated and distributed;
(b) the meanings of—
(i) “certain proximity of an area”, and
(ii) “neighbouring planning authority”
for the purposes of this section;
(c) any other provisions as the Secretary of State deems appropriate for the purposes of this section.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause will require local authorities to distribute s.106 funding to neighbouring authorities should a development be in proximity to that local authority area.
New clause 81—Subsidy of s.106 agreements prior to development—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person interested in land in the area of a local planning authority has entered into a planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Act 1990, and
(b) the person has received development consent for—
(i) housing, and
(ii) any infrastructure reasonably connected with the provision of that housing.
(2) The person may only begin development if—
(a) the Secretary of State has paid to the local planning authority a sum equivalent to any sum under the section 106 agreement for the purposes of developing infrastructure;
(b) the person applying for permission must enter into an agreement with the Secretary of State to repay to them the total sum paid out under paragraph (a) (a “repayment agreement”).
(3) For the purposes of this section, “infrastructure” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify, but may include—
(a) roadways;
(b) utilities;
(c) educational provision;
(d) medical facilities;
(e) recreational facilities;
(f) routes for active travel.”
This amendment will enable the Secretary of State to pay the equivalent of s.106 contributions to local authorities up front for the purpose of developing planned infrastructure, and thereafter reclaim it from the relevant developer.
New clause 82—Play Sufficiency Duty—
“(1) A local planning authority in England must, so far as reasonably practicable, assess, secure, enhance, and protect sufficient opportunities for children’s play when exercising any of its planning functions.
(2) In fulfilling the duty under subsection (1), a local planning authority must—
(a) undertake and publish play sufficiency assessments at intervals to be defined in regulations;
(b) integrate the findings and recommendations of such assessments into local plans, relevant strategies, infrastructure planning, and development decisions;
(c) not give permission for any development which would lead to a net loss of formal or informal play spaces except where equivalent or improved provision is secured;
(d) require new developments to provide high-quality, accessible, inclusive play opportunities which incorporate natural features and are integrated within broader public spaces; and
(e) consult regularly with children, families, communities, and play professionals regarding play provision.
(3) A play sufficiency assessment produced under subsection (2)(a) must specifically evaluate and report on the quantity, quality, accessibility, inclusivity, and integration of play opportunities within the planning authority’s area.
(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify—
(a) the frequency, methodology, content, and publication requirements of play sufficiency assessments;
(b) minimum design standards and quality expectations for formal and informal play provision;
(c) developer obligations regarding play infrastructure contributions to be secured through planning conditions.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
“play” means activities undertaken by children and young people that are freely chosen, self-directed, and carried out following their own interests, in their own way, and for their own reasons;
“play opportunities” include formal and informal play spaces, parks, open spaces, streets, schools, neighbourhood spaces, natural green areas, active travel routes, supervised play settings (including adventure playgrounds), and community recreation facilities;
“sufficient” means adequate in quantity, quality, accessibility, inclusivity, and integration within community infrastructure.”
New clause 83—Housing developments to include children’s play areas—
Any application for the development of new housing where the majority of units comprise more than one bedroom must include provision for adequate outdoor children’s play areas as part of the development.”
New clause 84—Prohibition of battery energy storage systems on higher-quality agricultural land—
“No permission may be granted for the building or installation of provision for battery energy storage systems where the development would involve the building on or development of agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a.”
This new clause would prohibit the development of battery energy storage systems on higher quality agricultural land.
New clause 86—Joint Nature and Conservation Committee Report—
“(1) The Joint Nature and Conservation Committee must publish a report on how best to consolidate the provisions of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 into the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in so far as they relate to planning and development.
(2) The report required by subsection (1) must be published by the end of 2025.”
This new clause would require the Joint Nature and Conservation Committee to report on how to consolidate the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, in so far as they relate to planning and development.
New clause 87—Designation of chalk streams as protected sites—
“Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish proposals to designate more chalk streams as protected sites”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to designate as protected sites more of the 209 out of 220 chalk streams that are not currently legally protected.
New clause 88—Use of grey water recycling in new developments—
“In any application for development, the applicant must include a statement outlining their consideration of and proposals for the use of grey water recycling in the new property.”
New clause 89—Prohibition of cross-subsidy on Rural Exception Sites—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, take steps to prohibit cross-subsidy on Rural Exception Sites.
(2) Steps to be taken must include reviewing the National Planning Policy Framework.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “cross-subsidy” means the use of any financial proceeds from the sale or letting of housing at market rate on a Rural Exception Site for the purposes of subsidising the sale or letting of any other housing on the same Rural Exception Site.”
This new clause would require the secretary of state to take steps to prohibit cross-subsidy on rural exception sites.
New clause 90—Cap on profits for developers—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations which limit the profits which may be made by a housing or property developer.
(2) Regulations under this section must—
(a) provide that a developer may not make a profit from a development which is greater than 10% of the estimated cost of the scheme to be developed;
(b) where a developer makes a profit of more than 10%, set out procedures for the reclamation and use of any excess profit.
(3) This section applies to all developments which receive consent after the passing of this Act.”
This new clause would limit the profit a developer makes from any development to 10% of the estimated cost of the development.
New clause 91—Extension and application of use classes in planning—
“(1) A local planning authority must prescribe a limit on the number of buildings within its area which are used for the purposes of Class C5 or C6.
(2) Before setting a limit under subsection (1) a local planning authority must—
(a) consult residents of the local planning area, and
(b) publish a report on the outcome of the consultation.
(3) A local planning authority must refuse any application for development consent which would have the effect of increasing the number of buildings used for the purposes of Class C5 or C6 above any limit prescribed under subsection (1).”
This new clause would require local planning authorities to place a limit on the number (or proportion of housing stock) of second homes and short-term lets in their area, and refuse planning applications that would have the effect of exceeding the limit.
New clause 92—Change in use class upon transfer of property—
“(1) Where a building—
(a) is used the purposes of Class C5 or C6, and
(b) there is a change in its registered owner,
the use class of the building is to be automatically amended to Class C3.
(2) In this section, “change in its registered owner” means any change in the ownership of a property which requires a registration, or amendment to an existing registration made, with the Land Registry.”
This new clause would require that when property used as a short-term let or second home changes owners, it reverts immediately to having permission only to be used as a main residence, unless subsequent planning permission is sought and secured.
New clause 93—Permitted development and charging points—
“(1) Part 2 of Schedule 2 to The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph D of class D, after “parking”, insert “or adjacent to a public highway lawfully used for on-street parking where a local highway authority approved cross-pavement charging solution is installed, ”.
(3) In paragraph 1 of class D, after subparagraph (a) add—
“(b) overhang the footway by more than 150mm perpendicular to the property boundary including the cable plug when it is plugged in;””.
This new clause extends permitted development rights to charge points powering EVs parked on-street, where an approved cross-pavement charging solution is present and the charger does not overhang the footway by more than 15cm. Installations still require approval by the Local Highways Authority to control liabilities, maintenance, and parking arrangements.
New clause 94—Installation of digital infrastructure—
“In Section 48 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (streets, street works and undertakers), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3ZA) In this Part, “street works” also includes works relating to digital infrastructure, and any reference to subsection (3) is to be read accordingly.””.
New clause 95—Digital infrastructure planning officers—
“(1) Local planning authorities must appoint persons to carry out functions relating to the promotion of digital infrastructure development within the planning system.
(2) Such persons may—
(a) advise planning officers, committees, and any other relevant person about the inclusion of digital infrastructure within a proposed development;
(b) assess the digital infrastructure needs of any local community likely to be affected by a proposed development;
(c) propose amendments to proposed developments to improve the provision of digital infrastructure;
(d) carry out any other duty relating to the assessment and provision of digital infrastructure within proposed developments as the local planning authority may require.
(3) Any amendment proposed under paragraph (2)(c) may include alternation to existing street furniture and infrastructure provision for the purposes of fulfilling the digital infrastructure needs of a proposed development.”
New clause 96—Assessment of need for banking services—
(1) In any case where a proposed development in a settlement would have the potential effect of increasing the population size of a town and any settlements reasonably considered reliant on the town for provision of public services to at least 5000 persons, the local planning authority has a duty to assess the need for a banking hub within the town settlement.
(2) In meeting a duty under this section, the local planning authority may consult—
(a) residents of the settlement and its local area;
(b) the relevant developer;
(c) the Post Office;
(d) LINK;
(e) providers of banking services, and
(f) any other relevant person.
(3) The local authority must publish a report on its assessment before any grant of permission can be made.”
New clause 97—Flood risk mitigation: planning permission—
“When considering an application for development consent, a local planning authority has a duty to consider whether any development of the land for which consent is sought could have the effect of increasing flood risk, or reducing flood mitigation, to any neighbouring land or development.”
New clause 98—Flood resilience measures for new homes—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 to require that property flood resilience measures are included in any new homes.
(2) Property flood resilience measures under this section may include—
(a) raised electrical sockets;
(b) non-return valves on utility pipes;
(c) airbricks;
(d) resilient wall plaster;
(e) any other measure as the Secretary of State may specify.”
New clause 99—Obligation on developers to consider climate and flood resilience—
“(1) No local planning authority may approve an application for development unless it is satisfied that the applicant has considered how the development would contribute to—
(a) the UK’s climate resilience, and
(b) flood resilience in the area surrounding the development.
(2) The Secretary of State must, every twelve months starting with the day twelve months after which this Act is passed, publish a review of the extent to which applications approved in the previous twelve months would contribute to the aims set out in subsection (1).”
New clause 100—Conditions to mitigate overheating risk—
“In section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, after subsection (1) insert—
“(1ZA) Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission for residential development, the authority may impose conditions which require the implementation of measures to mitigate the risk of overheating where local climatic data indicates elevated risk.””
This new clause would allow local planning authorities to impose conditions on residential developments to mitigate the risk of overheating, where local climate data shows elevated risk.
New clause 101—Cooling hierarchy guidance—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local planning authorities which—
(a) outlines a cooling hierarchy; and
(b) provides guidance on the application of the cooling hierarchy in the exercise of a local planning authority’s planning and development functions.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance for local planning authorities on applying the "cooling hierarchy" - a structured approach to reducing overheating risk in buildings, prioritising passive and sustainable design measures.
New clause 102—Overheating risk assessments—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, require all applications for planning permission for residential development to include an overheating risk assessment.
(2) An overheating risk assessment must be conducted in accordance with—
(a) the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers’ design methodology for the assessment of overheating risk in homes, or
(b) any successor standard designated by the Secretary of State.”
This new clause would require all planning applications for residential development to include an overheating risk assessment, conducted in line with the latest recognised technical standard, such as those of the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE).
New clause 103—Incorporation of features to mitigate overheating risk—
“(1) When preparing any plan or strategy relating to the development of housing under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, a local planning authority must have regard to the need for residential developments to incorporate passive design features that mitigate the risk of overheating.
(2) Passive design features may include—
(a) cross-ventilation,
(b) external shading,
(c) solar control glazing, and
(d) thermal mass.”
This new clause would require local planning authorities, when preparing housing-related plans or strategies, to have regard to the need for residential developments to include passive design features that reduce the risk of overheating, such as cross-ventilation, external shading, solar control glazing, and thermal mass.
New clause 104—Access to data on overheating risk—
“(1) For the purposes of supporting the making of local plans, spatial development strategies and planning decisions, the Secretary of State must make provision for local planning authorities to have access to relevant data relating to overheating risk.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that data on overheating risk made available to local planning authorities is updated at intervals not exceeding five years.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local planning authorities have access to up-to-date data on overheating risk, to support the making of local plans, spatial development strategies, and planning decisions.
New clause 105—Regard to flood risk guidance when considering development on flood plains—
“(1) When preparing a local plan for an area which includes a flood plain or considering an application for development on a flood plain, a local planning authority must have regard to—
(a) the sequential and exception tests;
(b) the most up to date guidance on flood risk produced by the Government.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
“sequential test” means steering new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding, taking all sources of flood risk and climate change into account. Where it is not possible to locate development in low-risk areas, reasonably available sites within medium risk areas should be considered, with sites within high-risk areas only considered where there are no reasonably available sites in low and medium risk areas;
“exception test” means that it has been demonstrated that the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk and that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.”
This new clause would require local planning authorities to have regard to the sequential and exception tests on managing flood risk when considering applications for development on flood plains.
New clause 106—Requirement for installation of flood resilience measures—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, amend relevant Approved Documents to require the installation of flood resilience measures in properties being developed on land which is at risk of flooding.
(2) Flood resilience measures must be specified and installed in accordance with the Construction Industry Research and Information Association’s code of practice for property flood resilience.”
This new clause would require Approved Documents to require the installation, to CIRIA’s code of practice, of property flood resilience measures in properties being developed on land which is at risk of flooding.
New clause 108—Planning applications for homes to address housing need—
“(1) Where an application proposes to provide housing, the applicant must demonstrate how the proposed development will contribute towards reducing the housing need in the local planning area where the development would take place.
(2) A “housing need” under this section—
(a) has such meaning as a local planning authority for the relevant local planning area may determine, and
(b) must be communicated clearly to any applicants proposing to provide housing in reasonable time before any application is submitted.”
New clause 109—Conditions for development on greenfield sites—
“Permission may only be granted for development on a greenfield site where–
(a) the applicant has proved that there are no appropriate alternative brownfield sites which could be used for the development, and
(b) the applicant has held a public consultation on the development of the greenfield site.”
New clause 110—Prioritisation of development on brownfield sites—
“(1) Any local or national plan or strategy which relates to the building or provision of housing must prioritise development on brownfield sites.
(2) The Secretary of State must take steps to support the development of housing on brownfield sites.
(3) Steps to be taken under subsection (2) may include–
(a) the disapplication of certain planning requirements or regulations;
(b) exemption from certain consultation requirements.”
New clause 111—Statements of service charges—
“(1) Where it is proposed that a development of social housing will impose service charges on residents, the application for such a development must include a statement of service charges which are to be applicable to residents of the new housing.
(2) Before granting permission for such development, a local planning authority must consider whether the statement of service charges—
(a) proposes service charge models which are fair, affordable, appropriate, and limited to services directly accessible to the residents;
(b) includes provision for annual, itemised breakdowns of applicable service charges to be provided to residents;
(c) provides for service charges to not apply where units are used as temporary emergency accommodation for individuals or families who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.”
New clause 112—Requirement to undertake planned affordable housing construction (No. 2)—
“Where an application proposes—
(a) to develop more than 10 houses, and
(b) that at least 20% of the houses to be developed will be social housing, no amendment to the amount of social housing to be developed may be made if the amendment reduces the amount of social housing below 20% of the houses to be developed if the reason for the amendment is the viability to the applicant.”
This new clause would prevent developers from seeking to reduce commitments to provide social housing on the grounds of viability.
New clause 113—New towns to contribute towards social housing targets—
“In any national or local plan or strategy which sets targets for the building of new social housing, houses built as part of new towns may contribute to the meeting of such targets.”
This new clause would ensure that new towns contribute to social housing targets.
New clause 115—Identification and protection of Green Belt—
“(1) Within two years of the passing of this Act, a local planning authority must identify land within its area which it is necessary to protect from development.
(2) It is necessary to protect land from development under subsection (1) if such protection would—
(a) limit the expansion of large built-up areas;
(b) prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
(c) preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
(d) encourage the development of previously-developed land in urban areas.
(3) A local planning authority may designate as Green Belt any land identified under subsection (1) as necessary to protect, including undeveloped land within, and green wedges of land that extend into, built up areas.
(4) A local planning authority must prevent any development of land designated as Green Belt under this section for a minimum period of 20 years starting on the day on which it is so designated.”
This new clause would ensure that a local planning authority can identify land which it deems necessary to protect from development.
New clause 116—Heritage tree preservation orders—
“(1) A local planning authority may make a heritage tree preservation order in respect of a heritage tree.
(2) The Secretary of State must make provision by regulations for heritage tree preservation orders, which must include provision—
(a) for a heritage tree to have all the protections afforded to a tree by a tree preservation order under section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;
(b) requiring the owner of a heritage tree, or any other occupier of the land where the tree stands, to advertise appropriately its status as such, and the penalties for harming it, to persons approaching the tree or planning activities in its vicinity;
(c) enabling the responsible planning authority, Natural England or the Secretary of State to order the owner of a heritage tree or any other occupier of the land where the tree stands to take specified reasonable steps to maintain and protect the tree and, if the owner or occupier does not take such steps in reasonable time, to take such steps itself and to recover the reasonable cost of doing so from the owner or occupier;
(d) for the responsible planning authority, Natural England, the Secretary of State or another prescribed responsible body to enter into an agreement with the owner or occupier about the care and preservation of the heritage tree (a “heritage tree partnership agreement”), including about costs;
(e) for additional or higher penalties for breach of a heritage tree preservation order.
(3) The Secretary of State must make provision for the creation, publication and maintenance of a register of heritage trees in respect of which heritage tree preservation orders have been made.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “heritage tree” means a tree listed as such by Natural England on grounds of exceptional historic, landscape, cultural or ecologic importance.
(5) Natural England must create, publish and maintain a list of heritage trees in England for the purposes of this section.”
This new clause provides for the protection of heritage trees.
New clause 117—Development consent for betting shops above street level—
“A planning authority must not consider any application for development consent—
(a) for a new betting shop, or
(b) to change the use of an existing building to, or to include, a betting shop,
unless the relevant premises proposed to function as a betting shop are at least one storey above street level.”
New clause 118—Development of dwellinghouses above shops—
“(1) This section applies where an application for development consent proposes to develop any part of a building which is—
(a) part of a retail or commercial premises, and
(b) is at least one story above ground level.
(2) It is permitted to—
(a) develop any such part of the building for the purposes of dwellinghouses;
(b) include in development safe access and egress to the new dwellinghouses;
that does not require any such access and egress through the existing retail or commercial premises.”
New clause 119—Internal Drainage Boards to be statutory consultees—
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
New clause 120—Accessibility standards for new homes—
“(1) It is a condition of any grant of planning permission for new homes that—
all planned homes meet Building Regulations M4(2) (accessible and adaptable dwellings); and
the relevant number of homes, as set out in the following table, must meet Building Regulation M4(3) (wheelchair user dwellings)—
New clause 121—Residential development on flood plains—
“(1) Where a development involves the building of residential accommodation on a flood plain, no living or social spaces may be located on ground level.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “living or social spaces” include bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens and other private or communal rooms or spaces used for social or recreational purposes or for the preparation or consumption of food, but does not include garages or other rooms or spaces used primarily for the purposes of storage.”
New clause 122—Availability of small and medium sized properties to be considered—
“(1) When considering an application for development which would increase the size or number of bedrooms in a residential property which has a maximum of two bedrooms, a local planning authority must consider the availability and affordability of small and medium sized properties in the authority’s area.
(2) Where the authority considers that the extension of a small or medium sized property would have a detrimental impact on the availability and affordability of such properties in the authority’s area, the authority may not grant permission for the proposed development.”
New clause 123—Notices—
“(1) Where a party is required to publish a notice relating to proposed or prospective development, such a requirement may be satisfied by the relevant party providing the information to be included in such a notice to—
(a) affected individuals directly;
(b) a relevant parish or local authority.
(2) Where there is no relevant parish authority, the requirement under this section is satisfied if the relevant party notifies the nearest equivalent authority.
(3) In the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, omit the words from “; and” in paragraph 13(1)(a) to the end of paragraph 13(1).”
New clause 124—Notices (No. 2)—
“(1) Where a party is required to publish notices relating to proposed or prospective development in the vicinity of the area which is to be developed, the relevant party must—
(a) place such a notice at the main entrance to the property or site or, where there are multiple entrances, at each entrance;
(b) serve notice on the owner of every property located within 250 metres of the external boundary of the relevant site.”
New clause 125—Agreements on adoption of new highways—
“(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 62 (applications for planning permission or permission in principle), after subsection (4A) insert—
“(4B) Where an application seeks permission for development which includes the construction of a new highway, the local planning authority must require that the application includes a declaration specifying the extent of any highway for which the applicant intends to seek adoption by the local highways authority.
(4C) A declaration under subsection (4B) must contain such information and be in such form as the Secretary of State may specify.”
(3) After section 106C insert—
“106D Requirement to enter into highways adoption agreement before occupation
(1) Where the conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied, an agreement must be made under section 38(1) of the Highways Act 1980 (power of highway authorities to adopt by agreement) prior to the occupation of land or buildings resulting from development.
(2) The conditions are—
(a) that a declaration has been made under section 62(4B) of this Act which specifies that all or part of the highway is intended for adoption; and
(b) that the land or buildings to be occupied front one or more highway section intended for adoption.
(3) Any agreement must include all highway sections intended for adoption that front the land or buildings to be occupied.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “front” has the meaning given for “fronting” in section 203 of the Highways Act 1980.””
This new clause would require developers to declare, when seeking planning permission, that they intend for a highways authority to adopt the roads they construct as part of their development, and enter into an agreement with the highways authority before occupying any building next to the relevant roads.
Amendment 87, in clause 2, page 3, line 33, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment retains the requirement for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a statement setting out their response to a resolution of either House of Parliament or the recommendations of a committee of either House relating to a proposed national planning policy statement.
Amendment 128, page 4, line 9, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a response to a resolution made by either House or recommendations made by a committee of either House in relation to amendments to national policy statements. The requirement to do so is otherwise removed by 2(a).
Amendment 145, in clause 25, page 34, line 34, after “electricity suppliers” insert “and generators”.
This amendment would extend the financial benefit scheme for people living near network transmission infrastructure to those living near new energy generation infrastructure.
Amendment 146, page 34, line 38, after “plant” insert “, energy generation,”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 145.
Amendment 147, page 35, line 2, after “system” insert
“or is intended to generate electricity.”
This amendment is related to Amendment 145.
Government amendment 93.
Amendment 3, page 53, line 22, leave out clause 40.
This amendment aims to conserve the listed building conservation area and scheduled ancient monument consent requirements that would otherwise be disapplied for transport projects here.
Government amendments 94 to 98.
Amendment 122, in clause 46, page 58, line 10, leave out “(5)” and insert “(6)”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 123.
Amendment 123, page 58, line 38, at end insert—
“(5A) After subsection (5), insert—
‘(6) References in this Part to public charge points are to be taken as including cross-pavement charging solutions.’”
This amendment will extend the easements being provided to public charge points of installation without the need for a section 50 street works licence to approved cross-pavement charging solutions. Each site remains subject to Local Highways Authority approval, enabling control over liabilities, maintenance and parking arrangements.
Amendment 124, page 59, line 9, at end insert—
“‘cross-pavement charging solution’ means a local highway authority approved device, solution or apparatus to safely convey electricity from premises across or under a footway to a vehicle that is capable of being propelled by electrical power derived from a storage battery (or for discharging electricity stored in such a vehicle);”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 123.
Amendment 125, page 59, line 23, at end insert—
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 124.
Amendment 127, page 60, line 5, at end insert—
“References to public charge points are to be taken as including cross-pavement charging solutions.”
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 125.
Amendment 141, page 60, line 5, at end insert—
“(10) The Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 is amended as set out in subsections (11) and (12).
(11) In section 10 (public charging or refuelling points: access, standards and connection)—
(a) in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert—
‘(ba) the accessibility of public charging or refuelling points;’;
(b) after subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) Regulations under subsection (1)(ba) may, for example, require the operator of a public charging or refuelling point to ensure that the point complies with minimum specifications for placement of a charge point display, bay size, and the height and weight of the charging cable.’
(12) In section 14 (transmission of data relating to charge points), in subsection (2) after ‘energy consumption’ insert ‘, accessibility’.”
Amendment 139, in clause 47, page 60, line 12, leave out “(2)” and insert “(1A)”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 140.
Amendment 140, page 60, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) After subsection (1ZZA) insert—
‘(1ZZB) References in subsection (1) to functions of a local planning authority include recovery of costs to authority resulting from enforcement of any breach of planning permission.’”
This amendment allows local planning authorities to levy a fee or charge to recover any costs to them associated with enforcing planning rules. It is linked to Amendment 139.
Amendment 133, page 60, line 25, at end insert—
“(ba) the requirement for proportionality in the level of the fee or charge, based on the nature and size of the development to which the fee or charge will apply;”.
This amendment would require authorities to consider the proportionality of the level of any fee or charge they set, based on the nature and size of the works to which the fee or charge will apply.
Amendment 126, page 60, line 35, at end insert—
“‘cross-pavement charging solution’ means a local highway authority approved device, solution or apparatus to safely convey electricity from premises across or under a footway to a vehicle that is capable of being propelled by electrical power derived from a storage battery (or for discharging electricity stored in such a vehicle);”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 123.
Amendment 129, page 61, line 3, after “imposed” insert
“, and must be such an amount as the authority, Mayor or specified person considers to be a proportionate contribution towards the carrying out of their functions under Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.”
This amendment, which is linked with Amendment 130, would expand the planning fees ringfence to allow local planning authorities to spend revenue from planning fees on local plan-making functions under Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Amendment 130, page 61, line 15, at end insert—
“(ba) functions under Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 129.
Amendment 1, page 67, line 1, leave out clause 50.
This amendment would ensure that planning committees retain their existing powers.
Amendment 74, in clause 51, page 72, line 27, at end insert—
“(1A) A spatial development strategy must prioritise for new development previously-developed land.”
This amendment would require that spatial development strategies prioritise development on brownfield land over other locations.
Amendment 15, page 72, line 29, at end insert—
“(2A) A spatial development strategy must have regard to the need to provide 150,000 new social homes nationally a year.”
Amendment 21, page 72, line 38, at end insert—
“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4), ‘infrastructure and public services’ must include—
(a) primary and secondary healthcare provision, including mental health provision;
(b) social care provision;
(c) education, skills and training provision;
(d) infrastructure for active travel and public transport;
(e) sufficient road capacity;
(f) access to such commercial amenities, including shops, as the strategic planning authority deems necessary to support residents of the strategy area;
(g) recreational and leisure facilities; and
(h) publicly accessible green spaces.
(4B) A spatial development strategy must include targets for the provision of strategically important infrastructure and public services which are—
(a) considered to be appropriate by the relevant planning authorities and delivery bodies;
(b) periodically amended to account for changes in population size or dynamic within the strategy area;
(c) annually reported against with regard to the strategic planning authority’s performance.”
This amendment would clarify the meaning of strategically important infrastructure and public services, require targets for such provision to be set, and for performance against such targets to be annually reported.
Amendment 77, page 72, line 39, after “describe” insert
“(subject to the conditions in subsection (5A))”.
Amendment 148, page 73, line 1, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) an amount or distribution of housing the provision of which either—
(i) is considered by the strategic planning authority to be of strategic importance to the strategy area, or
(ii) meets housing need within, or related to, the strategy area.”
This amendment would enable strategic planning boards authorities to choose whether housing allocation based on local need or strategic importance.
Amendment 71, page 73, line 7, at end insert—
“(c) a specific density of housing development which ensures effective use of land and which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.”
This amendment requires strategic planning authorities to include a specific housing density in their plans which ensures land is used effectively where it is considered strategically important.
Amendment 149, page 73, line 7, at end insert—
“(c) the timetable for, and annual targets relating to the delivery of, housing specified or described under this subsection.
(5A) In subsection (5) ‘housing need’ has such meaning as a strategic planning authority may determine in consultation with local planning authorities within the strategy area.”
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 148. It requires a strategic planning board to set targets for the delivery of any housing specified under this section, and allows a strategic planning board to define housing need in consultation with relevant local authorities.
Amendment 78, page 73, line 7, at end insert—
“(5A) Where a spatial development strategy specifies or describes an amount or distribution of housing, the strategy must not—
(a) increase the number of homes to be developed in any part of the strategy area by more than 20%, or
(b) reduce the required number of homes to be developed by more than 20% in any part of a strategy area which is an urban area,
when compared to the previous spatial development strategy or the amount of housing currently provided in the relevant area.
(5B) In subsection (5A) ‘urban area’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”
This amendment would place limits on changes to housing targets in a spatial development strategy.
Amendment 134, page 73, line 7, at end insert—
“(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5), any amount or distribution of housing or affordable housing includes Gypsy and Traveller sites provided privately, by local authorities, or by other registered social landlords.”
This amendment would include Gypsy and Traveller sites in the strategically important housing identified in spatial development strategies.
Amendment 16, page 73, line 10, at end insert—
“(6A) Where a strategy area includes a chalk stream, the spatial development strategy must include policies on permissible activities within the area of the stream for the purposes of preventing harm or damage to the stream or its surrounding area.”
This amendment would ensure spatial development strategies include policies to protect chalk streams.
Amendment 70, page 73, line 10, at end insert—
“(6A) A spatial development strategy must—
(a) list any chalk streams identified in the strategy area;
(b) identify the measures to be taken to protect any identified chalk streams from pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage; and
(c) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the protection and enhancement of chalk stream habitats.”
This amendment would require a special development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm, and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments.
Amendment 75, page 73, line 10, at end insert—
“(6A) A strategic planning board has a duty to ensure that any development specified or described under subsections (4) or (5) does not take place on green belt land unless there is no practicable option for development in existing urban areas, including by—
(a) increasing the density of existing development, and
(b) regenerating an existing development,
in an urban area.”
This amendment would ensure that a strategic planning board must only propose development on green belt land where development in urban areas is not possible.
Amendment 76, page 73, line 10, at end insert—
“(6A) Where a spatial development strategy proposes the development or use of agricultural land, the strategy must consider—
(a) the grade of such agricultural land;
(b) the cumulative impact of projects developing or using such agricultural land.”
Amendment 17, page 73, line 33, at end insert—
“(11A) A spatial development strategy must—
(a) take account of Local Wildlife Sites in or relating to the strategy area, and
(b) avoid development or land use change which would adversely affect or hinder the protection or recovery of nature in a Local Wildlife Site.”
This amendment would ensure that spatial development strategies take account of Local Wildlife Sites.
Amendment 91, page 73, line 33, at end insert—
“(11A) A spatial development strategy must include policies relating to the provision and protection of land for community gardening and allotments”
This amendment would require planning authorities to include their policies in relation to the provision of allotment and community garden land in their spatial development strategy.
Amendment 67, page 74, line 3, leave out from “means” to end of line 6 and insert
“housing which is to be let as social rent housing.
(15) For the purposes of this section, ‘social rent housing’ has the meaning given by paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 and paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023.”
This amendment would define affordable housing, for the purposes of spatial development strategies, as social rent housing, as defined in the Directions on Rent Standards.
Amendment 23, page 74, line 5, after “2008,” insert—
“(aa) housing provided by an almshouse charity,”.
Amendment 81, page 76, line 29, leave out from “must” to end of line 38 and insert
“consult—
(a) residents of the relevant area;
(b) businesses located in the relevant area; and
(c) representatives of those that the authority considers may have an interest in any relevant area.”
This amendment would change the existing requirement in the Bill for a strategic planning authority to notify specified parties to a requirement to consult local residents, businesses, and representative organisations.
Amendment 18, page 77, leave out line 33 and insert—
“(5) A strategic planning authority must prepare and consult on a statement of community involvement which provides for persons affected by the strategy to have a right to be heard at an examination.”
This amendment would require strategic planning authorities to consider notifying disabled people about the publication of a draft spatial development strategy.
Amendment 72, page 77, leave out line 33 and insert—
“(5) Any person who makes representations seeking to amend a draft spatial development strategy must, if they so request, be given the opportunity to appear before and be heard by the person conducting out the examination.”
This amendment requires that anyone who submits representations to amend a draft spatial development strategy has a right to appear in person and be heard during the examination of the strategy.
Amendment 142, page 81, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) No review of a spatial development strategy may be undertaken within five years of the publication of the relevant strategic planning authority’s first spatial development strategy following the passing of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, except where such a review is consented to by the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would mean that an authority’s first spatial development strategy may not be reviewed for the first five years except with the agreement of the Secretary of State.
Amendment 143, page 81, line 26, after “strategy” insert
“, but this may not, within a period of five years following the publication of the relevant strategic planning authority’s first spatial development strategy following the passing of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, take the form of a full review of the strategy and the scope of any alterations must be agreed with the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would mean that an authority may not conduct a full review of its first spatial development strategy in the course of preparing alterations in the first five years.
Amendment 144, page 82, line 5, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply within the first five years of the publication of the relevant strategic planning authority’s first spatial development strategy following the passing of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, except with the consent of the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would mean that an authority may not replace its first spatial development strategy within five years.
Amendment 24, page 89, line 28, leave out clause 52.
This amendment, along with Amendments 25 to 63, would leave out Part 3 of the Bill.
Amendment 6, in clause 52, page 89, line 35, after “to” insert “significantly”.
Amendment 82, page 90, line 4, at end insert—
“(1A) An environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document.
(1B) Where an environmental delivery plan is prepared by a local planning authority, references in sections 48 to 60 to Natural England should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority.”
Amendment 25, page 90, line 14, leave out clause 53.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 26, page 91, line 12, leave out clause 54.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 7, in clause 54, page 91, line 27, leave out “an” and insert “a significant”.
This amendment would require that an improvement made to the conservation status of an identified environmental feature within environmental delivery plans should be significant.
Amendment 150, page 91, line 28, at end insert—
“(3A) An EDP must—
(a) require developers to demonstrate that they have sought to avoid and minimize any negative effects on the identified environmental feature, and
(b) only permit adverse effects on the identified environmental feature where they cannot be avoided and where the adverse effects will be compensated for.”
This amendment would ensure the mitigation hierarchy applies to development covered by EDPs.
Amendment 137, page 91, line 30, after “appropriate” insert
“and if there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest”.
Amendment 83, page 91, line 33, at end insert—
“(4A) Subsection (4) does not apply where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site and is—
(a) a chalk stream;
(b) a blanket bog.”
Amendment 138, page 91, line 33, at end insert—
“(4A) Where an identified environmental feature is a protected species, the EDP should—
(a) set out conservation measures that address the environmental impact of development on that feature within the relevant Local Nature Recovery Strategy area, and
(b) where Natural England considers it appropriate and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, seek to improve the conservation status of the same feature elsewhere.”
Amendment 27, page 92, line 10, leave out clause 55.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 28, page 92, line 19, leave out clause 56.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Government amendment 99.
Amendment 69, in clause 56, page 93, line 8, at end insert—
“(10) An EDP must include a schedule setting out the timetable for the implementation of each conservation measure and for the reporting of results.
(11) A schedule included under subsection (10) must ensure that, where the development to which the EDP applies is in Natural England’s opinion likely to cause significant environmental damage, the corresponding conservation measures result in an improvement in the conservation status of the identified features prior to the damage being caused.
(12) In preparing a schedule under subsection (10) Natural England must have regard to the principle that enhancements should be delivered in advance of harm.”
This amendment would require Environmental Delivery Plans to set out a timetable for, and thereafter report on, conservation measures, and require improvement of the conservation status of specified features before development takes place in areas where Natural England considers development could cause significant environmental damage.
Amendment 29, page 93, line 10, leave out clause 57.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Government amendment 100.
Amendment 136, in clause 57, page 93, line 19, at end insert—
“(2A) When preparing an EDP, Natural England must—
(a) demonstrate that there is reliable scientific evidence to suggest that implementing conservation measures as part of an EDP could contribute to a significant environmental improvement in the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature at an ecologically appropriate scale;
(b) be able to establish sufficient baseline data on relevant protected features to enable an accurate assessment of the environmental impact of development on the identified environmental features; and
(c) take account of the environmental principles set out in section 17 of the Environment Act 2021 and publish a statement explaining how it has done so.”
This amendment would require Natural England to provide scientific evidence on the expected effectiveness of the proposed conservation measures when preparing an EDP.
Government amendments 101 and 102.
Amendment 30, page 93, line 32, leave out clause 58.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Government amendments 103.
Amendment 84, in clause 58, page 94, line 14, at end insert—
“(j) any impacted landowner,
(k) sea fishing businesses, where the EDP covers an area which is adjacent to their fishing grounds,
(l) the owners of fishing rights, where the EDP includes or otherwise affects rivers or lakes used for fishing.”
Government amendments 104 and 105.
Amendment 31, page 94, line 31, leave out clause 59.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 8, in clause 59, page 95, line 2, leave out “are likely to” and insert “will”.
This amendment seeks to strengthen the overall improvement test.
Amendment 9, page 95, line 2, after “sufficient to” insert “significantly”.
This amendment seeks to strengthen the overall improvement test.
Amendment 32, page 95, line 13, leave out clause 60.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 33, page 95, line 21, leave out clause 61.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 34, page 96, line 27, leave out clause 62.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 5, in clause 62, page 96, line 33, at end insert—
“(2A) An EDP may not be amended if the amendment would reduce the amount, extent or impact of conservation measures that are to be taken to protect the identified environmental features.”
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could not amend an environmental delivery plan so as to reduce the measures to be taken to mitigate the negative environmental impact of a development.
Amendment 35, page 97, line 20, leave out clause 63.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 10, in clause 63, page 98, line 8, after “to” insert “significantly”.
Amendment 36, page 98, line 21, leave out clause 64.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Government amendment 106.
Amendment 37, page 99, line 33, leave out clause 65.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Government amendments 107 and 108.
Amendment 38, page 100, line 33, leave out clause 66.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 90, in clause 66, page 100, line 37, leave out from “that” to end of line 40 and insert
‘‘the conservation status of environmental features are maintained and improved whilst supporting development to proceed where ecologically appropriate.”
This amendment would state that the purpose of the nature restoration levy is to enable development while maintaining and improving environmental features.
Amendment 39, page 101, line 1, leave out clause 67.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 40, page 101, line 29, leave out clause 68.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 41, page 102, line 36, leave out clause 69.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 42, page 103, line 9, leave out clause 70.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 4, in clause 70, page 103, line 13, at end insert—
“(1A) The regulations must require Natural England to ensure that use of money received by virtue of the nature restoration levy is not unreasonably delayed.”
The amendment would ensure that funding would be available for upfront nature restoration and mitigation on development sites.
Amendment 11, page 104, line 5, leave out “separately” and insert
“to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy]”.
This amendment is consequential on NC8.
Amendment 12, page 104, line 9, after “money” insert
“, and to report to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy] accordingly”.
This amendment is consequential on NC8. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on the use made of nature restoration levy money.
Amendment 13, page 104, line 10, after “report” insert
“to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy]”.
This amendment is consequential on NC8. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on expected charging collection and use of nature restoration levy money.
Amendment 14, page 104, line 16, after “paragraph)” insert
“, and to report to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy] accordingly”.
This amendment is consequential on NC8. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on money passed to another public authority.
Amendment 43, page 104, line 17, leave out clause 71.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 2, in clause 71, page 104, line 27, leave out from “levy” to end of line 30 and insert—
“(4A) Provision under subsection (4) must include a condition that the nature restoration levy must be paid before development begins.”
This amendment would require that the levy is paid up front, so that nature restoration can begin immediately.
Amendment 44, page 105, line 8, leave out clause 72.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 45, page 106, line 32, leave out clause 73.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 46, page 107, line 18, leave out clause 74.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 47, page 107, line 24, leave out clause 75.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 48, page 107, line 32, leave out clause 76.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 49, page 108, line 19, leave out clause 77.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 50, page 109, line 27, leave out clause 78.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 51, page 110, line 38, leave out clause 79.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 52, page 111, line 9, leave out clause 80.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 53, page 111, line 25, leave out clause 81.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 54, page 112, line 33, leave out clause 82.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 55, page 113, line 29, leave out clause 83.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 56, page 114, line 3, leave out clause 84.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 57, page 114, line 33, leave out clause 85.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 58, page 115, line 10, leave out clause 86.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 59, page 116, line 19, leave out clause 87.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 60, page 117, line 1, leave out clause 88.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 61, page 117, line 10, leave out clause 89.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 62, page 117, line 27, leave out clause 90.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 63, page 118, line 29, leave out clause 91.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Government amendments 115 to 119 and 109 to 111.
Amendment 65, page 163, line 12, leave out schedule 5.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 54.
Amendment 66, page 170, line 3, leave out schedule 6.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 60.
Amendment 20, in schedule 6, page 174, line 37, leave out paragraph 41.
Amendment 131, in schedule 6, page 175, line 1, leave out subparagraph 41(2).
This amendment removes provisions that amend the reasons for the killing or taking of badgers.
Amendment 132, in schedule 6, page 175, line 16, leave out subparagraph 41(4).
This amendment removes provisions that amend the reasons for the killing or taking of badgers.
Government amendments 112 to 114, 120 and 121.
Amendment 64, in clause 109, page 150, line 38, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment is consequential to Amendments 24 to 63.
Matthew Pennycook
It is a real pleasure to bring this landmark Bill back to the House on Report. Let me begin by thanking hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for their engagement with the Bill over recent months. In particular, I thank the hon. Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), as well as hon. Friends on the Government Benches, for their considered line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill in Committee.
Over the past 11 months, the Government have acted decisively to restore economic stability, increase investment and reform our economy to drive up productivity, prosperity and living standards in every part of the country. To build the homes and critical infrastructure we need, we have already delivered the most significant reforms to our planning system in a generation, including the publication of a revised, pro-growth national planning policy framework, which the Office for Budget Responsibility concluded will permanently increase the level of our real GDP by 0.02% by 2029-30—the equivalent of £6.8 billion in today’s prices.
We are making further progress on our plan-for-change mission of rebuilding Britain and kickstarting economic growth this week by progressing this critical legislation. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, helping us to achieve our ambitious milestones of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England, and making planning decisions on at least 150 major economic infrastructure projects in this Parliament, as well as supporting our clean power 2030 target by ensuring that essential clean energy projects are built as quickly as possible.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, the mother body of which is the National Farmers Union. Others will comment on this, but the UFU has told me that it is concerned about losing farmland for housing. Should it not be the policy of Government to ensure that brownfield sites are used first? If they are used first, farmers will have the opportunity to retain their land to produce food, which is important. Does the Minister feel there must be balance in what is put forward tonight to ensure that that happens?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention—he knows I have great affection for him. He tempts me into a debate that does not directly relate to the Bill, but I can tell him the following: the Government’s position is brownfield-first when it comes to development. He knows that we strengthened the national planning policy framework to give greater weight to brownfield release. We have consulted on a brownfield passport to ensure that bringing forward previously developed land becomes the default and that people get a yes in those circumstances. When it comes to agricultural land, very strong protections already exist. They remain in force in terms of what is in the NPPF.
Matthew Pennycook
I will give way briefly, and then I will make some progress.
Greg Smith
When the Minister says that agricultural protections are very strong, that simply is not true, is it? In the new NPPF that the Government brought in after being elected, they removed the important clause that explicitly protected land used in food production.
Matthew Pennycook
I slightly take issue with the hon. Member’s interpretation. We made targeted changes, but the strong protections that apply to agricultural land exist. He knows that, and I have spoken to him before about the fact that, in particular parts of the country, we see high numbers of applications for things like solar farms. But as I have said to him before, even under the most optimistic scenarios, less than 1% of agricultural land will be brought forward for solar farm applications, and those protections remain in place, so we are confident that that is robust.
Matthew Pennycook
I will take this one last intervention because these are not matters relating to the Bill, and then I want to move on.
Sir Roger Gale
This relates directly to the Bill. Not only does it relate directly to the Bill, but there are dozens of amendments all relating to this one single issue. The fact of the matter is that, under the proposals as they stand, we will lose vast swathes of prime agricultural land because planning consent will effectively be driven straight through. That is simply not satisfactory.
Matthew Pennycook
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard the point I just made. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, less than 1% of agricultural land will be turned over to solar farm use. Some of the hyperbole that has been associated with the issue over recent months is unwarranted. I say directly to him, because I want to move on and speak to the Bill, that these are matters that relate to the national planning policy framework, rather than to any proposals in this piece of legislation. I am more than happy to sit down with him and talk about them outside of the context of this debate, but I do want to make some progress.
We made a number of improvements to the Bill in Committee to ensure that it operates as intended and that its expected benefits are fully realised. In many cases, the changes were a direct result of constructive feedback from key stakeholders and parliamentarians. The result is the stronger and more impactful Bill before us. I will briefly outline the more substantive changes made to the Bill in Committee, including in relation to the nationally significant infrastructure projects, statutory consultee funding and the nature restoration fund, before turning to further amendments that the Government tabled last week.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the very open way in which he has approached this process so far. He is absolutely right that the Government made many positive changes and concessions in Committee, but he will be aware that many stakeholders remain concerned about the Bill’s impact on nature. As the Bill progresses, is he minded to listen to representations from people who are absolutely behind him on his growth mission but who want to ensure that there is no further loss of natural habitat in one of the most nature-depleted nations on the planet?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend and I spoke just days ago about that issue. We are of course more than happy to continue engaging with and listening to the views proposed by hon. Members from across the House and by organisations. If he will allow me to make a little progress, I will deal specifically with the nature restoration fund in fairly short order.
Let me begin with the improvements made to the consenting process for critical infrastructure. As set out in my written ministerial statement of 23 April, the Government have removed the overly prescriptive and burdensome statutory consultation requirements for major economic infrastructure projects that were unique to the NSIP system established by the Planning Act 2008. Over this Parliament, that change could result in a cost-saving of over £1 billion across the project pipeline. By speeding up delivery, increasing capacity and reducing constraint cost, it will also contribute to lower household bills.
We have decided to proceed with the change because considerable evidence attests to the fact that the statutory requirements in place are driving perverse outcomes. Rather than providing a means by which engagement drives better outcomes, statutory pre-application procedures have become a tick-box exercise that encourages risk-aversion and gold-plating. The result is consultation fatigue and confusion for communities; longer, more technical and less accessible documentation; and an arrangement that actively disincentivises improvements to applications, even if they are in a local community’s interests, because applicants worry that a further repeat consultation will be required.
In removing the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for NSIP applications, and bringing requirements more closely in line with other planning regimes, the Government are not downgrading the importance of high-quality pre-submission consultation and engagement. We still want the NSIP regime to function on the basis of a front-loaded approach in which development proposals are thoroughly scoped and refined prior to being submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and we still expect high-quality, early, meaningful and constructive engagement and consultation to take place with those affected as part of that process. Given that such engagement and consultation routinely takes place and leads to improved proposals in other planning regimes without such statutory requirements, and because the development consent order examination procedure rewards high-quality applications, we are confident that developers will continue to be incentivised to undertake it.
To support that change, the Government intend to publish statutory guidance setting out strong expectations that developers undertake consultation and engagement prior to submitting an application. We will work with stakeholders to design that guidance—a public consultation will be launched in the coming months—so that it encourages best practice without recreating the flaws of the current system.
We have also made a number of other changes relating to the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, including by amending the Bill to ensure that promoters can gain access to land to carry out surveys assessing its condition and status and inform environmental impact assessments, and to make the process for post-consent changes to development consent orders more proportionate to the change requested.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My inbox is full of correspondence from Harlow residents who cannot get a home and cannot get on the housing ladder. They find that the planning framework means that it takes too long to get houses built. The main purpose of the Bill is to speed up that process and build people the homes that they need.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is right: the Bill does streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure. Although the changes I have just referred to relate not to homes but the regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects—big clean energy projects, water reservoirs and so forth—there are other changes in the Bill that do support a more streamlined local planning process.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
Before the Minister moves on, will he give way?
Matthew Pennycook
I am going to make some progress, because I know a lot of hon. Members want to get in and there are lots of points I need to make before I can bring others in.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Is the Minister not concerned that he has lost the audience among wildlife organisations and trusts that say they are offended by Ministers’ portraying nature as a blocker to development rather than an enhancement to life and the economy, and are now asking for part 3 of the Bill to be scrapped?
Matthew Pennycook
I will come on to address that call, which I know is being made, but in general the Bill aims for, and I have always focused on, a win-win for development and the environment. We had extremely productive engagement with ENGOs in the development of the Bill, and we continue to have fruitful conversations with them, aside from the campaigns that I know are being fought out there in the country and in some of the national media.
While critics of this part of the Bill may be content to maintain the suboptimal status quo, in full knowledge of the fact that it is frustrating the building of new homes and failing to drive the restoration of nature, this Government are not. To those who believe this Government might buckle and scrap part 3 of the Bill entirely, I simply say, “You have underestimated the resolve of this Government and this Minister.” The case for moving to a more strategic approach that will allow us to use funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in driving the recovery of protected sites and species, is compelling.
That is why so many organisations indicated their in-principle support for the purpose and intent of part 3 when the Bill was first introduced.
Matthew Pennycook
I will make some progress.
As Beccy Speight, the chief executive of RSPB, put it at the time:
“With bold leadership, collaboration, and smart planning through initiatives like the Nature Restoration Fund, we can build a future where nature, climate, people and the economy thrive together”.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I welcome the enhanced environmental protections in the nature restoration fund. My constituency of Bournemouth West has some unique heathland habitats, many of which are protected as sites of special scientific interest. They hold deep value for the local community, so can the Minister reassure me that these unique habitats will be protected as well under this Bill?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We must make a distinction between irreplaceable habitats, where the model does not remove the strong protections that exist for them, such as ancient woodland in the national planning policy framework, and habitats where Natural England will be allowed to take a view as to whether conservation measures that apply to them meet the overall improvement test in the Bill, and any intervention in those circumstances will be driven by what is in the environmental best interests of the relevant feature. There are, therefore, protections in place that address my hon. Friend’s concerns.
In recent weeks, there has been a not inconsiderable amount of spurious commentary attempting to convey a false impression of what the nature restoration fund does.
Matthew Pennycook
If the hon. Lady will let me develop my argument a little, I am more than happy to give way to her in due course.
As such, I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. First, some have claimed that the nature restoration fund is driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment and that the Government are creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute—a “cash to trash” model, as some have dubbed it.
In reality, the nature restoration fund will do the precise opposite. I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not—and need not—come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest that the nature restoration fund would allow developers simply to pay Government and then wantonly harm nature. Instead, it takes payments from developers and hands them to Natural England, a public body with regulatory duties to conserve and enhance our natural environment, to develop environmental delivery plans, setting out how various conservation measures will not only address the impact of development, but go further to demonstrate how they will improve the conservation status of the environmental feature.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The Minister is making a strong case for the legislation, on which he has worked very hard. However, does he accept that many concerns were raised in Committee, on which we both served, about Natural England’s ability to undertake the duties that he is asking it to undertake, and that he was unable to give an answer about the extra funding that may be needed for that to happen? Will he elaborate on that?
Matthew Pennycook
The shadow Minister’s memory is different from mine: I did provide those assurances. We have already allocated £14 million in the Budget to support the delivery of the nature restoration fund, and through measures set out in the Bill, we will move to a system of full cost recovery so that Natural England has the resources it needs to carry out those functions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Matthew Pennycook
I know lots of Members wish to contribute to the debate but I will make some progress. If I may finish the argument I am trying develop about taking on those misconceptions, I will give way to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) very shortly.
We have been perfectly clear that the new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable, which is why the Bill gives Natural England the ability to request planning conditions to ensure that appropriate actions are taken by developers as part of using an EDP.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister warmly for giving way. He dismissed “spurious” criticism of part 3 of the Bill, but would he use that phrase to dismiss the very expert criticism of the Office for Environmental Protection? In complete contrast to the Secretary of the State’s claim that the Bill does not reduce environmental protections, in its independent expert advice, the OEP says that it does and that the Bill constitutes “a regression” in environmental protection?
Matthew Pennycook
The simple answer is no, I would not characterise the OEP’s advice as “spurious”, but I am characterising some of the arguments that have been made over recent days and weeks as such. The OEP is not saying that the Bill is a “cash to trash” model, but some people out there in the public discourse are making that claim.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not give way again. We have to make this argument to take on the critics of the Bill who are intentionally trying to malign the objectives—
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Matthew Pennycook
I will not. I have just been very clear that I am not going to give way again as I want to make some progress.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire is more than welcome to have another go at intervening in due course. I know that she will be putting forward her views later. The Government’s view is that the Bill is not “regressive”. As I have said, environmental delivery plans will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation. As the hon. Lady knows, because we had extensive debates in Committee, we are giving very serious consideration to the OEP’s technical advice on how the Bill might be strengthened in various areas.
Another claim that has been put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, that amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation. The very strong protections for important sites set out in national planning policy are untouched by the legislation. It is only when an EDP is in place, following consultation and approval by the Secretary of State, that developers can avail themselves of it to discharge the relevant obligation.
In the same way that developers can build only once they have met existing requirements, development supported by the nature restoration fund will only be able to come forward when there is a credible and robust EDP in place that will deliver better environmental outcomes. The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), has rightly flagged the importance of these plans relying on robust scientific evidence, which is why they will only ever be put in place where they can be shown to deliver better environmental outcomes.
Finally, there has been a suggestion by some that the new approach provided for by the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or for irrecoverable harm. Again, that is patently false. Not only do all existing protections for irreplaceable habitats remain in place, but the overall improvement test in clause 59 simply could not be met if an EDP proposed to allow irrecoverable harm. Natural England would not propose such measures, and the Secretary of State could not sign them off if it did. If any Secretary of State signed them off, they would be open to judicial review on the basis of that decision.
In short, the nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests: it will restore, not harm nature. It is smart planning reform, designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery, while improving the state of nature across the country. By shifting to a strategic approach, leveraging economies of scale and reducing the need for costly project-level assessments, it will deliver a win-win for development and the environment.
While the Government have no time for spurious and misleading attacks on the nature restoration fund, I am acutely conscious of the views expressed both within and beyond this House from those who are supportive of the purpose and intent of part 3 of the Bill—those who are not calling for it to be scrapped, but are not yet convinced that the safeguards within it are sufficiently robust or that there is the required certainty that it will deliver in practice the potential environmental benefits it offers.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I find it remarkable that the Minister repeatedly accused the over 30 leading environmental groups, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has described the Bill as a “cash to trash” model, as making “spurious” remarks, given that he quoted the chief executive of the RSPB, Beccy Speight, to try to shore up his own argument. However, the quote that he took was from a much earlier comment made before the debate in Committee. More recently, she has said:
“The evidence clearly shows nature isn’t a blocker to growth. The Government has identified the wrong obstacle to the problem it’s trying to overcome”.
She went on to say that, with no possibility for improving the Bill through amendments,
“the complete removal of Part 3 of the Bill is the only responsible option left.”
Matthew Pennycook
It is for the chief executive of the RSPB to justify why she has changed her view on the Bill when the Bill has not changed. If anything, as I will come on to explain, quite a lot of amendments that the Government made—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The list of Members wishing to speak is extensive, so I hope that the Minister will be coming to a conclusion shortly.
Matthew Pennycook
I was not planning to, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I need to set out some important changes that the Government have made and the amendments that we are proposing. However, on the basis of your stricture, I will not take any further interventions.
The Bill has not changed; if anything, it has been strengthened in Committee in ways that I will set out. To assuage what are entirely reasonable questions in respect of an approach that is novel, we have already made some targeted improvements to part 3 in Committee, including requiring environmental delivery plans to demonstrate how conservation measures will be maintained and over what period; strengthening the overall improvement test by clarifying that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that it will be passed by the end date of the environmental delivery plan; clarifying that the negative effect the Secretary of State must consider relates to the maximum amount of development covered by the environmental delivery plan; and ensuring that Natural England has sufficient powers of entry, used only when absolutely necessary, to survey or investigate land alongside appropriate constraints, including notice requirements and introducing further protections in respect of Natural England’s use of compulsory purchase powers. Those changes significantly strengthen the nature restoration fund and, I hope, will be welcomed across the House.
However, as I was at pains to make clear in Committee, and will more than happily restate once again today, I continue to reflect on the reasonable points made by hon. Members and the advice of the Office for Environmental Protection with a view to deliberating on what more might be done to ensure everyone is confident that the outcomes for nature provided for by this part of the Bill will be positive. For the purposes of clarity, that includes giving serious consideration to ways in which we might instil further confidence in respect of the rigour of the overall improvement test, provide for greater certainty in respect of the delivery of EDPs, and ensure that there is more clarity about the evidential basis and environmental rationale for strategic network level conservation measures. As we do so, I put on record my thanks to all those who have continued to engage constructively with the Government with a view to providing reassurance that the nature restoration fund will operate as intended. As ever, I will listen carefully to the contributions made by hon. Members in respect of part 3 of the Bill, and I look forward to a constructive debate on these clauses.
In Committee, we discussed the need to do more to rapidly increase the coverage of swift bricks across the country as an important means of arresting the long-term decline in breeding swift populations. In responding to the debate, I intend to cover some of the ways forward that the Government intend to take.
Madam Deputy Speaker
You just wish to speak at the end—marvellous. [Interruption.]
Paul Holmes
Actually, I will say a few words. Why resist the temptation to say a few things?
I thank the Minister for his hard work in leading the Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee and all Members who served on that Committee over the past few weeks. He spent a long time in Committee saying that he would reflect on a number of really important points that hon. Members across the political divide had made, but he has done no such thing. He said that he has reflected and that he will also reflect after the events of today and tomorrow, but he has made no substantive changes to the Bill based on the real and genuine environmental concerns of many Members across the House.
I do not intend to detain the House too long, because I know that I have a winding-up speech, but we are worried about the centralising zeal of this Government when it comes to planning, as I said on Second Reading. We are worried about the erosion of the powers of locally elected, democratic politicians to make decisions about their local areas, serving their local people.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that local communities should have much more control over what happens to the housing stock in their areas. Will he reflect on his party’s opposition so far to the proposal from the Liberal Democrats for a different category of planning use for both short-term lets and second homes, given that communities such as mine are ravaged by so many homes being unavailable to local people? Will he change his party’s position and show that if the Minister is not listening, he is?
Paul Holmes
The Conservative party has always believed in the rights of locally elected councillors and planning committees to make decisions for the people they serve; we have said that consistently through the passage of this Bill. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) has tabled new clause 1 to ensure that planning committees have their current powers reinstated under the Government’s proposals. The Minister is saying this afternoon, as he will say tomorrow, that he does not trust any planning committee or any Labour-controlled council to make decisions based on the wishes of the constituents in their local areas. We think that that is a disgrace.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that our constituents expect to have their voice heard on a local planning committee? Provided that councils are well-trained, the system that we have is working quite well.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman says, “Is it?” from a sedentary position, but I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. Very few planning applications are refused by planning committees, and very few planning applications do not go through because of the actions of planning committees. We on the Opposition Benches happen to trust our locally elected councillors and local leaders to make decisions for our constituents. It is quite clear that Government Members do not trust them, as they are vesting more power into the hands of the Minister and the Secretary of State.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is a member of the party that was in power for the last 14 years. The result of that 14-year period is that we are a nation with a housing crisis and huge numbers of people in inadequate accommodation or no accommodation at all, and that we are the most nature-depleted nation on earth, so the system clearly is not working. Does he have any real sense that there needs to be change, or is he saying that we can carry on with the system that we have?
Paul Holmes
I would have more truck with the hon. Gentleman’s argument if anything that his Government proposed had the intentions that he has outlined. Just this morning, Savills has indicated, knowing what the proposed legislation will do, that the target of 1.5 million homes will not be met and that only 880,000 houses will be built by the end of this Parliament.
When it comes to the environmental protections that the Minister has outlined, it is quite clear that many of the concerns of Members across this House should be listened to. The environmental proposals made by the Minister will have a detrimental impact on local areas by shipping the problem elsewhere.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman asks whether I have any proposals. The last Government built the largest number of houses in history. There are many things that we agree need to be done, and there are some areas of this Bill that we agree with, but the hon. Gentleman needs to realise that taking power away from locally elected councillors is a disgrace. The Minister is saying to the hon. Gentleman and his councillors that they should not be trusted to make decisions on behalf of their local communities. I am sure he will not be happy with that when he gets to his annual general meeting in a few months’ time to be reselected as a parliamentary candidate.
There are other concerns about this legislation. As we have said, the Government have consistently said that they want to build 1.5 million homes, but the independent Office for Budget Responsibility—a body that Labour held in high regard when it was in opposition—has forecast that the Government will fail to deliver on their manifesto commitment and will fall short of that figure. As I have said, that was echoed today by Savills, which estimates that the Government will build just over half the number of houses that the Deputy Prime Minister has promised, even after coming out of her very testing meetings with the Chancellor.
The Government’s proposal to reduce the number of legal challenges available to opponents of major infrastructure developments from three to two—and in some cases just one—should alarm anyone who believes in checks and balances. Legal scrutiny is not an inconvenience; it is the backbone of our democratic system. Infrastructure projects often have far-reaching environmental, social and economic consequences, and by curtailing legal recourse, we are not removing red tape but removing the public’s right to hold power to account. In the name of speed, the Government are undermining the legal mechanisms that protect us from Government overreach.
As I have said, the clear implication of the Minister’s proposals today is that powers will be removed from locally elected planning committees. That is a disgrace, and it is in addition to a gerrymandering housing algorithm that punishes rural areas and rewards Labour councillors in urban centres for failure. We are told that the Bill will speed up planning decisions, but at what cost? Local planning authorities are indeed struggling, under-resourced and overburdened, but granting them fee-raising powers without guaranteed central support is like asking a drowning man to swim harder. More alarmingly, the shift of decision-making powers from elected councillors to unelected planning officers under the guise of efficiency diminishes local democracy. It takes key decisions out of the hands of public representatives and places them in the hands of a bureaucracy increasingly dictated by central policy.
We are also told that the Bill will make planning more strategic. That is a noble aim, but let us not forget that the strategic failure of recent years has been due not to too much local input but to too little co-ordination. The requirement for regional spatial strategies was scrapped by this Government’s predecessors. Now, the pendulum swings once again, with combined authorities being told to draft regional plans; however, those same authorities are being starved of the funding and staff required to do so. We risk repeating history, only this time with fewer safety nets and a weakened capacity to challenge flawed strategies.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I chair the all-party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities, which is concerned that there are 6.3 million properties currently at risk of flooding—a figure that is forecast to rise to 8 million by 2050 because of climate change. However, the Bill does not really address climate change or any kind of flood resilience. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in urging the Minister to consider the amendments tabled by me and others that deal with building properties in areas that are at risk of flooding and lack flood resilience?
Paul Holmes
Of course. We discussed this topic at great length in Committee, and many good amendments were tabled. However, as I understand it and as I think the hon. Lady agrees, having reflected consistently the Minister has not strengthened the environmental protections or the measures to deal with flooding risks to housing that will be built in future. In fact, I would argue that those protections have been weakened. I hope the Minister will go away and look at these issues again.
Turning to environmental protections, we in the Conservative party say that they are under threat. The creation of environmental delivery plans sounds suitably wishy-washy, but this new centralised model turns bespoke ecological assessments into a bureaucratic chequebook exercise. While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask whether this is really restoration, or whether it is greenwashing.
On Natural England, I remind the Minister once again that the Bill Committee held a huge evidence session. He consistently said that he had confidence in Natural England’s ability to undertake the responsibilities he is seeking to impose on it, but time and time again he has outlined that he has allocated what I would argue is a mediocre sum of money to Natural England. He is asking that organisation to make decisions and improve environmental protections for people across this country, but he still has not outlined what funding model will be in place. The chief executive of Natural England herself stated, in very generic terms, that she was not entirely sure that she or her organisation would be able to undertake those operations going forward. The Minister should listen to the huge concerns across this House that Natural England is not the right organisation to undertake those responsibilities—rather, it should be local councils and local mayors. They should be the ones who represent their constituents and speak for local people, and who can make the changes they need on environmental protections.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member recognise that only up to 1% of agricultural land could actually be dedicated to solar panels? Does he also recognise that a former president of the National Farmers Union has said that solar helps farmers to generate income?
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman says “only up to 1%”, but given the international situation, this country should be producing its own food, and that land should be protected. He may need to catch up, because I understand that the NFU now wants the Bill to go further and completely ban solar panels on high-quality land. I suggest that he speaks to the NFU again, and then comes back to this House and backs new clause 39. The NFU speaks up for our farmers, so we should listen if it is not happy with what is in the Bill. Instead of giving me a quote from a former NFU employee, the hon. Gentleman should listen to the NFU’s current leadership, and then maybe change his comments.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member believe that farmers are able to choose how best to use their land?
Paul Holmes
Of course I believe that farmers know how to make best use of their land, but this Government are taking power away from farmers, whether by increasing the power to issue compulsory purchase orders for land that farmers want to use to produce food, or by reducing the money that they will get from the CPOs that the Government are advocating for. Farmers see more and more agricultural land being taken out of use. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill and the measures that the Minister is bringing forward, which undermine our farmers and stop them from being able to do the job that they want to do.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Paul Holmes
I will move on to another clause, because Madam Deputy Speaker probably wants me to sit down soon, as might many other Members. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I knew I would get universal acclaim eventually.
New clause 43 was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Villages across our country need to be protected, and the Bill simply does not do that. It eradicates the relevance of local plans and power of local people to make decisions to protect the strategic gaps around our villages. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the new clause, which would provide villages with protections equivalent to those provided to towns under the national planning policy framework. It is a vital measure for protecting the character, identity and heritage of England’s villages before they are lost to unchecked sprawl.
For too long, planning policy has prioritised urban growth without giving equal attention to the unique pressures faced by rural communities. New clause 43 seeks to correct that imbalance by requiring the Secretary of State to issue or update guidance that grants villages equivalent protections to those afforded to towns under the NPPF in order to safeguard villages from being swallowed up by neighbouring developments, preserve green buffers between settlements, and protect the historic fabric and rural character that define these communities. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) for her work in bringing about the amendment, following a truly baffling planning appeal decision on green belt in her constituency. That decision would result in the merging of two settlements with completely different characters and identities, simply because one was classed as a village and one was classed as a town. Many Members will have had such problems. The Minister needs to go away and look at the protection of villages and green belt in the Bill, because it is not delivering that.
A number of amendments have been tabled that Opposition Members think would make the Bill better. New clause 82, tabled by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), relates to play areas. Many developments are not delivered with play areas, and those should be brought forward. Amendment 69, tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), would require environmental delivery plans to set out a timetable for, and to report on, conservation measures, and it would require improvement of the conservation status of specified features before development takes place.
We Opposition Members believe that there need to be changes to planning policy, but the Minister has squandered a chance. He has not listened to Members who genuinely want to strengthen the Bill by making planning policy faster, while protecting our environment and enhancing the role of our locally elected councillors. As a result, he has left us unable to strengthen the Bill by working together. This is a wasted opportunity. He will not deliver his housing numbers. He will take powers away from local communities and stifle the planning process. We Opposition Members will always stand up for our locally elected councillors. It is a shame that this Government simply have not done that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
More than 55 Back Benchers hope to contribute, and colleagues know what time this debate has to end. It is unlikely that everybody will get in, so colleagues may want to reconsider and submit to speak tomorrow instead of today. I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I am mindful of what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will try to keep my remarks short. I rise to speak to the amendments in my name. In this Report stage, I will briefly touch on why the Bill is so vital. It is fair to say that we all, as constituency MPs, have our frustrations with the planning system, but ultimately we must remember why this Bill matters. We are in the middle of a housing crisis. A generation of young people are spending more and more of their income on unaffordable private rents, while the dream of home ownership fades even further. We have 1.3 million households on local authority waiting lists for social housing and more than 165,000 children growing up in temporary accommodation. That figure has risen by 15% in the last year alone.
I am the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and our first report looked at the lives of some of the children in temporary accommodation. What we found was truly shameful. Families are living in damp, cold and mouse-infested homes. Babies are not able to crawl or learn to walk because of a lack of floor space. Most shockingly, we found that temporary accommodation has been a contributing factor in the death of at least 74 children in the past five years.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
As a fellow London Member of Parliament, I recognise everything that my hon. Friend has described. Was she surprised, as I was, to hear from the shadow Minister that the planning system is fine and should not change?
Florence Eshalomi
As I outlined in my opening comments, the planning system does not work. It is broken, just as we have a broken housing market and a housing crisis.
I mentioned the 74 children who died in the past five years; 58 were under the age of one. As Members of Parliament representing different parts of the country, we might disagree with aspects of developments in our constituencies, and we must not let developers off the hook when they often fail to deliver quality in new housing.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and she touches on developers. My new clause 67 focuses on developers’ obligations when they have committed, at the planning application stage, to deliver a certain number of affordable homes. Under my new clause, they would have to stick to that. They should not be given scope to use issues around viability or profitability to reduce the number of affordable homes that they deliver. Does she agree that that option should not be open to developers if they want to build homes?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my constituency neighbour for that important point. We have to be honest: the market facing developers is challenging. Their costs have increased, but we see waiting lists across our boroughs increasing daily. More and more people face an acute housing shortage. It is therefore important that when developers consult and go to planning committees with their development plans, they stick to what they have committed to. Developers must build the infrastructure that our communities need, and we must ensure that homes are built to the highest safety standards. We must be in no doubt that, unacceptably, we have for decades failed to build the homes that we need. If we want to give young people homes, stop families facing the scourge of homelessness, and ensure that every child has the best start in life, we must say yes to building more homes. In particular, not enough new social homes have been built. That is why I tabled new clause 50.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I completely agree that not enough social homes are being built. Does the hon. Lady think we should have a target for social homes in the Bill?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Member for that point, and I am coming to some of the points on targets; essentially, this subject is why I tabled new clause 50, and I am grateful for the support of colleagues from all parts of the House. Social rent, as we know, is the most affordable housing tenure, as the rent is calculated through a national formula. Usually, the rent is set at around 50% of local market rents. That is exactly the kind of housing we need if we want to make progress towards ending homelessness during this Parliament.
The Minister told the Select Committee that the Government want to prioritise the building of new social rent homes as part of their social housing ambitions. My new clause 50 would require the Government to set a national target for the number of social rent homes that they want to deliver per year. The target would not be binding on the Government or the sector, but it would demonstrate the scale of the Government’s ambition. Targets are important to how our planning system works in England. Local and national housing targets make sure that our planners, developers and housing associations know how many homes the Government intend to deliver, and they allow communities to plan effectively.
The Government have been clear on their overall national housing targets, but the Select Committee believes that the Government must set out how they intend to hit that 1.5 million target, and we want to ensure that includes a target by tenure. In the absence of a specific housing target, the number of new social rent homes has plummeted from hundreds of thousands in the 1970s to consistently below 10,000 in the past decade.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, which we have discussed on the Select Committee. Does she agree that to reach the target of 90,000 social homes a year, we must set clear targets now? Otherwise, we will not be able to get a grip on the housing crisis when it comes to delivering socially rented homes.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my fellow Committee member for making that point. As the shadow Minister outlined, a number of key sectors have made claims and are worried about the target that the Government have set. It is an ambitious target, and we want the Government to hit it, but without urgent action, that might be difficult for them to do.
In the absence of such a target, far fewer families are getting off the waiting list, out of homelessness and into secure and safe affordable homes. As the new Select Committee has not endorsed a specific number of social rent homes, my new clause does not hold the Government to a target; rather, we want the Government to consider what is needed and, most important, what is possible within the financial constraints and the sector’s capacity. In recent years, several organisations have called for social rent targets at different levels. As we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan), the most common figure is 90,000 social rent homes per year, which has been endorsed by Shelter, Crisis, the National Housing Federation, the Affordable Housing Commission, and the predecessor of my Committee in the last Parliament.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The hon. Member has made some excellent points about the need to set a target for social homes. I believe that the destruction of council house stock is one of the most regressive actions that the country has ever taken, and that we need to replenish that stock as a matter of urgency. However, I fear that 90,000 a year is not enough. Does she agree that we need to aim for 150,000?
Florence Eshalomi
The hon. Member makes a really important point. What we are asking the Government to do, in the new clause—and what many other Members across the House are asking them to do—is ensure that, within that 1.5 million target, there is a clearer ambition in relation to how many of those homes will be social housing. We need to take a step first before we start increasing that target, but I agree that 90,000 is a drop in the ocean, given the number of people across the country who are on the social housing waiting list.
When he was in office, the former Secretary of State—now Lord Gove—said that he wanted to see at least 30,000 social rent homes a year, which he called a “stretching but achievable” target. My new clause would give the Government six months after the passing of the Bill to set their own target. By that time, we expect the Government to have published details of a new affordable homes programme and a long-term housing strategy. The Minister has told the Select Committee that the long-term housing strategy will set out how the Government will meet their 1.5 million target, and we hope that will include a breakdown of the figure by tenure and a target for social rent housing.
My amendments 129 and 130 are technical amendments to the Bill’s planning fees ringfence. We know that local planning authorities are badly under-resourced. According to the Royal Town Planning Institute, one quarter of planners have left the public sector between 2013 and 2020. The sector has therefore welcomed the Bill’s plan to ringfence the revenues from planning fees so that local authorities must invest those revenues in planning departments. However, in evidence to the Committee, planning representatives told us that the current ringfence in the Bill was too restrictive, as it would not allow planning departments to spend the money on developing their local plans. The Minister is up to date with local plans, and, as he knows, local plan coverage is vital if the Government’s planning reforms are to succeed. The fact is, however, that only a third of local authorities have an up-to-date local plan in place. It therefore seems to be a missed opportunity that the ringfence, as currently drafted, would not allow local authorities to invest in plan-making using revenues from fees. The Government wish to see universal coverage of local plans, so I hope that the Minister might consider making this modest change in the other place to extend the fees ringfence.
With those local plans in place, and with the Government’s wider planning reforms bedding in, hopefully we will start to see real progress towards building the homes we so desperately need. But even then, we must face the reality that planning reforms alone will not to be enough to deliver 1.5 million homes during the current Parliament. The private sector will need to take time to adjust to the new regime, and developers will need years of lead-in time to bring forward those applications. The private sector will build homes only at the rate at which they sell without needing to reduce prices, whereas with social housing a family can receive the keys to a secure home as soon as it is built. We must remember that the last time England was building 300,000 homes a year, more than 100,000 of them were social housing.
The Government have promised to deliver the
“biggest wave of social and affordable housing for a generation”,
and that will require the biggest boost in social housing investment for a generation. In truth, the spending review will make or break the 1.5 million target. It is now time for the Government to be bold, and to deliver on their housing ambition. If they do so, they will find councils across the country ready to match their ambition.
I particularly welcome Southwark Council’s work, and the work of its outgoing leader, Councillor Kieron Williams, in spearheading the “Securing the Future of Council Housing” campaign. In just under a year, Southwark has joined 112 other councils across England in sending the clear message that it is there to get more homes delivered, and to fix the broken housing system. I urge the Government to match that goal, back up their stated ambitions, and set a social housing target following the spending review. We must ensure that social rent housing—the most affordable tenure—forms a substantial part of the new housing that results from the Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. May I remind Members that we are pushed for time? After the next Front-Bench speech, I shall be imposing an immediate five-minute time limit. I now call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos
Let me start by thanking all the members of the Bill Committee, the Clerks, and the officials whose joy at receiving our 78 amendments I can only imagine to have been unbounded. The House will be pleased to hear that I will now be focusing only on those that we have prioritised for this debate.
On Second Reading, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru were the only parties to vote against the Bill. All the others were content to support it; Labour and Green party Members nodded it through, while the Conservatives—the official Opposition—abstained. I hope that they will all consider their position more seriously on this occasion, and reconsider supporting some of the measures in the Bill, but if today the Liberal Democrats are again the only party to vote against the Bill—
Gideon Amos
Tomorrow, as the hon. Gentleman has reminded me. If, tomorrow, the Liberal Democrats are the only party to vote against the Bill because of the harm that it does to the rights of communities and local people, to fairness and to nature, all three of which are cornerstones of what liberals believe in, we shall bear that standard proudly—and we shall do so again.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I have tabled new clause 65, which would require housing development applications to include provision for green space within 15 minutes of new homes, supporting nature and helping people to lead happier, healthier lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have missed an opportunity to require new housing developments to be designed in a way that would be not only good for nature and the environment, but good for the health and wellbeing of residents?
Gideon Amos
I agree with my hon. Friend, who is a great champion of green spaces in development. In our contribution, we are showing how the protections of nature could be strengthened in the Bill without entire chunks of it being deleted. I shall say more about that later.
As we heard from the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), when it comes to rights for individuals, real freedom often depends on decent homes that people can afford and where they can bring up their families. When homes are genuinely affordable for local people, they will command real community consent and support in the planning process. Unless we give a commitment to a massive increase in the number of social and council rent homes, we will not be responding to the needs of those people, and we will fail to meet head-on the criticism that housing developments today are more about profit than about people.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
My constituency contains less than the national average proportion of social rented housing, at 7%. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is shocking that the new Government have been asleep at the wheel, and have lacked the ambition to deal with the desperate need for more social rented housing during their first 11 months in power?
Gideon Amos
I thank my hon. Friend for championing the need for social and council rent homes, which is exactly what the Liberal Democrats are doing. We welcome the £2 billion commitment that the Government have made to social housing, and we are listening carefully to what they are saying about the spending review, but there is still no target for new social homes in either this Bill or any of the relevant Government policy. That absence needs to be put right.
Paul Holmes
We agree with many of the amendments that the hon. Gentleman’s party has put forward. He outlines a target for new social homes. How would he afford that, and where would the money come from?
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman leads me on to the next part of my speech. Our amendment 15, which would support the delivery of 150,000 new social homes per year, would be funded by the taxation proposal set out in our costed manifesto. That would provide an extra £6 billion per year, on top of the existing affordable housing programme and section 106 contributions. According to the Centre for Economics and Business Research, that would be enough to enable us to deliver 150,000 social homes per year by the end of the Parliament.
On the rights of communities, more people engage with their local councils on planning than on almost any other area, but far too often that engagement becomes a dawning recognition that all the key powers and levers on planning have been taken away from local areas by successive Governments, leaving local communities and the elected councillors who represent them increasingly powerless over the development that takes place around them. Housing numbers are set by a formula made in Whitehall and dictated not by population, but by demand and supply ratios, even though studies show that that has never yet reduced the price of a single house. Private builders will quite reasonably act to sustain the price of their product, and adding consents in this context is only likely to unleash development in inappropriate areas.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we saw in the recent Westminster Hall debate that the standard method for calculating the number of homes not only does not reduce prices, but inevitably ratchets them up and increases them?
Gideon Amos
My hon. Friend is very perceptive and hard-working on this issue. He raises a significant problem with the current standard method, and I pay tribute to him.
It is not just the standard method that is dictated from Whitehall; so too are rules on second homes and short-term lets, so communities cannot stem the loss of family homes for local people—something that our new clause 20 would put right. Rules on transport and highway capacity are also set by Whitehall, so local authorities such as my own Cheddon Fitzpaine parish council cannot question them. In the battle between underfunded local authorities and developers with big profits to make, Whitehall rules also mean that commitments to deliver affordable housing and infrastructure can all too often be evaded on grounds of viability—something that our new clause 112 would tackle by requiring an absolute minimum of 20% social housing in any development.
No wonder trust in local politics is at such a low. That has only been made worse by the chaos of the previous Conservative Government: with one rule for them and another for everyone else, basic fairness went out the window. The UK may rightly be ranked among the top 20 countries in the world by Transparency International, but nothing undermines fairness more than foul play, even if it is, as we know, very rare. Our new clause 11 would ensure that never again can Ministers favour a planning application from a donor without that being exposed in the public record. It cannot ever be right for a planning decision to be taken by those who will financially benefit from it.
Trust in the fairness of local democracy is so often shaped by how much trust people have in the local planning processes. Our amendment 1 would remove from this Bill the powers it gives Whitehall to control the running of councils, and the rights of councillors to make decisions on planning applications. The powers in this Bill mean that, for the first time, even a unanimous decision by every single councillor will not be enough to enable them to change a decision that their officers or planning consultants made on their behalf. Giving employees and consultants power over the heads of the elected representatives who employ them is a dangerous step, and no Parliament should endorse it.
It is not just elected councillors who will lose their vote on planning. Members of this House will lose their vote when it comes to changes to national policy statements that set the rules for the largest national infrastructure projects, from Hinkley C and Swansea tidal lagoon to the world’s biggest offshore and onshore wind and solar farms. Our amendment 128 would allow the Government to change national policy statements to reflect changes in the law, but it would preserve this House’s right to decide whether national policy on massive projects should be changed.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I agree with some of the things that the hon. Member is saying, but we all want to build faster. Under the local district plan in Stroud, we have been waiting four years for our housing plan, and this Bill will free us from the quagmire that is our current planning system. Last Friday, I met representatives of the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust and the Severn Rivers Trust, who have serious concerns about part 3 of the Bill. Does the hon. Member agree that we should have a short pause on part 3 and keep some of it?
Gideon Amos
I certainly agree that part 3 requires amending. Our amendments seek to do that, as I will come to shortly.
People want to see development that treads lightly on the land and reduces harmful emissions. Our new clause 2 would enforce the zero carbon standard for all new homes, on which the Liberal Democrats and Labour Ministers worked so hard before the Conservatives cancelled the whole zero carbon homes programme in 2015.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Net zero standards cut bills as well as carbon emissions, so does my hon. Friend share my incredulity that a Government who have been forced to U-turn on winter fuel payments are refusing to back new clause 2, which would cut bills for people of all ages?
Gideon Amos
It is absolutely right to say that we should be moving to zero carbon homes. In fact, one study shows that had they been introduced in 2015, new homeowners would have saved £9 billion.
Our new clause 25, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), would give key national landscape partnerships, such as in the mellow and beautiful Blackdown hills in my constituency, a seat at the planning table.
As we see species becoming extinct before our eyes, people want to see new homes and nature thrive together. Crucially, our new clause 1 would put back the pre-eminent principle in all this: wherever possible, we must first do no harm to the environment on the sites that are being impacted. Of course, there are circumstances such as phosphate mitigation, where off-site measures can deal with the problem, but by completely removing from EDPs the hierarchy of mitigating impacts first and foremost on site, the Bill provides what the National Trust has called a “licence to kill nature”.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that the problem with the Bill is misdiagnosis? The problem is not nature holding up house building, or local authorities—which have been starved of cash for the last 15 years— holding up housing, but developers that are sitting on 1.4 million homes with planning permission, because they are land banking and profiteering. That is the problem that the Bill is not getting to. We do not have to destroy nature, and we do not have to undermine our future environmental protections.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the thousands of homes that have planning permission and have not been built, including the 11,000 we have in Somerset. While I welcome what the Government have said about bringing those forward, a real “use it or lose it” power is missing from the Bill. The Liberal Democrats have tabled new clause 3 so that, unless those homes are built, the local authority would have powers to take over the land and to build the houses. That would ensure a real “use it or lose it” penalty for those that do not build out the permissions that they have.
Pitting communities and nature as the enemies of progress and development would be a massive mistake. Taking power away from councillors is taking it away from local people, and taking power away from Members of Parliament is taking it from the hands of the people who elect us to this place. Both are examples of centralisation and “Whitehall knows best” thinking, in which local views count for little and nature for even less. There is another way to build the hundreds of thousands of homes we need. It is to invest in 150,000 social homes per year to pump-prime our industry, give communities the funding for the jobs, transport, green space and energy infrastructure that our constituents want, build the new GP and healthcare facilities before building the houses and homes our communities will need, and build them in ways that will support rather than harm those communities.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as it sounds as though he is coming to his conclusion, but I want to give him the best possible chance to talk about new clause 115. My constituency of Surrey Heath is made up of small villages divided by green-belt land and Ministry of Defence property. Without the protections afforded by new clause 115, I fear that the distinctiveness and sense of place of those villages will be gradually lost. Can he comment on how new clause 115 would protect the distinctiveness of place?
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the point he makes. It is vital to protect the character of existing places and communities that are so valued, which is why we want a more locally driven approach to assessing housing numbers and local plan making.
Finally, if we build the GP surgeries, the healthcare and the other infrastructure before the homes, we will be building in the interests of our communities, not against them. That is the kind of community-led development that Liberal Democrats want and that our amendments would help to bring about, and I humbly urge Members to support them.
Mr Perkins
I rise to set out the case for amendments 136 and 150 and new clause 62, in my name. I am very pleased to hear what the Minister has said so far. The Bill would tackle the long-standing conundrum of how to deliver the ambitious house building targets to which the Government are rightly committed, while protecting the environment and enhancing, not reducing, protections for nature. Before I turn to my amendments, I want to speak briefly about the extent to which the Bill achieves those aims.
I absolutely share the Government’s commitment to freeing up the planning system and ensuring that fewer people are unable to get on to the housing ladder and fewer children grow up in unsuitable, overcrowded and temporary accommodation. I see the impact of this country’s failure to build the homes it needs in my surgeries every single week, so I support the Government’s aims to speed up that process. I also agree that planning has too often been a barrier to those ambitions, and the Government are absolutely right to attempt to remove this blocker.
Freeing up unnecessary restrictions, however, must not mean allowing further nature degradation, nor does it have to. The Government have said that these ambitions will be achieved alongside nature recovery. Wildlife populations in England have fallen to around 67% of their 1970 level; as I said a few moments ago, Britain is now one of the “most nature-depleted” places on earth. Most of England’s rare and vulnerable habitats are in poor condition. Alongside building the homes and infrastructure that our society needs, we must rebuild our natural capital—the air, water, soils and biodiversity —on which our society depends.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It sounds as though the hon. Member, like me, has a deep passion for ensuring that we maintain nature, so does he agree that a simple measure would be to accept new clause 30, which would extend permitted development rights for ponds of up to 0.2 hectares, providing vital freshwater habitats for up to two thirds of all freshwater species, exactly as he has been saying?
Mr Perkins
I thank the hon. Member very much for that intervention, and I look forward to hearing her speech in support of her new clause. I do think that has merit and is worth considering, and I look forward to hearing her make her case in more detail.
The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, initiated an inquiry into housing growth and environmental sustainability to scrutinise the Government’s national planning policy proposals. Achieving growth and delivering for people, climate and nature together is a vital but challenging task. There are many provisions in this Bill that I welcome, and I thank the Minister for his efforts and his detailed engagement. I was grateful that he made time to meet me recently to discuss my proposed amendments.
Overall, I support the Government’s intention in part 3, and I think those parties that wish to simply scrap the approach entirely are wrong. It is right to introduce a more strategic approach to satisfying developers’ environmental obligations. If done well, the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy proposed in part 3 could simplify and accelerate the process of meeting existing environmental requirements, where developments impact protected sites or protected species. Importantly, I see the merit of this strategic approach in delivering larger-scale and more effective nature conservation measures where development has unavoidable impacts on protected sites and protected species.
However, the strength of concern from knowledgeable stakeholders should give the Government serious pause for thought. The Office for Environmental Protection, which was mentioned earlier, published advice for the Government stating that the existing provisions in the Bill would amount to a regression in environmental law, so it is welcome that the Minister continues to be open-minded about making further amendments. I look forward to hearing about the engagement in another place, where I am certain that further amendments will be brought forward.
The Environmental Audit Committee has heard evidence that there must be stronger safeguards for the proposed nature restoration fund to genuinely deliver on its potential for nature. My objective in tabling amendments to this Bill is to engage constructively with the Government’s approach to part 3, and to strengthen it so that it delivers for nature and development at the same time.
To turn first to amendment 136, I very much welcome what the Minister had to say about scientific safeguards, and I look forward to what he comes forward with. This amendment would ensure that environmental delivery plans are used only where there is scientific evidence that they will work. In other words, there must be robust evidence that a particular negative effect on a protected site or protected species can be mitigated or compensated for at a strategic level, rather than on a site-by-site basis.
Although the strategic approaches that will be delivered by EDPs can work well for some habitats and species, such as nutrients or newts, they do not always work for others. This amendment would safeguard against the EDP approach being applied to inappropriate species or habitats. The Government have recognised this principle and have committed to a modular approach to expanding EDPs with new plans applying feature by feature, and existing protections remaining in place for those not yet covered. I support this approach, and I encourage the Government to enshrine this principle in legislation to give certainty that the scientific safeguards to which they have committed cannot be altered by any future Government without revisiting this legislation.
On amendment 150—
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
In view of the pressure on time, I will limit my remarks to amendment 141, in my name. The Bill, as we have heard, seeks to do many things, but one of them is to accelerate the roll-out of electric vehicle charging points around the country to facilitate the move to electric vehicles. Drivers with disabilities, and there are 1.35 million of them, will also be expected to move to electric vehicles, but public charging points are often unsuitable for them to use. The amendment is designed to address that.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of amendments 137 and 138 in my name. I declare an interest as the co-chair of the local nature recovery all-party parliamentary group and a proud species champion for the hen harrier. I am deeply committed to the protection and restoration of our natural world, and I have tabled the amendments to ensure there is adequate protection for protected species.
I recognise the need to take the housing crisis extremely seriously. I support numerous amendments on affordable homes and social housing, including new clause 32, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which would mandate that national and local housing plans incorporate and justify specific targets for both affordable and social housing. It is clear that we need to build more housing, but we must ensure that that includes enough social homes, because a just society must care for both people and planet.
In defence of nature we must remember that nature is not a luxury; it is essential. It sustains our health, our economy, our climate and the rich web of wildlife that makes our planet thrive. From the air we breathe to the food we eat and the water we drink, nature underpins every aspect of our survival, yet we are, as has been said, living in one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world and the consequences are becoming impossible to ignore.
Our peatlands, woodlands, wetlands and seas, once vibrant with life, are deteriorating. These ecosystems are not just carbon stores; they are vital habitats for countless species. As they degrade, they not only release more carbon than they absorb, but drive wildlife into decline. Iconic species are vanishing, pollinators are disappearing, and once common birds and mammals are becoming rarer, pushing many species closer to extinction. Without urgent action to restore these ecosystems, we cannot hope to meet our climate goals, or halt the alarming loss of biodiversity. Every species lost weakens the resilience of nature and our ability to adapt to a changing climate. Protecting nature is not just an environmental imperative; it is an economic, social and moral one. The loss of pollinators threatens our food supply. The destruction of our coastal habitats increases our vulnerability to storms and flooding, and the collapse of ecosystems puts both human and animal lives at risk.
My amendments require that if a protected species is identified as an environmental feature, the environmental delivery plan must include a clear strategy for conservation measures to address the impact of the development on that species within local recovery strategy areas. If Natural England determines that that is not possible, or there is an overriding public interest not to do that, it must aim to conserve the same species at a different site. Recognising the realistic risk of local extinctions and the threats facing specific species, this approach reflects a fundamental truth: protecting nature is not optional; it is essential. Our ecosystems are interconnected, and the loss of even a single species can have cascading effects on biodiversity, climate resilience and human wellbeing. By embedding strong, enforceable protections for species into development planning, we are not only safeguarding wildlife but reinforcing the natural systems that sustain our economy, our health and, importantly, our future.
Carla Denyer
Given the really important points that the hon. Lady is making about the environment and how it is so strongly connected to our economy and public health, does she agree with me—I appreciate that this is on a slight tangent, but she will see where it is going—that the planning rules for big digital billboards, which themselves can emit 11 homes-worth of energy, not to mention the light pollution that seriously affects nature and human health, are illogical and inconsistent? The rules say that planning applications can only be considered on highway safety and immunity grounds, and not on environmental impact or on the impact on human health. Would it not be better if local authorities could make decisions on those grounds as well?
Olivia Blake
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point and I am sure the Minister is listening.
In a time of ecological crisis, every action must contribute to halting and reversing nature loss, because nature is not just part of the solution; it is the solution. I hope the Minister will sit down with me to discuss these points further, as the Bill enters the other House.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 59, in my name, which considers the impact of our planning system on our creative and cultural industries and infrastructure. These spaces are the foundation of our world-beating creative industries and are also very important for our local communities. They are the engine of an industry which is growing at twice the rate of the rest of the economy. They are the R&D labs of a sector that is bigger than our automotive, aerospace and life sciences industries combined. Yet the creatives industries are under threat, including from our disruptive planning system and onerous licensing regime.
My Culture, Media and Sport Committee has heard that live music venues will be back to shutting at the rate of two a week by the end of the year. That is in addition to electronic music venues and clubs, which have been shutting at the rate of three a week. My amendment seeks to help prevent those closures by putting a duty on planning decision makers to apply the agent of change principles, which have existed since the national planning policy framework in 2018. They require developers to ensure that their developments do not disrupt existing businesses in future, as well as places of worship, schools, transport infrastructure and so on.
First, the new clause would be good for venues. Of the 86 grassroots music venues that closed in 2024, one in four shut for operational reasons, including noise abatement orders, neighbour disputes and interventions by the local councils. In the previous Parliament, the Committee I chair held a roundtable in Manchester at the Night and Day Café, an iconic venue. We were there to meet representatives of live music venues from across the north, yet the operators could not attend their own roundtable because they were instead attending a court hearing with Manchester city council to settle a three-year noise abatement dispute—a costly and pointless legal dispute at that, as it started due to a single complaint by a tenant who had moved out long before the issue was resolved.
Secondly, the new clause would be good for developers and new neighbours. Consistent application of the agent of change principle will de-risk and speed up planning and development. It will ensure that the needs of an existing cultural venue are considered from the start and save developers from late-stage objections and lengthy, expensive legal disputes down the line. It will require developers and decision makers to think about the presence of existing venues and will benefit future tenants and homeowners, who should be less impacted overall.
Finally, the new clause would help local authorities. It is councils that have the duties to detect statutory nuisance and investigate noise complaints; it is councils that serve noise abatement orders; and it is councils that get dragged into expensive and often pointless bun fights with local venues, as the Night and Day Café example illustrates. Encouraging councils to consider at the planning stage how developers and venues can find a nice equilibrium in their interests can only help to save them time and money, which is surely more efficient than settling matters in court.
The new clause has widespread support. It takes forward the recommendation of the CMS Committee in the previous Parliament and is supported by the whole live music sector, from the operators of our smallest clubs, pubs and venues to the biggest arenas and stadiums. It will benefit the breadth of our cultural infrastructure, from our historic theatres to our pulsating nightclubs. It is built on evidence given by LIVE, UK Music Creative UK, the Music Venue Trust, the Night Time Industries Association and the National Arenas Association.
The new clause is not about venues versus developers; instead, it is about ensuring we have the balance right between building enough good homes and making sure the places we are building keep the things that make life worth living. Everyone in Westminster and our constituencies agrees that our high streets have been in decline, so it is vital that we protect the places that are special to us, our constituents and our communities—the places that provide a platform for our creators and our world-beating creative industries, where we can make memories, celebrate and have fun.
I hope the Government will support my new clause and, if not today, commit to making this law as soon as possible. Live music is in crisis. The Government need to listen.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak to amendment 87, in my name and the names of most Select Committee Chairs—certainly most of those who cover Departments—including the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), and the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury).
The amendment relates to the Government’s new approach to the consultation around national policy statements, and in particular to the parliamentary scrutiny of those statements. There is currently a process by which Select Committees join forces to examine national policy statements and provide recommendations to the Government, but the Government are proposing to introduce what they call a new “reflective amendment” procedure where an amendment to planning policy reflects new legislation, changes to Government policy or a relevant court decision since the policy guidance was put in place. We all know that the Government’s aim is to speed up the planning process, but we need to be clear that reducing parliamentary scrutiny can have long-term consequences. I am therefore seeking reassurances from the Minister as to how this will be managed.
This proposal will remove the requirement to respond to either a resolution of either House of Parliament or recommendations from a Committee of either House of Parliament on the proposed changes; instead, the Government would write to the appropriate Select Committee at the start of the public consultation period, which is typically six to 12 weeks, and the Committee would then have the option of inviting Ministers to discuss the proposed changes during that time. My fellow Chairs and I are concerned about this change reducing the Committees’ influence and enshrining in law that the Government do not need to respond to the scrutiny or recommendations of Select Committees.
Dame Meg Hillier
I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has tabled a similar amendment.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the hon. Lady and the other Select Committee Chairs for taking up an issue that we took up in Committee, and about which there has been concern across the House. The Government may wish to change NPSs in the light of legal judgments, but does she agree that changes to them for policy reasons, particularly when they affect massive projects like Hinkley Point C and Sizewell, should continue to come before the House?
Dame Meg Hillier
If I move on to what will happen, I think the hon. Gentleman will be reassured. There is a bigger point here, which I do not have time to elaborate on in this debate. This change is part of a trend of Government not appreciating the role of thoughtful, thorough scrutiny from outside the Whitehall bubble—this is a disease affecting Governments of all parties—and of scrutiny from MPs with detailed knowledge of the subject matter. The hon. Gentleman, of course, has a strong track record on this issue outside this place, from before he became a Member of this House.
Those who scrutinise through Select Committees often understand the system, and how a change in policy or law can have a different effect within policy guidance because of the interactions it will have. The worst-case scenario here would be that a Committee did not have time to examine a proposal, or, if it did have time, that the Government ignored the recommendations. I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for the time they have spent engaging with me and the Clerk of the Liaison Committee, on behalf of the Select Committees, to try to mitigate those worst-case risks. In theory, these changes could sound quite reasonable, but in practice, there is a risk that the Government could lose a useful voice that also reflects the views of other bodies. Select Committees also get the chance to question Ministers in public, which is important for transparency and accountability. Select Committees can also give force to the views and expertise—shared in public, very often orally—of bodies with knowledge of the technical changes that could be introduced and wrapped into new or revised policy guidance.
We have all been there when, at the Dispatch Box, a Minister promises that another Minister will attend a Committee and be questioned, but we are talking about having as little as six weeks to work with. We have all been in a situation in which a Minister’s diary is so busy that it is difficult for them to attend, and that would not be good enough in this case. I hope the Minister will give some reassurance that he will, through the normal channels in Whitehall, ensure that every Department is aware of the requirement for a relevant Minister to attend within a period that allows the Committee to produce a report or respond to the Government, which does not mean at the end of a six or 12-week consultation period.
I hope the Minister can give me those reassurances. I would like him to be very clear on the record. I acknowledge the efforts made in Committee to talk about this, and some of the pledges made then, but it is important that these changes and the Minister’s views and pledges are made clear in this Chamber. In Committee, the Minister said that
“Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the Committee during that period, in so far as that is practical.”
He also said that
“not all select Committees will respond in the relevant period, therefore elongating the process”.––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 29 April 2025; c. 103.]
I can clarify for and reassure the Minister that it is the intention of those on Committee corridor to ensure that these things are dealt with in a proper and timely fashion.
I hope that the Minister will ensure both that Ministers attend in a timely fashion, and that there is a proper approach that ensures that Committees get advance notice of a new planning policy statement or revised statement, so that they have time to plan and get their ducks in a row in order to enhance the work of Government by giving them, if necessary, critical-friend comments. Scrutiny in whatever form is absolutely vital. If, as I hope, the Minister will put that on the record today, I will not push my amendment to a vote. It is vital that parliamentary scrutiny be protected as much as possible.
Andrew George
It is clear that we are today debating methodologies, rather than values. Certainly, I do not dispute the Minister’s values at all; we all want to see the growing need met, and the environment protected. The question that we are debating today is the best methodologies for achieving those outcomes. I have submitted a number of amendments covering three areas, which I will rattle through as quickly as I can, all of which support the themes that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) advanced today, and indeed that he has pursued in Committee in previous weeks.
Amendment 148 relates to housing targets. It proposes allowing local authorities to adopt targets that reduce housing need, rather than simply targets to build homes. House building targets are in many areas part of the problem, rather than the solution to housing need. For example, since the 1960s, Cornwall’s housing stock has been among the fastest growing in the United Kingdom. It has almost trebled, yet housing problems for local people have got significantly worse over that time.
Simply setting house building targets results in massive hope value being attached to every single community around Cornwall. Having worked as a chief executive of a charity that tries to build affordable homes, I can say that establishing house building targets makes it more difficult to address the housing needs of local people. Targets that are about reducing need would change the dynamics of the planning system in places that face these problems.
Unfortunately, the approach to house building targets that has been adopted by parties over the previous decade is built on the delusion that private developers will collude with Governments to drive down the price of their finished product. We can no longer carry on in that delusion. We cannot and should not pursue counterproductive methodologies. Amendment 149 and new clause 108 are consequential on the fundamental change proposed in amendment 148.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington has spoken about introducing a new class order to address the prevalence of non-permanent occupancy in some areas. The previous Government were looking at bringing in a new class order for holiday lets, but that should be extended to second homes and all homes of non-permanent occupancy. New clause 92, which is consequential on new clause 91, proposes introducing a sunset clause for planning permission to ensure that there is not a perverse incentive for people to apply to change a property’s use in order to enhance the value of their property when they sell it. This is not about the politics of envy but the politics of social justice. I think those who represent areas or constituencies with large numbers of second homes properly understand how these things operate.
Finally, I tabled a number of amendments relating to affordability, including new clause 89 on affordable development and new clause 90. New clause 89 would prohibit cross-subsidy—or at least open-market development—on rural exception sites. Those sites should not be called rural exception sites; they should be called rural norm sites. That should be the methodology for delivering affordable homes in rural areas. It should be driven by wanting to have affordable homes in such locations.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. In North Norfolk, people want house building that genuinely meets local need and helps address the housing crisis, which is affecting everyone in my constituency. On affordability, does he agree that we need to empower local authorities to define what “affordable” means in their areas?
Andrew George
My hon. Friend is right about that. Affordability is defined for rented accommodation—either 80% of market rent or the local housing allowance, whichever is lower—but it is not sufficiently defined for the intermediate market in rural areas, which includes shared ownership and discounted sale. There are ways that affordability can be achieved, and that should be done within local planning. We should give local authorities the power to define, for the purposes of their communities, what is and is not affordable, and we should strengthen the role of neighbourhood development plans in that respect as well.
New clause 90 would put a cap on developer profit. A lot of people do not understand how planning authorities make their viability assessment when developments are brought forward. There is an assumption of a developer profit of 20%, but when developers ask for amendments to the way that their planning applications are viewed, they will often have undertaken two different valuations, and will come with both. One they present to the planning authority, and one they keep in their back pocket. One of the valuations comes with violins, and a sob story about how they will lose out because of the development, and how they are doing it only for the community. The other valuation is the reality. We know that they are making a killing out of other people’s poverty.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I am pleased to support this important Bill and the Government amendments to it, which will deliver the housing, infrastructure and environmental protections that my constituents need.
First, I welcome the Government’s enhancements to the environmental delivery plan. They provide greater clarity, legal safeguards and appropriate flexibility to ensure that the plan restores and enhances our precious natural habitats. The current piecemeal approach to offsetting environmental harm is not working. The Government’s sensible approach maintains existing protections for nature, and adds to them with the ability to fund high-impact strategic nature recovery projects. I am very lucky that there are several significant nature recovery projects in my constituency, such as Sulham woods and meadows, which I had the pleasure of visiting last week. This project is maximising biodiversity on 130 hectares of marginal arable land, and is planting 24,000 trees, 4 km of new hedgerow and a new walnut orchard. We need more big projects like this.
I would like to highlight the opportunity the Bill presents for our country’s chalk streams. I am proud to represent a constituency that boasts many wonderful waterways, including the entire length of the River Pang—a beautiful, winding chalk stream that is a point of local pride. It is said to be the inspiration for the “Wind in the Willows”, and it is loved by families, dog walkers and anglers alike. But the precious Pang is in crisis. In just a few short years, the water quality has plummeted to poor. Citizen scientists and anglers testing the river, such as Professor Mike Wilson and Pete Devery, consistently report samples with completely unacceptable levels of phosphate and E. coli. The phosphate pollution from Thames Water sewage works is so bad that luminous green from the resultant algae can be seen in satellite images.
I thank all the campaigners, citizen scientists and volunteers with whom I have been working throughout my campaign to restore the Pang. I also thank the ARC project, the Rivers Trust, the Angling Trust, Pang Valley Flood Forum and Berks, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust, as well as all members of the Pang Flagship Chalk Stream Partnership, which supports a range of initiatives to restore the Pang. They are all dedicated advocates whose restoration efforts are making a real difference. Chalk streams are rare and valuable habitats. Their mineral-rich, stable waters are home to a plethora of species.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
The hon. Member is talking about chalk streams, which are the rainforests of the UK. A chalk stream in my constituency has had over 4,000 hours of non-stop sewage, and it sounds like the River Pang has been a victim of something similar. Amendment 16 is so important to protect our chalk streams, and local people say to me, as development comes, that this is actually groundwater. Would she support amendment 16?
Olivia Bailey
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I will come to my view on that amendment.
Given that 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in England, it is right that we consider chalk streams England’s rainforests. We have a duty, as their custodians, to protect them for future generations. While some chalk streams have protections, such as site of special scientific interest status, many, including the Pang, lack even that. The Bill, alongside our landmark water legislation, is an opportunity to expand the protections for chalk streams. I am grateful for the conversations I have had with the Minister on this issue, and I know how committed he is to our chalk streams, so I ask if he will commit to strengthening the protections for our chalk streams as this Bill progresses.
The Bill is an opportunity to build the homes and infrastructure that this country needs, boost our economy, and protect precious habitats like the Pang. I look forward to continuing to support it.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 74 in my name. First, I thank all Members from parties across the House who signed up to my new clause. I also thank Mr Speaker and his team for the novel offer he made this morning on how we might have dealt with new clause 74.
New clause 74 is very simple. It seeks to ensure that promises made to all of us as MPs by prospective developers when considering applications for large-scale housing developments are honoured. I have lost count of the number of developers who have made promises about so-called flagship housing developments, gained the support of the MP and other local community stakeholders, applied for outline planning permission and then been granted it on the basis of a good mixture of homes. In one case—that of Lutterworth East—a pledge was made by the developer to build a minimum of 40% affordable homes. Those developers give the pledge, obtain the support and gain outline planning permission, but then, a few months or a year or two later, they seek to renege completely on the pledges given.
Rachel Blake
I am really moved by what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Many of us will have had similar experiences. We have been hearing so much about the importance of local decision making. I cannot help but think if only there had been the necessary investment in skills in the planning team who made the decision and determination, and that they had had a planning committee behind them who, by all accounts, could have said, “You need to bring the application back in.” Does he agree that we need to invest in local planning teams so that they can resist such totally inappropriate applications from developers?
Alberto Costa
I welcome the hon. Lady’s suggestion, and I would welcome more resources going into local planning teams, but what we have here is a problem, which she may well encounter in her own constituency. Hon. Members should be very careful indeed when developers promise X, Y and Z affordable, social and accessible homes, even with legally binding section 106 agreements, because those agreements can be changed at whim when a local planning authority is put under pressure.
Martin Wrigley
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Liberal Democrats that, given the unreliability of section 106 agreements and developers living up to them, as he demonstrated, the best way to get affordable homes for his constituents and mine is through an increased amount of social housing delivered by the local council?
Alberto Costa
I would welcome that. The Government need to take into account Lutterworth East and to ask themselves why a Labour parliamentarian and a Conservative parliamentarian have had to go begging to the Government to look into the matter. The Government purport to want to see more social housing, more affordable housing and more accessible housing, but with Lutterworth East they have had the opportunity to look into that and have chosen not to rectify the issue. In concluding—I am aware that others wish to speak—I simply ask the Government whether they are willing to have a meeting with me and the Labour parliamentarian in question to discuss what they could do on this matter, given that the developer, incredibly, is none other than a county council.
Chris Curtis
May we please start by acknowledging something that still has not been acknowledged enough: the current planning system is broken? Nowhere is that clearer than in our environmental and habitats regulation, which part 3 of the Bill is hoping to fix, and which many amendments—amendment 69 in particular—would make significantly worse.
Let us start with a couple of clear examples. First, we have the lower Thames crossing. Some £250 million was spent on a planning application spanning over 350,000 pages. That is more than 250 times the length of “War and Peace” at a cost that is more than Norway paid to build the world’s longest road tunnel. Fifteen years on, not a single spade is in the ground.
Secondly, we are currently building the most expensive nuclear power station in the history of the human race at Hinkley Point. Why? For the last eight years, EDF has been stuck in regulatory wrangling over—I kid you not—a fish disco: an acoustic system designed to guide fish away from water intakes. Millions spent and still not a single resolution.
My personal favourite is the infamous bat tunnel, where £120 million of taxpayers’ money was wasted on a tunnel that might save a handful of bats from a nearby forest, though many experts argue it will more likely put them in harm’s way. That is not planning; it is parody. While we argue about newts and bat tunnels, what is really happening in Britain is that 150,000 children or more are growing up in temporary accommodation, with all the consequences mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi).
Rachel Blake
My hon. Friend said we have not confronted how the planning system is broken. Does he agree that we have not heard enough about how many children are homeless this evening and will be in the months ahead because we are not grappling with the housing crisis, and that we cannot do that until we address the infrastructure crisis?
Chris Curtis
Hundreds of thousands of children will wake up tomorrow morning in temporary accommodation as a consequence of this, and millions of families will continue paying some of the highest energy bills in the western world. When Russian tanks rolled into Europe, we were dangerously reliant on foreign oil and gas because our planning system consistently blocked the clean, home-grown energy generation that we so desperately need. I see some Liberal Democrat Members laughing. I note that, in many cases, it was their councils that blocked that energy infrastructure from being built.
Chris Curtis
In one of the wettest countries in Europe, we could face summer water shortages because we have not built a single major reservoir in over 30 years. Here is the real kick in the teeth: we have paid all those prices for rules that have failed even on their own terms. We have created endless hoops to jump through and poured public money into bizarre mitigation schemes while Britain has become one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth. We have lost over half our ancient woodland and one in six species are at risk of extinction. We have got fewer birds, fewer butterflies and fewer mammals, and yet more paperwork than ever before.
We should ask this: if these rules are not helping people and they are not helping nature, who on earth are they for? We throw money at scattergun mitigation—fish discos and bat tunnels—while failing to invest in strategic, landscape-scale restoration that actually works. We force every project to fit every issue on site, even when that is more expensive, less effective and totally irrational. That means tens of thousands of individual site-by-site protections, which are bureaucratic, inconsistent and scientifically out of date, and all despite the fact that modern ecological science is clear that nature recovery depends on scale and connectivity, not isolated microprojects.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
When I was building the second runway at Manchester airport, I had similar rants to my hon. Friend’s. I came to hate great crested newts, which were getting in the way of building that second runway. Surely there has to be a solution with balance, one that does not cost a quarter of a billion pounds for looking at the land around the lower Thames crossing, but allows Government and local government to put things such as swift bricks into housing. There has to be balance.
Chris Curtis
I start by appreciating the description of a rant—I will keep ranting on this point until I do not have to speak to my constituents waking up in temporary accommodation because of this country’s failure to build. I note that there is a middle ground; in fact, it is even better than a middle ground, because through this Bill and the changes we are proposing we can improve the situation for nature and improve the situation for building, including incentivising developers—for example through the biodiversity net gain process—to put swift bricks in place.
What we currently have is not a conservation system, but a cargo cult, mimicking the symbols of protection while the reality on the ground gets worse. Contrast that with what protecting nature actually looks like, from this Government: a strategic land use framework that supports farmers to deliver climate and nature benefits across 1.6 million hectares of land—more than half the size of Wales; banning bee-killing pesticides; backing a transition to regenerative farming and planting forests on double the amount of land that will be needed to build the 1.5 million homes.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Chris Curtis
I will make some progress.
Now we have a Bill that will finally move us towards environmental delivery plans that take a far more strategic approach to improving nature and increasing the building that this country so desperately needs. I want these changes to go further. We need to look at the culture within our regulators, especially Natural England, which has become too much of a blocker to building, but this Bill is a step forward, and the amendments proposed would be a step backwards.
I end with this plea, especially to hon. Members on my own Benches who seem to find themselves defending this broken status quo: “Before you vote tonight, talk to the people who will still be here after you’ve gone home. Speak to the person cleaning your office this evening, and ask them what it is like when rent swallows up over half your salary because we have failed to build our way out of this housing crisis. Speak to the person who cooked your lunch in the Tea Room, and ask what it is like to raise kids in a country with sky-high energy bills because we failed to build home-grown energy generation. Ask yourself who you are here to serve: the broken spreadsheets or the people who sent us here?” If we keep putting more and more barriers into our planning system, it is hard-working families across this country who will pay the price. Let us fix our planning system and get Britain building again.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister and the members of the Bill Committee for their hard work on this legislation. I regret, however, that the Minister has been so resistant to amendments from my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and from others on the Liberal Democrat Benches, which I now rise to support. My constituents in Bicester and Woodstock want to see a planning system that delivers decent, affordable homes for those excluded from housing, that recognises that investment in infrastructure must come before housing development and that does not create a false distinction between development and protecting nature.
Linda and Gary live in my constituency. Gary has complex needs and Linda is his carer. Their property is not suitable; Gary cannot shower or get to the garden by himself. Linda and Gary have been bidding to West Oxfordshire district council for a property suitable to meet Gary’s needs for more than a year, but they have been continually unsuccessful. As many hon. Members have stated, we have a crisis of social housing in this country. That is why Liberal Democrats want to see an additional 150,000 social homes built every year through amendment 15, and why new clause 112 is so important, preventing developers from ducking the delivery of social homes.
We also need developers to develop the buildings that have been consented. In Cherwell district council in my constituency, more than 8,000 homes have been consented but not built. That has led to a crisis, with villages such as Ambrosden and Launton at the mercy of opportunist developers who have hoovered up sites not contained in the local plan. New clause 3 would put an end to the land banking of consented sites, forcing developers to use them or lose them.
Tom Hayes
I rise to speak in favour of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill because it will build high-quality housing, reform energy grid connections and deliver critical energy infrastructure. I also rise to speak in favour of new clause 82, tabled in my name and backed by 71 MPs with cross-party support, to achieve happy, healthy childhoods. We should bring forward a statutory duty in England, like those in Scotland and Wales, to ensure inclusive and sufficient play opportunities.
The foreword to the first and only play strategy to be published, by a Labour Government in 2008, states:
“Time and space to play safely is integral to our ambition to make England the best country in the world for children and young people to grow up”.
That ambition remains, but the strategy was scrapped because, a few years after its publication with a £235 million budget, the coalition Government drew a red line through everything. We need to prioritise play in this Parliament. Why? Because in the intervening years, hundreds of playgrounds in our constituencies have been boarded up and allowed to rust.
This has been especially true in disadvantaged communities. Our poorest communities have been the greatest casualties of austerity, and we know the consequences. Screen time dominates and we have a rise in social media. Politicians are very good at telling children to get off their screens without providing the alternative play opportunities. With more play and less screen time, we can have better mental health outcomes for children. We can have more safety in our streets and we can have better social development opportunities. Play is prevention. When we improve life quality and life chances, we save the public purse significant sums in the long run because we reduce demand on the NHS, on our councils and on our social services.
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and he is clearly speaking on the basis of a great deal of experience as a former senior councillor in Oxford. I wonder if he would like to dwell on some other aspects of this, because in many ways, play also benefits children’s social development and their ability to work and concentrate on learning at school. Does he agree that there are many other benefits to play, and will he praise local authorities such as Reading that are actively promoting play areas?
Tom Hayes
My hon. Friend will know that I have spent a lot of time in Reading getting to know his constituents and the community, and I do indeed praise the people that he is talking about. I agree that, with time and space for play, children will have the very best start in life, but this is not just about children; it is also about their families. We are in an ongoing cost of living crisis. With play, and outdoor play in particular, we have free opportunities for parents and guardians to give their children the support, the social development and the leisure opportunities that they need and deserve.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. In my constituency, the Scalby school playing fields long served the community as vital green space, but that space is under threat as the council is seeking to remove protections, which could lead to its being sold. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why this new clause is so necessary, as it would ensure that the council either kept the fields or made equivalent provision of land for children to play on?
Tom Hayes
I make it a habit to agree with my hon. Friend and I will keep that tradition today. I do indeed agree, and she rather anticipates the points that I am about to make.
New clause 82 is so important because it provides key things that our children need. It would require developers to deliver and fund adequate play in their communities. It would ensure no net loss without equivalent provision as a consequence of development, but let me be clear: this is not about requiring every development to have a blanket requirement. It is not about holding every development hostage, because we know that development is important for growth in our communities. It is about ensuring that councils are well equipped and that planning authorities are supported to take a view in the round of what play sufficiency would be in a given area, and indeed to use contributions from developers to fund adequate—indeed, excellent—play provision.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I know that my hon. Friend is passionate about this issue, as am I as a signatory to this new clause. In my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, I have been working with a group of local parents on a joint campaign for safe, inclusive parks for neurodiverse children. Those spaces benefit not just neurodiverse children but parents who also need somewhere safe to go with their children and young people. In recognition of the cost of living crisis, does my hon. Friend agree that these spaces should be provided for all children, not just those who are neurotypical, and that they should provide space for their parents too?
Tom Hayes
My hon. Friend and I have talked many times about the importance of inclusive play, and I commend her as a fantastic champion for children with special educational needs and disabilities to access those play opportunities. I agree with her entirely, and one thing that my new clause 82 would do is to introduce a requirement for planning authorities to assess play sufficiency, particularly inclusive play sufficiency. That is a critically important point.
In a nutshell, we need to have national policy frameworks and national planning actions that will ensure that the voices of children and their families are properly listened to, that they are consulted on their needs, and that planning authorities are required and supported to introduce the outdoor play equipment and areas that can so enhance their life chances. In so doing, we would be building on the work of that last Labour Government that I was just talking about. If you ever want to enjoy a beautiful photograph that sums up all of what the last Labour Government were doing, have a look at Ed Balls and Andy Burnham on a swing announcing the 2008 national play strategy. It is a fantastic sight. Genuinely, you can see in their faces the joy that comes from play and extending play opportunities. You can see that they are Ministers who are fantastically enjoying their jobs, and that is because they are delivering for children. That 2008 strategy was a critical development in the world of play, and the play sector responded so positively to it. It came with £235 million of investment to provide up to 3,500 new or refurbished playgrounds. I still get sent photographs by people who have seen those playgrounds with the Department for Children, Schools and Families logo on them, with its beautiful rainbow, and we should have more of that.
To conclude, this Bill is critical for children’s development. This is also a pro-growth new clause because we have in our play sector small family businesses who contribute to our economy to the tune of £250 million and are powering employment and economic opportunity in our communities. Our country feels like it needs a lick of paint at times. We need potholes filling, we need litter collecting and we need playgrounds repairing. In so doing, we can bring hope back to our communities, and in doing that we can help people to feel positive about the potential for politics to make change.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes). That was an important speech and I concur entirely with his priority there. It is really important that we invest in the social infrastructure of play for the benefit of children, although not necessarily for the benefit of Ed Balls and Andy Burnham—an appalling image was conjured by the hon. Gentleman there—but I concur with his general point.
I want to speak in support of my new clause 87, which would require the Government to designate more chalk streams as protected sites within six months of the Bill passing. We know that 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in this country. There are only 220 of them, so they are a rare and very special habitat. Most of those chalk streams are in southern England, and I am glad to say that most of the most important ones are in Wiltshire. Morgan’s Hill on the edge of my constituency is a hydrological dividing line where a drop of rain can end up in the River Kennet and then the Thames, flowing out to the North sea. Alternatively it can go down the Hampshire Avon into the English channel, or it can go out west along the Bristol Avon and end up in the Atlantic. This is a very significant place, with water from Wiltshire flowing through the whole of southern England.
Those chalk streams are 60 million years old and they have flowed clear and clean all that time until very recently in the modern era. They are over-abstracted; too much water is being taken out because of overdevelopment and bad house building. They are contaminated with agricultural run-off and, of course, sewage spills. I pay tribute and give my sincere congratulations to all the campaigners in my constituency. We will all have similar organisations locally, but Action for the River Kennet in particular is doing great work to support that river and anglers, schools and farmers in our area. I also pay tribute to the Southern Streams initiative that supports farmers across Wiltshire to restore the health of the soil and the water in our area.
The last Government introduced some important new measures to restore and preserve the health of our chalk streams. These included the water restoration fund, which ensured that the fines levied on water companies for sewage spills went to restore nature in the areas that had been harmed. We introduced a storm overflow discharge reduction plan, stewardship schemes that addressed the question of agricultural run-off and, in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, we ensured that chalk streams were considered as part of environmental assessments for new developments. We also introduced the chalk streams recovery plan, which was sadly halted by the Labour Government when they came into power last year. They kept some of our legacy, I am glad to say, but they have paused the sustainable farming incentive and I am afraid to say that we expect cuts to stewardship schemes in the spending review this week. Crucially, they scrapped the water restoration fund itself. Thames Water was fined over £100 million last month because of sewage spills in our area. That money should have gone to supporting natural restoration in the Thames Valley area, including in Wiltshire. It has been taken by the Treasury. We do not know where that money will go. The Government have also scrapped the chalk stream recovery plan.
My concern about the Bill, and why I tabled the amendment, is that it will put additional pressure on our chalk streams. Yes, we need new building—absolutely, that priority is right and what we need—and building in our backyard, but the backyard of Wiltshire is Swindon. We need to see more intense development in urban areas where the real demand for housing is. That will be a great blessing to Swindon and Wiltshire if we can make that happen.
The new clause in my name would protect more chalk streams as protected sites. I am glad to say that the Kennet and the Hampshire Avon are already SSSIs, but we need to see more streams designated in that way. It is not enough to protect only 11 of the 220 chalk streams in this country; the more designations, the better. That would create genuine momentum behind the preservation of chalk streams, so that when developments are being considered, we can be sure that these vital national natural assets are properly protected for the future.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
The Bill before the House has the potential to be one of the most pro-growth pieces of legislation passed by this place for decades and to transform our country for the better, but the amendments proposed will blunt its impact and make us all worse off. We should reject them for the prosperity of our constituents and the future of our country.
Every day in this place has to be about our constituents and the lives they lead. In Chipping Barnet, time and again I see the impact of our failure to build homes. Take Maryam—a victim of domestic violence and mother of a seven-year-old, working a zero-hours contract. She found herself with nowhere suitable to live to the point that she was living in a car. Or take Hayley—a wheelchair user living in a property that is not accessible for her. Due to a lack of available housing that is appropriate for her, she is often housebound because she simply cannot leave her home without support.
These are the stories of Britain today, but it does not need to be like this. This Bill gives us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix many of the things holding our country back. For too long, we have not built enough in this country, and we are paying a huge price for that. Under-investment in our homes and infrastructure has made us all worse off, both financially and socially, living in homes that skewer the prospect of a good life. That is why I do not support the Opposition amendments.
I also do not support amendment 69 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which sadly misses the mark. Labour was elected on a manifesto that sought to prioritise growth and making people better off. The Bill demonstrates how that is possible, alongside improved protections for nature. The nature restoration fund is a genuine win-win, but its successful and timely implementation is put at risk by the amendment.
Dan Tomlinson
I will make a bit more progress.
Let us take the example of nutrient neutrality. It is estimated that no fewer than 160,000 homes across the country have been blocked by Natural England on that basis. That is because on-site mitigation on a site-by-site basis is often virtually impossible, and those homes remain stalled. The environmental delivery plans that Natural England will produce will mean that rather than homes being held up by those rules, the very issues causing nutrient neutrality challenges can be addressed in a strategic way—better for building, for nature and for people. EDPs take the challenge of nutrient neutrality seriously and mean that builders can get stalled sites built, providing much-needed new homes.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend may have slightly confused the point of amendment 69, which is merely to address the concerns raised by the Office for Environmental Protection and to ensure that the nature restoration fund works to deliver exactly the points that he describes with the right nature protection.
Dan Tomlinson
I will come to the point my hon. Friend raises in a second.
If the amendment were adopted, the homes that have been blocked to date would continue to be blocked, and vast numbers would face unacceptable delays or, indeed, never be built. What would happen under the amendment, as we can interpret it, is that we would first have to wait for the EDP to be drafted, for the relevant funding to be secured and for the funding to be distributed to the relevant farmers or others who can help with the mitigation. The works would then have to take place; the impact of the mitigation would have to be monitored; and the monitoring would then have to conclude that it had been a success before any new homes in an area could be built where nutrient neutrality is a concern.
Chris Curtis
Does the hon. Member agree that what he has just described would lead to more delays in the system, which would mean that more planning permissions were held up—something that Opposition Members have complained about? If the amendment were passed, the requirement would also add a lot more expense to the system, which would mean more viability problems and fewer social homes being built.
Dan Tomlinson
I agree with those points. It would also make it virtually impossible to meet our manifesto commitment, on which we were elected, to build the 1.5 million homes that we need over this Parliament.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Member knows that I am a big fan of his. He makes a speech about our and other amendments blocking the delivery of homes. Will he therefore criticise his Government, who have reduced the number of homes required in his constituency through reducing the number of houses being built in London under his mayor?
Dan Tomlinson
I expect the hon. Member knows that the housing targets have been reduced in London because of the additional premium that was put on by the previous Government just to make life more difficult for the Mayor of London, which we all know Conservatives love to do. We are trying to be reasonable and proportionate in the location of the new homes.
As I was saying, it is important for us to do all we can to ensure that we can hit our target of 1.5 million new homes. As much as I respect my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire and his work in this space, I hope his amendment will not command the support of the House today.
I know my hon. Friend and Members on both sides of the House are strong supporters of social housing, but without the unamended changes in the Bill, we will not get the social homes that we need to be built. People have spoken movingly about those living in temporary accommodation. I spent four years or so as a child living in emergency and temporary accommodation. I was homeless for a number of years. Back then—15 or 20 years ago—there were not that many young children who were homeless and in temporary accommodation. There are now 160,000 children—one in 21 children in London, one in every single class—in temporary accommodation. We cannot allow a system that fails both nature and those children to persist. I implore any colleagues thinking of voting for the amendment to think of those children and the vital homes that could be built, and built quickly and at pace.
Dan Tomlinson
I should make progress so that others can speak; my hon. Friend and I will have to talk later.
This Bill and this Government are all about the economic growth that ultimately is the route to more jobs, more opportunities and higher living standards—a better life for all of us in every part of the country. That is the potential of this Bill, and we must match the scale of the problem with the scale of our ambition. Britain’s economic decline has gone on for too long. Families are suffering with a crippling cost of living crisis, driven by high housing costs in many parts of the country and high energy bills everywhere. We just do not invest as a country; we do not build, and year after year we find ourselves surprised that we are worse off and that we are stuck in a doom loop from which no politicians in recent decades, if we are honest, have had the guts to pull us out.
We finally have a Government elected on a promise to wrest us from this decline, and legislation that takes steps in the right direction to do just that. Of course, there is more to do—much more—but this is a strong legislative start. For the prosperity of all our constituents, I hope the Bill passes unamended today.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 43, 44, 52, 53 and 81, if I have time. Mid Bedfordshire is a fast-growing area and has accommodated more than its fair share of new homes in the past decade. Since 2012, the two districts that my constituency covers have delivered over 35,000 new homes, including the new town of Wixams. Yet this Government would have us believe that those people in my constituency who have seen housing growth outpace services, who are still waiting for the long-promised GP surgery, for train stations and for other infrastructure, and who fear that the character of their historic Ends villages is being lost, are all blockers because they are concerned about what more badly planned development would mean for the overstretched amenities and services in their area.
The Bill is an opportunity to lead. It is an opportunity not to pit blockers against builders but to deliver a system that turns blockers into builders. Regrettably, as it stands, the Bill will fail, but it does not have to fail. My new clause 52 would create a fairer way of managing new towns by reforming the new towns programme, which seems expressly designed to make local communities resent the towns foisted upon them. It would replace that new towns model with one that does not involve a double whammy of house building—currently, communities that want to do the right thing and build the houses that people need find every patch of countryside is hoovered up because the Government have added a new town on top of the developable area in their district.
My new clause 53 would close the loophole that allows planning authorities to grant developments on floodplains. That is a perfectly sensible and pragmatic position. People in Maulden in my constituency know all too well how bad development compounds the risk of flooding. They are honest hard-working people who want to enjoy the warm and dry homes that their hard work has paid for, but the Government are backing big-box developers, not them. The new clause would prevent developers from getting away high and dry with their profits while our constituents pay the price in flooded homes. New clause 44, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), would do the same by ensuring that where development does happen, developers must deliver and maintain sustainable urban drainage infrastructure. The current guidance is too vague and the current rules too lax to ensure that our residents are protected.
My Mid Bedfordshire constituency has lots of beautiful villages, but they are under threat from the creeping spread of urban sprawl that threatens to merge them into a conglomerate mass of development, which flies in the face of the historically gentle and natural evolution of our beautiful estate villages. I therefore endorse new clause 43 for its efforts to stop our beautiful villages from being lost to future generations.
Wendy Morton
To put it more simply, the sense of urban sprawl is about the green belt not just between specific villages but between communities. We see that between Streetly and Pheasey in my constituency on the edge of Birmingham. Does he agree that it would help to tackle the problem if the Government adopted a truly brownfield-first approach by developing the 1.2 million homes that it is estimated are available on brownfield sites?
Blake Stephenson
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. Those green spaces on the edge of and between towns are at risk. It is not just the fields that are at risk but people’s access to green space, which is vital for mental health and wellbeing.
Paul Holmes
In relation to new clause 44, which my hon. Friend supports, does he agree that the Government could very easily accept it because it enables and encompasses an existing piece of legislation and could make a vast difference to many of the developments proposed? Why does he think the Minister will not accept it?
Blake Stephenson
The shadow Minister makes the case for me, so I do not think I need to. I absolutely support new clause 44.
I will make a final point so that we can hear from another speaker. I am proud to support new clause 81 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford). Communities such as Wixams in Mid Bedfordshire too often find that the housing-first, infrastructure-second approach that our planning system prefers mean that they get all of the housing but none of the infrastructure—that is just not right. It is not right that, nearly two decades on from the first shovel going into the ground, it is still not clear when Wixams will get its long-promised GP surgery, while more and more houses are planned around it. We must end that cycle and ensure that where infrastructure is promised, infrastructure is delivered. That is what the new clause will do.
We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a planning systems that turns blockers into builders. We must do better than this Bill, which I fear will only build more blockers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I give Members notice that I will take the time limit down to four minutes after the next speaker.
Chris Hinchliff
I rise to speak in favour of the amendments in my name, particularly amendment 69, which has 53 supporters from across the House.
Every family stuck on a housing waiting list, and every child suffering the insecurity of temporary accommodation, represents a moral stain on our country. I welcome Ministers’ urgency in seeking to address those corrosive failures, which, for millions, underpin a lingering sense that our country is deeply broken. However, I fear that the Government have misdiagnosed the root cause of the housing crisis, which is fundamentally that private capital will never deliver the public good that we need.
The evidence is clear that processes that uphold democracy and nature are not the problem; profit maximisation is. The planning system consistently approves more homes than the private sector delivers, and when homes are built, they are too often unaffordable for those at the sharp end of the housing crisis. Last year, less than 2% of homes delivered through section 106 were for social rent. After 20 years of deregulation, hoping that just one more wave will finally make the market deliver is simply not credible. It certainly does not justify stripping away the few protections that we have left for our natural environment, especially when the Government’s own assessment could provide no concrete evidence that it would work.
We are already one of the most nature-depleted nations in the world, and we can spend what little remains of our natural inheritance only once. If the Government press ahead with their proposals, the national account will soon be empty. There is the kernel of a good idea in a nature restoration fund, but the weight of evidence against the way that it has been drafted is overwhelming: nature organisations, academics, ecologists and the Office for Environmental Protection have all raised serious concerns. I welcome the tone of earlier commitments from Government Front Benchers, but amendment 69 gives Ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation by ensuring that environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature, and that conservation takes place before damage, so that endangered species are not pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established.
The amendment outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed. That will protect irreplaceable habitats such as chalk streams. Our natural capital, which underpins all prosperity in this country, declined by a third from 1990 to 2014. This is a chance to reverse that trend. Given that Letchworth Garden City in my constituency sprang into life without a single mature tree being felled, we can build the homes that we desperately need to clear our housing waiting lists in harmony with nature.
To conclude, the primary value to which our politics has sought to appeal has for decades been self-serving ambition, but as the party of change and of the people, Labour has a duty to serve a higher virtue: hope. I am talking about hope for a future in which our nation no longer imagines housing as an ever-appreciating financial asset, and instead builds homes that provide the secure and healthy environment essential for our physical and mental wellbeing, and that allow everyone to put down the roots necessary to grow and fulfil their truest potential; hope for a future in which we create connected communities of friendship and co-operation, rather than having the grey and miserable utilitarianism of commuter dormitories; hope for a future in which we take every possible opportunity to restore the glories of British nature and can meaningfully say, for the first time in generations, that we have left the nation richer than we found it; in short, hope that we choose by design to surround every man, woman and child in these islands with constant proof that life is beautiful.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I declare my interest as co-chair of the all-party group on local nature recovery.
When the Government first introduced this Bill, they branded it a win-win. They said that we could build the homes and infrastructure that this country desperately needs and protect and restore nature. We have seen in my constituency—one of the fastest growing areas of the country, with a Liberal Democrat-run local planning authority—that it is indeed possible to demand from developers both ambitious house building and high environmental standards that restore nature. We Liberal Democrats believe that a healthy childhood for all children includes homes that are energy-efficient and warm, not cold and damp; access to green space for mental and physical health; and infrastructure, including public transport, GPs and schools.
When done well, nature is a partner to the healthy homes and green energy that our country needs. However, through this Bill, the Government risk taking a wrecking ball to good-quality development. Nature is not a blocker to development. We are pointing the figure at the wrong culprit, and this is cheap, false rhetoric. Nature is not to blame. The Government’s own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, has publicly warned that the Bill in its current form will be a regression from current environmental protections, rather than increasing the number of homes, helping nature and helping us to meet our binding climate and nature pledges. Instead it will remove vital safeguards and put protected sites and species at risk.
Over 30 leading environmental organisations, including the RSPB, the wildlife trusts and the National Trust, have raised the alarm about part 3 of the Bill, with its very worrying plan to move to a “cash to trash” model for the nature restoration fund. I know the Minister has rejected that characterisation, but in the Environmental Audit Committee we heard robust evidence from expert witnesses that we could call it a “pay some amount later for something, somewhere” fund.
Gideon Amos
Does my hon. Friend share my dismay that the Government are not receptive to amendments to part 3 that would restore the mitigation hierarchy and protection for irreplaceable species and ancient woodland?
Pippa Heylings
I completely concur. We appreciate the work done by my hon. Friend and others in the Bill Committee, and by tabling numerous amendments at this stage to help the Government improve the Bill.
Why do we need more stringent regulations and demands on developers, rather than less? Why do we need evidence and mitigations approved prior to development, rather than a “pay later for something, somewhere” nature restoration fund? It is because we have the evidence to show what happens without much-needed investment in enforcement capacity for local councils. On the Environmental Audit Committee, we heard the conclusions of the Lost Nature report: for nearly 6,000 homes across 42 developments, only half of the environmental pledges were kept. The others were missing in action—a staggering 83% of hedgehog highways, 100% of bug boxes and 75% of both bat and bird boxes. We need more. That is why I am speaking to the targeted amendments my hon. Friend has mentioned, to make sure we can have this win-win. His ew clause 1 would reinstate the mitigation hierarchy as a legal duty. Simply put, the duty is: first, avoid harm; then mitigate if that is not possible; and only compensate and offset as a last resort. This principle has underpinned environmental planning for decades and cannot be cast aside.
Amendments 6 to 10 and new clauses 26 and 29 aim to address the Office for Environmental Protection’s concerns and strengthen the overall improvement test for environmental delivery plans. I support new clause 21, which requires local plans to have due consideration to the local nature recovery strategies, which are currently silent in the planning system. Amendments 16 and 70 would give protections to England’s globally rare chalk streams—our rainforest and our groundwater. We have 85% of the world’s chalk streams, many of them in Lib Dem constituencies, including mine, yet they remain unprotected.
I hope the Government will consider amendments to the Bill, because we face a choice: pass this nature-wrecking Bill as it stands, or fix it by adopting amendments to protect chalk streams, restore wildlife and create a planning system that works with nature, not against it. I know what the Liberal Democrats will be voting for.
Naushabah Khan
I rise to speak as a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and in support of new clause 50.
For too long, affordable housing has become a catch-all term that means anything but. Shared ownership and discounted market schemes are products that may work for some, but for many, they offer no real housing security. What those people need is not the option of getting a foot on the property ladder in the distant future, but a roof over their heads now. They need security, stability and homes that are truly affordable, and that means social rent. If we are serious about tackling the housing emergency, then clear, national targets for delivery of social rent homes are essential. That is why I support new clause 50, which would bring forward the accountability and direction that we need to get building and start delivering for those who have been let down for too long.
As housing charity Shelter identifies, building more social rent homes is the only lasting solution to the housing emergency. Those homes are genuinely affordable because their rent is linked to local income; there are secure tenancies; and any rent increases are more predictable. In my constituency—I know colleagues from across the House will recognise this from their inboxes—families are trapped in substandard housing or temporary accommodation for years on end. Many of us have, I fear, become desensitised to the stories of families with no kitchen to cook in, no quiet space for children to learn, and no peace in which to rest.
That is the daily reality for far too many families in the UK. This is a national scandal. Let us be honest: it did not appear overnight. For over a decade, the previous Government failed to build the homes that this country desperately needs. They dismantled council house building, slashed local authority budgets, and left the private rented sector unchecked. Those failures have left this Government with an inheritance of a hollowed-out system that responds to homelessness after the fact, instead of preventing it at root.
I welcome the fact that this Labour Government are changing this reality for families in my constituency through significant policy changes, and by allocating £800 million to the affordable homes programme, and I am proud that a significant proportion of those homes will be for social rent, but we need to go further. Publishing or updating planning guidance on how local and national decision makers can contribute to the delivery of social rented homes can make a significant difference. That would align planning, investment and delivery with a shared goal.
We know the scale of the challenge. As many have noted, we need to build 90,000 social rented homes each year, not just for the remainder of this Parliament, but for the next decade, to meet current demand and get on top of the deep backlog. We must equip councils and delivery partners with the resources, planning powers and clarity of mission that they need. New clause 50 supports that clarity, making sure that every local and regional planning decision is pulling in the same direction.
I agree with the Minister on the need for strategic planning, the potential that spatial development strategies have to unlock large-scale regional housing solutions, and the power of land value uplift to fund affordable homes. These are important tools, but they would be better supported by clear targets. Setting a national target for social rented homes is not about Whitehall dictating numbers from above; it is about saying that we are serious about tackling homelessness.
I echo the words of this Government: this country needs builders, not blockers. Central to that sentiment must be setting a clear social housing strategy, so that we know not just that we must build, but how much we must build, and hold ourselves accountable for delivering those homes.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I will be brief as many colleagues are waiting to contribute. I will speak only to new clause 40, which calls for a review of the standard method of assessing local housing need. A couple of colleagues have already mentioned aspects of it, but I will talk about it for three reasons: it puts too many housing development requirements on rural areas, rather than cities; in areas like mine there are physical constraints, such as national parks, which can cause difficulties; and, as specified in the new clause, the system needs to take account of different types of housing and their affordability.
First, the new formula means that too much housing is being put into rural areas, away from urban areas. As we have heard, in some parts of London and Birmingham targets are being reduced, but there has been a 50% uplift in housing numbers nationally and a 100% uplift in my constituency. This is not a north-south issue; it is repeated in rural areas throughout the country, including in the far north-west and the far north-east. It does not correct what some people may think of as an historical imbalance, where all the developments are in towns and not in the country, because over the past couple of decades developments have been disproportionately in predominantly rural areas rather than predominantly urban areas. This is also bad for the Government’s growth agenda because, as the Resolution Foundation and others have pointed out, skewing development towards cities and towns is better for growth because of connectivity.
Secondly, I am concerned about physical constraints such as national parks. Development in a constituency such as mine, where over half the land area is inside a national park, creates particular issues in the areas just outside the national park. The Minister and his officials have been listening and they have been very helpful; I hope that they will continue to give the issue full consideration and that there will be a change.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I rise to speak to my amendment 134, which seeks to address a long-standing and deeply entrenched failure in our planning system: the chronic undersupply of Gypsy and Traveller sites across England.
My amendment seeks to increase fairness in the system and to enable, rather than hinder, the provision of adequate, culturally appropriate accommodation for Gypsy and Traveller communities. For too long the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers have been overlooked by the planning system. Research by Friends, Families and Travellers and Dr Simon Ruston looked at 100 local planning authorities and found that site provision has barely changed since the legal duty to provide them was scrapped in 1994. Of the 149 public sites in those areas, 119 were built before 1994, meaning that just 30 have been developed in the past 30 years—that is only 30 new sites across all 100 local authorities in three decades.
Decisions on Gypsy and Traveller sites have frequently been underpinned by prejudice, whether overt or institutional. Too often, proposed developments are blocked or delayed by local opposition that is not met with political will or leadership. Site delivery also suffers from a lack of inclusion at the strategic planning level, where Gypsy and Traveller site provision can be absent from local plans and excluded from land allocations. This absence is not an accident; it is the result of years of structural marginalisation that the Bill must now correct. I acknowledge the positive steps that the Government took in 2024, which work toward addressing some of those failures. However, we must go further if we intend to support provision and address inequality in the planning system.
We have seen an increase in private sites, which is welcome, but we often hear about the long, drawn-out, difficult and expensive processes that individual families go through to achieve planning permission. It is crucial to acknowledge that, just as with other communities, home and land ownership is not within reach of many and social provision is much needed. We are still seeing a troubling trend: the number of socially rented pitches is declining. According to the Traveller caravan count live tables, the number of socially rented pitches has fallen in the past five years, with a reduction of 179 pitches.
My amendment would ensure that Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs are explicitly included in strategic planning, which means embedding the site provision in the spatial development strategies under proposed new section 12D to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Those new strategies would help to shape housing across whole regions. Leaving out Gypsy and Traveller sites would repeat the mistakes of the past. Other key planning changes need to be addressed in this Bill, but I will speak with the all-party parliamentary group for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma in due course.
Finally, I remind the House that the Government have committed to delivering 1.5 million new homes by 2029. If that ambition is to be truly inclusive, it must include everyone. That means making space—literally and politically—for communities that have been moved on, fenced off and forgotten. I urge the Government to consider these amendments at a later stage, not just for the sake of legislative clarity, but for the future of Gypsies and Travellers across the country.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I rise to speak to new clause 61, on the issue of cable ploughing—specifically, on the plans put forward by Green GEN Cymru. It proposes a 90-km power line, much of which would be suspended on pylons, across the breathtaking Twyi valley, and an additional 65 kilometres of power line across the equally beautiful Teifi valley. This is not just any landscape; it is the heart of rural Wales. These are not just two valleys across rural Wales; they are treasured by communities that have lived and worked there for generations.
From the beginning, residents and farmers made one thing clear: we support green energy, but it does not have to come at the cost of our countryside. We have called persistently for cables to be placed underground so that we can embrace a sustainable future while preserving Wales’s natural beauty and agricultural land. Unfortunately, our voices have gone unheard. Surveyors have come on to the land without proper respect, disregarding the rights of landowners, and in some cases people have felt intimidated and pressured into signing away land that has been in their families for centuries.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I welcome the hon. Member’s contribution, as she is speaking to my new clause 61. This is a huge issue in Suffolk Coastal, where we have National Grid and ScottishPower Renewables making landfall, and farmers in my constituency have a similar experience to farmers in her constituency. After this debate, perhaps we can request a meeting with the Minister and share these examples in person.
Ann Davies
I would love to have that opportunity. I thank the hon. Lady for putting forward her new clause—it was a pleasure to sign up to it.
We should not expect the behaviour that I mentioned from those who claim to be building a greener future. Let us be honest: if Green GEN Cymru had chosen to place the cables underground from the start, as the new clause proposes, it would have saved itself significant trouble. It argues that that is too expensive, but what about the cost of delay and the legal cost of taking landowners to court, which is what has been happening?
There is another cost: the cost of resilience. Just look at what happened over the last winter during Storm Darragh and Storm Éowyn: overhead lines failed, power was lost in my area for up to seven days and compensation from the National Grid had to be paid. If those cables had been placed underground, the impact would have been minimal. Long-term thinking is not just the right thing, but the practical thing to do.
I remind the Chamber that Wales has the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which is a commitment to development that is truly sustainable and does not compromise the ability of our children and grandchildren to thrive just to cut costs today. Let us ensure that the transition to clean energy serves the needs of both the present and the generations yet to come. Let us ensure that it is not done to our communities, but done with them. Let us deliver a future that is both green and grounded.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment 91, on allotments and community gardens, and to new clause 60, on landfill sites, both of which stand in my name.
The UK currently has a shortage of allotments, with nearly 160,000 people on English local authority waiting lists. We need more space to grow. For the 8 million people in the UK who have no garden at home, shared spaces such as community gardens are a vital lifeline to nature. I am proud that my amendment 91 is supported by the Royal Horticultural Society, the Horticultural Trades Association, members of the National Network for Community Gardening and the National Allotment Society, as well as by Members across the House.
Without being overly prescriptive, my amendment aims to tackle the erratic provision of allotments and community gardens across the country, making them an essential part of all spatial development strategies. In her correspondence with me, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), said that because there was “nothing preventing” local authorities from including those green spaces in their strategies, amendments such as mine were not needed. I would like to refute that—that is precisely the problem. A person’s space to grow should not be dependent on their postcode or the whims of their council. That is especially the case given that the loss of allotment land over the past 75 years—60%—has been eight times greater in deprived communities such as mine.
In his 2024 annual report, Sir Chris Whitty said:
“Making…access to green space easier and more equitable, would go a long way toward removing barriers to improving physical activity levels and could significantly improve the health of England’s increasingly urban population.”
These small but mighty green spaces are about more than just vegetables; they are essential to supporting health, nature recovery and food security. They also supercharge biodiversity, because the quality of soil on allotments creates a unique environment in which life can thrive. In the midst of a nature crisis, gardeners and amateur horticulturists are our secret weapon. What is more, allotments create space for education and social projects. With so many on waiting lists or blocked from turning an unloved patch of land into a community garden, and with a desperate need for nature recovery, my campaign represents a win-win for the Government.
I now turn to my new clause 60, which comes in direct response to a gross injustice for my own constituents. Droppingwell tip in Rotherham was closed in the 1990s following a determined campaign by local residents. It was subsequently capped and returned to a natural state. Two decades later, in 2016, a permit variation was granted by the Environment Agency, allowing landfill operations to resume without any notice to residents. While the Environment Agency had the power to conduct a public consultation, it chose not to do so. Its argument was that as planning permission had been granted in the 1950s, no further scrutiny was required. Vital issues such as traffic, noise, pollution, and the impact on neighbouring properties were given no consideration whatsoever.
It cannot be right that landfill operators can so easily evade public scrutiny simply by reopening long-dormant sites, nor can it be right that my constituents’ views have been totally ignored. While my new clause comes too late for Rotherham, it would prevent the rights of other communities from being trampled by ensuring that planning permission for landfill sites would automatically lapse after 10 years of dormancy. Any proposals to resume landfill operations would be required to be subjected to full scrutiny through the planning system. My amendments can make a real difference, and I hope Government Front Benchers will support them.
Greg Smith
I have always been very clear that my top priority is the protection of the Buckinghamshire countryside and all of our farmland for the production of food, not for development. It is through that lens that I rise to speak to a number of amendments that I think will make this horror show of a Bill that tiny bit better.
First, I will speak to new clause 44, which deals with sustainable drainage, and new clause 53, which would stop development on floodplains. I can think of so many examples in my constituency where development has either happened directly on the floodplain or caused horrendous flooding concerns in communities. In Ickford, the developer’s expert said that flooding would be a “once in 100 years” eventuality, in an area that flooded six times in six months. I stood with the water lapping at the top of my wellies before that development was built to try to make a point, and now those homes are built, guess what? On Worminghall Road in Ickford, the houses that were there before are regularly flooded. Likewise, the construction of HS2 has had an impact on flooding in Calvert Green. Calvert Green simply did not flood before HS2 poured concrete into the fields next door, and now, guess what? It does.
I also support new clause 45, which would stop planning permission in cases where illegal development took place. I can think of examples in my constituency, such as between the villages of Askett and Longwick, where illegal development took place, yet the planning inspector has perversely now rewarded that bad behaviour by giving planning permission. Bad behaviour should not be rewarded and that new clause would stop it.
Others have spoken about chalk streams, which are incredibly important in Buckinghamshire, and new clause 87, which would designate chalk streams as protected sites, is incredibly important.
John McDonnell
There have been many references to the housing crisis and impassioned speeches, which I have welcomed. Like every other constituency in London, we have a housing crisis on a scale not seen before, and it has largely been caused by council houses being sold off and not replaced.
What has happened in my area is a salutary lesson about infrastructure developments. Crossrail is going through and the Elizabeth line has now gone through, so land value prices have gone through the roof. In central Hayes, I have more than 4,500 properties being built. We have no lack of planning permissions—in fact, we have planning permissions coming out of our ears—but most local people cannot even think of affording what is being built. Many have tried to become leaseholders, and now they are being hit by huge increases in service charges, and some cannot even sell on their properties as a result.
With new clause 49, which no one has mentioned so far, we are asking the Government to look at how we can capture land value. There is a discussion to be had about a land value tax, and I think its time is coming. Many of those 4,500 properties are described as affordable, but they are not affordable to local people. That is why new clause 67 is so important, because we do not want affordable properties; we want social rent properties. In fact, I would like simply to give our local authorities the resources and to let them start building again, so that we can have places of a decent standard with a rent that people can afford.
Some 45 years ago, I was on the Greater London Council’s planning committee, and I was chair of finance, too. By the way, we should have some confidence in local government being able to undertake infrastructure projects, because were it not for the GLC—and me as well, actually—building the Thames barrier, most Members here would be swimming. That shows what local government can do. We decry local government too often. I dealt with developers throughout that process, and I can say that I have dealt with some good developers and also some atrocious ones. Often they do not deliver, and often they do let us down, and that is why new clause 69 is so important. It merely asks for measures to be put in place during the planning process before a development is properly allowed to go ahead: in other words, the mitigation is there. Deals have been done in my constituency, such as section 106 deals, that have not really stood up, and the developers have walked away leaving us to clear up the mess.
New clause 74, tabled by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa)—who is not in the Chamber at present—draws attention to a classic example of what almost constitutes betrayal on the part of developers who come along, develop the site, take the profits and walk away. In many instances, our local council does not even have the financial resources to challenge them legally. For that reason, I am also attracted to new clause 33, which says, “If a developer has let you down in that way, do not give them any more planning permissions.” It gives the authority the responsibility of saying, “No more: you are not going to do that to us ever again.”
In our area, we will, if we are serious, have to go for compulsory purchase orders. Amendment 68 would take “hope value” out of the CPO calculations, which is significant because in the past too many compulsory purchases have failed because developers have applied hope value, which has escalated the cost and prevented us from acquiring property.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I wish to speak about my new clauses 46 to 48.
The Bill concentrates entirely on removing perceived barriers to development. Unfortunately, in the Government’s view those turn out to be nature and the general public, and to that end the Bill proposes a huge reduction in the ability of local residents and councillors to make their voices heard, or to have any meaningful influence over outcomes. That is such a pity, because gaining consent is not an impossibility.
Neighbourhood plans were introduced under the coalition Government. Done well, they represent the best version of local knowledge and local wishes, but there is not so much as a single mention of them in the entire Bill. Nothing could reveal more effectively how far the Government’s focus is from the views of local residents, who are to be treated as “hostiles” who must on no account be allowed to have their say. For that reason I have tabled new clause 48, which would require neighbourhood plans to be taken into account in decision making. Otherwise, I am not sure why they exist at all.
I have also tabled new clauses 46 and 47, which are directed at the need for local infrastructure. New housing development comes with two key promises: that it will bring affordable homes for local people, and that the extra funds it brings will mean more civic amenities. Both these promises are routinely broken. For the last decade, the pace of house building has been rapid in my constituency. Residents have been asked to support large-scale development because, they have been told, it will bring new schools and clinics along with it. In reality, they have seen the houses built but not the services. Why does that keep happening? People usually blame greedy developers, but the real fault usually lies with the Government.
Incredibly, although a school may in good faith be written into a local plan, signed and sealed via a section 106 agreement, that guarantees nothing. When the time comes to build the school, the Department for Education will often withdraw its support, and no DfE support means no school. Similarly, an apparently solid commitment to build a new GP surgery is so many empty words if the integrated care board later decides that it does not want to staff it. As budget pressures increase year on year, Government bodies will decide that it is cheaper to cram more children into existing schools, and more patients into existing clinics, than it is to add new ones.
Unfortunately, the Bill does little to fix those problems. Every time the Government mention supporting infrastructure, it turns out that they mean big national infrastructure. That is important too, but it does not solve local problems. The Government are viewing this problem through urban eyes. Urban centres usually already have sufficient infrastructure in place, but in rural areas such as Horsham, settlements are literally doubling in size, but with the same level of services. As a former local councillor, I have experienced at first hand how hard it is to shape development to meet local needs when planning authorities lack control over so many of the essential factors. No wonder residents object to new housing, when all they see is more strain on services that are already at breaking point.
I hope the Minister will support my amendments. They are intended to improve this Bill, not to sabotage it. Local participation is not something to be feared; rather, it should be embraced.
Nesil Caliskan
I was pleased to be a member of the Public Bill Committee, and I welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of the Bill. I will also speak to clauses 4 and 46, and to new clause 55 and amendment 1, which I worry will further frustrate the planning process—the opposite of what the Bill tries to achieve. As the Member of Parliament for Barking, I see and hear at first hand the impact of the housing crisis, as others do in their constituencies. Every week, I meet constituents who share with me their personal and desperate stories about overcrowding, years spent in temporary accommodation, poor-quality housing and sky-high rents.
Let me say this about hope. Hope is demonstrated through the actions of a Government who are committed to delivering 1.5 million homes and who will tackle the housing crisis—a challenge that has been absolutely ignored for decade after decade. Supply is one of the fundamental reasons why communities like mine are facing a housing crisis. Our planning system is hindering supply in a housing market that is already experiencing huge demand. It is a planning system that too often blocks or delays the necessary infrastructure that would support new homes being built, particularly as overall business cases for house building are intrinsically linked to infrastructure delivery.
On Second Reading, I spoke about the pre-application consultation requirements for NSIP. Like others, I have previously highlighted the lower Thames crossing, so I will not repeat that example, but it is really important that Members keep in mind the amount of money that is wasted through such processes. That is why I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister considered representations made by me and others in respect of reforming the pre-application procedure specifically. I welcome clause 4—alongside Government amendments 58, 60 and 67, and new clauses 44 and 45—which removes the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for NSIP applications. The changes will mean that delays are reduced and essential infrastructure is consented to faster. That will save up to 12 months from the pre-application stage and millions, if not billions, of pounds. It could make the difference between whether an infrastructure proposal is viable or not, and between whether homes are built in an area or not.
To be clear, that does not mean that applicants will avoid a duty to consult. As the Minister outlined in his statement to the House on 23 April, local communities and local authorities will still be able to object to applications, provide evidence of any adverse impacts, and have their say as part of the post-submission NSIP process. As a vice president of the Local Government Association and a former council leader, I understand all too well how important it is that local people have a voice, but I also understand that a national housing crisis needs a national solution, and this Bill is an important step in trying to achieve that.
At the heart of the debate is a recognition that the housing crisis cannot be solved by individual local politicians seeking to gain political favour by campaigning against new homes in their area. I know how difficult it is for local authorities to develop and agree local plans, but we cannot have a situation in which even though 90% of planning decisions are currently made by planning officers, key projects that would see infrastructure delivered in this country are held up, as are the thousands, if not millions, of homes that we need to deliver. I absolutely support this important Bill, and I look forward—
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I rise to speak to a number of the amendments before us. I spent a lot of time with colleagues on the Public Bill Committee, and some of the amendments are very good and some are not so good. I will try to rattle through as many as I can.
I support new clause 43, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). Our villages should have the same protection as our towns. Villages have a unique character across all our constituencies, and I am privileged to represent six of them—Brickendon, Hertford Heath, Great Amwell, Stanstead Abbotts, St Margarets and Goffs Oak. I have seen a local council that has built probably too much development in a village, and I have seen that change the fundamental character of Goffs Oak. We should be trying to protect that character, because when people move to villages, they do so for the rural way of life and their unique character and identity. We should stop urban sprawl, and we should stop villages linking together.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a wonderful point about the new clause I have tabled. Does he agree with me that this is about improving our environment and reducing pollution, and we need to think about all of that when we consider this Bill?
Lewis Cocking
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and of course I agree. She makes an important point, and I fully support her new clause. I know she is a keen advocate for this provision in her constituency; it is about creating communities. As I have said, this Government are interested only in hitting a national target, which I and lot of experts in the industry do not think they will meet.
The Government need to think about how they are going to create the communities of the future and the places where people want to live. That means designing them to be really nice, getting developers around the table and agreeing design codes, and making sure developers really put their money where their mouth is. We should ensure we have tree-lined streets, because when we go out in our constituency, as I am sure you do in yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, a tree-lined street is absolutely beautiful to walk down. It is so much better for the people living there and everybody in the constituency if we make that a reality for lots of our residents. Rather than just focusing on building a set number of houses, we should focus on creating the communities of the future and the places where our constituents want to live.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of amendment 69 and new clause 32, which were both tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff). I commend him for his work on the Bill.
I believe the Government have got it wrong with their changes to nature protection. I appreciate that Ministers will say that they come from a genuine desire to address the housing crisis, but the Bill removes the foundations of our nature laws, including the mitigation hierarchy that requires developers to avoid harm. Nearly every major conservation group opposes the Bill and the Government watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, says that it degrades nature protections.
Amendment 69 offers practical improvements, ensuring that environmental delivery plans achieve their stated purpose of making developers pay to offset damage to nature. It ensures that plans result in an improvement to the specific feature being harmed, so that the Bill does not give a green light to degrading irreplaceable habitats.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
The Wild Justice “Lost Nature” report, which was produced by a team including my excellent constituent Sarah Postlethwaite, reveals that housing developers are frequently failing on their legally binding ecological commitments. Its survey of 42 new housing developments, including two in my constituency, shows that only half the ecological enhancements promised, including hedgehog highways, bird boxes, bat boxes and planted trees, were actually being delivered. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while trusting developers’ promises, we must take up-front steps to empower and expand Natural England and other authorities to hold them to account?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree.
Amendment 69 also mandates that improvements be delivered before harm occurs. Without that, we risk species being pushed closer to extinction before their habitats are replaced. Worst of all, the Bill still will not deliver the affordable homes we desperately need.
Dan Tomlinson
The explanatory statement to amendment 69 states:
“This amendment would require Environmental Delivery Plans to set out a timetable for, and thereafter report on, conservation measures, and require improvement of the…status…before development takes place in areas where Natural England”—
thinks there could be harm. How long does my hon. Friend think that that would take in the case of nutrient neutrality and a developer who wanted to build a new social home?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I do not have a specific answer to that point. I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer to that.
The Government’s own impact assessment provided no data that environmental protections are a blocker. Nature in the Bill is being scapegoated to distract from a broken developer-led model.
Sean Woodcock
We have heard a lot about the failure of developers to build infrastructure, protect nature and provide enough social housing. Does that not just show that the status quo is broken, and why the Bill is so important and heading in the right direction?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
The current system is broken, absolutely, but I do not think that hard-pressed planning officers are the problem. I think developers are the problem, and that is the point that I am coming on to make.
Last year, less than 2% of new homes were social rents delivered through the planning system. Private developers prioritise maximum profit with high-end luxury builds, particularly in constituencies such as mine. At the current rate, we would need to build over 5 million homes to deliver just 90,000 social rent properties, yet there are over 1 million people on waiting lists. That is why I signed new clause 32 to introduce binding quotas for affordable and social rent homes. If we are serious, as I believe Labour is, about getting families out of temporary accommodation and off waiting lists, local authorities need the power and funding to lead a new generation of council house building.
We also cannot ignore the fact that the developer-led model creates conflict with nature, as under-resourced councils are forced to accept whatever sites developers propose, regardless of how suitable or unsuitable they are for sustainable development. There is no amount of killing badgers or red tape bonfires that will fix that. It is too simplistic to argue that this is a debate of builders versus blockers. The overwhelming majority of planning applications are approved, which is why we had more than a million planning permissions approved in the past decade that have yet to be built. Developers continue to drip feed developments into the system, prioritising properties that maximise profit and are far from affordable for local people.
It is time, therefore, to move away from the failed market dogma and, I believe, to return to Labour values. The post-war Labour Government built millions of homes supported by the planning system our party created, and it is time we did it again.
Wendy Morton
I rise to speak to new clause 84, in my name, and to add my support for new clause 51 on solar and battery energy storage systems, and new clause 39 on solar.
New clause 84 seeks to prohibit the development of battery energy storage systems on higher-quality agricultural land. In a debate on this topic in this Chamber just last week, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) that there is 78 GW of battery capacity that is either operational, awaiting construction having received planning permission or awaiting consideration, which is equal to supplying 200 million homes—10 times the number of houses we actually have. This is ludicrous.
There are numerous questions over safety, fire risk, accessibility and proximity to homes and communities, yet these storage systems are replacing land that could be used for crops and grazing for animals with metal containers, eating into our national food security at a time that we should be increasing food security and strengthening our food chains. Farmland, as we all know in this place, is irreplaceable—when it is gone, it is gone. We are seeing far too many planning applications coming forward that would risk green-belt land being trashed, with the term “grey belt” used to create a grey area that planning inspectors will take advantage of. I hope the Government are listening to this point, and those made by others on solar, as well.
In the time I have, I want to support a number of other new clauses and amendments that I know matter to my constituents, such as new clause 79, on the duty to co-operate. It is not that we do not expect to have targets in constituencies such as mine; we just do not expect to do all the heavy lifting. We do not expect to have to pick up the can and let failing authorities such as Labour-led Birmingham off the hook. The council certainly cannot manage Birmingham’s bins and it cannot manage its housing, either; three years on, none of the properties in the Commonwealth village in Perry Barr has been let.
It cannot be right that housing targets in areas like Birmingham and London are being placed on authorities such as Walsall, where our targets are being hiked up— not least when evidence points to more people wanting to live in towns and centres. Surely what we should be doing is regenerating these areas and building on our brownfield. If we do it sensibly, it will protect the green belt, protect our environment and protect the green and open spaces that we all love and enjoy.
I will also speak in support of new clause 45, on intentional unauthorised development, something that really irks some of my constituents. They write to me and come to see me about developers or individuals who flagrantly breach or ignore planning regulation or permissions, creating misery for their neighbours. How can someone simply get away with doing that sort of thing without repercussions, when others abide by the rules and are left picking up the pieces?
I have already spoken of my support for new clause 43 on preventing the merging of villages. That is crucial to constituencies like mine, which is on the edge of Birmingham, and has communities that are at risk of being consumed into its urban sprawl. Finally, there is so much I could say on Natural England. I worry that the Government are giving more powers over planning to an unelected quango, while taking power away from local authorities and councillors.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak to new clause 58 in my name. It would place a clear environmental and climate duty on Forestry England and its parent body, the Forestry Commission. That is a simple but crucial step that is long overdue. Forestry England manages over 198,000 hectares of land across England, and with that comes huge untapped potential. Estimates suggest that around 100,000 hectares of ancient woodland and open habitats such as lowland heath could be restored. Restoration at that scale could deliver a fifth of the Government’s legally binding target to create or restore 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat, as set out in the Environment Act 2021. That is a massive opportunity that we cannot afford to waste.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that new clause 56 in my name would also enhance biodiversity. Simple acts such as providing bird boxes and swift bricks can enhance the environment in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.
Alex Sobel
Absolutely. We have seen a huge loss in biodiversity in this country. As Lord Goldsmith, a Minister in the former Government, said in the other place, we are one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Making small changes in planning law will increase biodiversity.
The duties on Forestry England are simply too weak. Its only existing nature duty is the biodiversity duty, updated in the 2021 Act, but it is ineffective. It requires Forestry England only to consider biodiversity, not contribute to nature recovery. That is not good enough. It lacks clarity, enforceability and, crucially, any tie to our legally binding nature targets. As a result, economic interests too often take precedence. Forestry England continues in many cases to prioritise commercial forestry over restoring biodiverse habitats, including areas of ancient woodland. There are no legal climate duties on it, either. Its climate work, while good, is entirely at the whim of political feeling at any time.
This imbalance is rooted in history. The Forestry Commission was set up in 1919 to promote timber production, and that economic priority still dominates. It is reinforced by the growth duty in the Deregulation Act 2015, which requires the Forestry Commission and Forestry England to have regard to economic growth. However, as the nature and climate crisis has worsened, the law has failed to catch up. The result is missed opportunities, poor outcomes, and actions that directly undermine Government policy, such as grant funding of invasive species and the approval of development on deep peat.
Let us look at the facts. The target for restoring damaged ancient woodland is 5,000 hectares a year, yet under the last Government, in 2023-24, just six hectares were restored. That is indefensible. New clause 58 is a straightforward, cost-effective fix. It would rebalance the scales, and give Forestry England a proper legal duty to contribute to nature recovery and climate goals in a way that is in line with the Government’s targets. That means no more missed changes—just clear accountability, better outcomes and better value for public money. I urge the Minister to look at new clause 58 and consider giving Forestry England the clear mandate that it needs in order to deliver for people, nature and the climate.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
I rise to support new clause 39. Building large-scale solar farms on productive agricultural land is short-sighted. The proposed Maen Hir project, classed as a nationally significant infrastructure project, will cover over 3,000 acres of agricultural land on Ynys Môn. This is not just any land; it is land that sustains rural livelihoods and underpins the economic and cultural identity of the island.
Let us not forget why Ynys Môn is known as Môn Mam Cymru—the mother of Wales. Our island has long been the breadbasket of the nation, playing a key role in food production. This land is not just soil; it is security. Replacing it with solar panels serves developers, not communities. The climate crisis will make suitable agricultural land scarcer, which makes protecting what we have now even more important. Once such land is lost to development, we will not get it back. That is not sustainability but short-term gain at long-term cost.
We see serious inconsistency in how planning policy is applied. In Wales, under the planning process, good-quality agricultural land is considered for smaller-scale developments, but when it comes to large-scale NSIPs, such as Maen Hir, those protections seem to vanish. The contradiction between Welsh and UK Government policy is unacceptable. There must be a level playing field, regardless of the scale of proposals.
We have already felt the impact of energy insecurity in recent years. Let us not repeat the same mistakes with food security. I ask the Government to rethink their approach; to protect our agricultural land, our economy and our communities; and to support new clause 39.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 64 in my name. It seeks to encourage a greater focus on the delivery of affordable housing through rural exception sites. I tabled it to prompt further consideration of the role that this policy can play in addressing the urgent need for affordable homes in rural communities. As many who represent areas with significant rural populations will know, we have a serious housing problem. Waiting lists grow faster in rural areas than anywhere else, and young people are forced out of villages and towns by the lack of affordable housing. Parents face old age without the comfort of their children nearby. Pubs, post offices and shops start to struggle for lack of customers. Those businesses close, and a small village and the whole community feels the damage.
Rural exception sites, which are usually found on the outskirts of small settlements, offer a modest but vital solution. Developed for the provision of affordable housing to those with a connection to the area, they help sustain local economies, retain local people and skills, and keep families together. Because they adjoin villages, development takes place on a gently human scale; houses radiate out from a historical core, respecting the historical and rural situation. These are not soulless, disconnected housing estates. This is development on a scale that ensures that affordable housing is woven into the fabric of our communities, not added on. It preserves and recreates the social mix once typical of our towns, where, as Nye Bevan remembered,
“the doctor, the grocer, the butcher and farm labourer all lived in the same street”.—[Official Report, 16 March 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2126.]
That sort of community is now an exception, but let us reform rural exception sites and offer a route back to that ideal.
Despite the potential, the rural exception site regime is alarmingly underused. Out of 145 local authorities in the country, only 25 used rural exception sites to deliver affordable homes in 2021-22. I thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who is not in his place, although he was here for most of the afternoon, for his support for my new clause. Cornwall leads the country by example: 50% of what is delivered on rural exception sites across the whole of England is in Cornwall, and 20% to 30% of housing delivered in Cornwall is through rural exceptions. Why do we not equip other areas across the country, including my county of Suffolk, to do the same? Increasing awareness and engagement will double the output of affordable housing on such sites, so let us encourage officers and local authorities across the country to take a much closer look at the guidance. That will give us a new engagement strategy for delivery partners, who will work with the local community and landowners, which will be crucial.
By giving rural exception sites the prominence they deserve in planning, we increase the supply of affordable homes but maintain the unique character and spirit of our rural communities. I was heartened to read in the Government’s response to the consultation on the revised national planning policy framework that further consideration is indeed being given to exceptions as a means of supporting rural affordable houses. That is welcome, and I am optimistic about the potential for rural exception sites to be brought forward in much greater numbers, delivering small-scale affordable housing that is crucial to ensuring that the English countryside has vibrant and inclusive communities for generations to come. Let us put the life back into the heart of rural England.
Aphra Brandreth
I love trees, which is why I rise to support new clause 63 tabled in my name. I am sure that all of us in this House recognise the value of trees—not just their ecological importance, but the character and beauty that they bring to our communities and high streets. I hope that I can demonstrate why amending the rules to allow for sensible guidance on planting trees can help to liberate local authorities from their default, over-cautious position, and kick-start a tree-planting revolution.
New clause 63 seeks to remove some of the ambiguity and misconceptions surrounding the regulation of tree planting along highways. The Highways Act 1980 includes provision for local authorities to maintain free-flowing roads, but those provisions can and have been misinterpreted to block tree planting. In particular, the licensing rules established in section 142 of the Act should be relaxed to make it easier for local residents to plant trees. Too often, even well-meaning councils impose unrealistic demands. In Windsor and Maidenhead, for example, individuals planting trees must pay between £500 and £1,000 in administrative fees and secure £10 million in public liability insurance—hardly encouraging. Hampshire county council’s strict interpretation of section 142(5) has led to a one-metre buffer around utilities, blocking many ideal planting sites, despite minimal risk to those services.
Let me briefly touch on the environmental case. A Woodland Trust report, “The benefits to people of trees outside woods”, found that roadside trees are highly effective at capturing pollutants—especially important, given that traffic is a major source of air pollution in the UK. A study by Lancaster University even showed that planting silver birch on a terraced street reduced harmful particulate matter inside nearby homes by more than 50%. Trees also play a critical role in supporting biodiversity; common roadside species such as lime and flowering cherry trees are not only beautiful, but vital for pollinators, helping to maintain healthy ecosystems.
Cheshire is a proud dairy and beef farming county. We have some of the most carbon-efficient cows in the world, and we should be proud of that record, but if we can further improve our environmental impact, that can only be a good thing. In rural areas, having tree-lined roads can help to reduce ammonium levels and impacts on habitats and the surrounding environment. Again, placement of trees matters; having more trees near semi-natural habitats that need protection has a greater impact than having more trees in established woodland. Of course safety must remain a priority, and not every road is suitable for tree planting, but where space and conditions allow, trees can improve road safety. Studies have shown that tree-lined streets feel narrower, naturally encouraging drivers to reduce their speed.
There are many more benefits that I could speak to, such as improved soil quality, but time is short, so I will finish by touching on the aesthetic benefit of trees near highways. They really do make a difference. They stand the test of time, they add character to the area, they take on cultural significance, and they improve our mental health, our perceptions and our appreciation of the areas in which we live. By amending this Bill through new clause 63, I hope we can empower local authorities to plant the right trees in the right areas where there is local support, and I am confident that we will notice the benefits of doing so.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I was privileged to be a member of the Bill Committee. I started the Committee as a supporter of this legislation, and I rise to speak now as an equally strong supporter of it.
Many of my constituents in Dartford are also extremely strong supporters of change. Their town is regularly paralysed by overspill traffic from the overloaded Dartford crossing. That has been an issue for decades. The need for a new crossing was first suggested as long ago as the 1980s, yet despite a route having been agreed in 2017, development consent was granted only this year. Hundreds of millions have been spent on the process so far. I strongly support the measures to streamline the NSIP regime and give more certainty on large and much-needed projects such as the lower Thames crossing, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis). This Bill will make changes to dramatically improve the situation, and that fact must not be lost as we debate the amendments today.
Ellie Chowns
I will get straight to the point: there are two big problems with this Bill. First, there is no social housing target, which means that it does not do anything to secure delivery of the fit-for-the-future social rent housing that we so desperately need, as colleagues across the House have said tonight. Secondly, it rolls back vital nature protections, effectively giving developers carte blanche to bulldoze nature to build luxury homes that are accessible only to the richest.
Green MPs gave the Bill a chance on Second Reading—
Ellie Chowns
I am sorry, I will not give way because there are so many colleagues who still want to speak and we are short of time.
Green MPs gave the Bill a chance on Second Reading, because a secure home is out of reach for too many people. Rents are spiralling, over 165,000 children are living in temporary accommodation and over 1 million people are stuck on housing waiting lists. It is scandalous that just 3% of the housing built in the last decade was for social rent, and there is now a wait of more than 100 years for a family-sized social home. I served on the Bill Committee for the past six-plus weeks and I worked hard to persuade the Government to fix the serious flaws in the Bill, but unfortunately those calls have so far been ignored.
I am profoundly concerned that, in the glaring absence of a social rent housing target, this Government are writing a charter for developers’ greed. That is why Green party MPs have tabled new clause 78, to push for safe, warm homes in the communities we love at a truly affordable price. It would require housing plans to set targets for building zero-carbon social rent housing based on local needs, because without an explicit social housing commitment, big developers will be able to line their pockets even further while ordinary people are still locked out of affording a decent home.
I am hugely concerned, as are so many people and the nature organisations that we all trust. By the way, the Bill rolls back nature protections. That is why I have proposed amendments 24 to 63, which would delete part 3 of the Bill entirely, because the Government repeatedly blocked cross-party efforts in Committee to amend part 3 to reduce its harmful impact on nature.
Part 3 is harmful for three key reasons. First, it weakens and undermines the requirement for nature protection to be achieved to a high level of scientific certainty. Secondly, it creates a “pay to pollute” system, allowing developers to skip straight to offsetting, trashing the long-established principle of the mitigation hierarchy—that is, that development should first seek to avoid harm. Thirdly, it upends the requirement for compensation to be delivered up front and creates wiggle room for developers to avoid paying the true cost of the harm they do.
The Government know the nature crisis in our country is severe, yet they repeatedly voted in Committee to reject a raft of constructive amendments to improve part 3 and ensure a win-win for housing and nature. I remind the House that the Labour party’s 2024 manifesto pointed out that
“the Conservatives have left Britain one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world,”
but part 3 will make that terrible situation worse. It is not just the nature organisations that tell us that; it is the independent expert advice of the Office for Environmental Protection, which says that the Bill constitutes a “regression” in environmental law, directly contradicting the assertion of the Secretary of State.
If Ministers insist on bulldozing ahead on part 3, I urge them at the very least to accept my new clause 26. With cross-party support and wide backing, it seeks to match the current degree of certainty for environmental protection. I also strongly support amendment 69, in the name of the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which would ensure that improvements are delivered before the damage they are compensating for.
We can and must both protect nature and build warm, affordable, zero-carbon social rent homes. The Government said it is what they want. Sadly, it is not what the Bill delivers. Without urgent change—
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
The planning system certainly needs change, but local people know their area, which is why local planning authorities must retain their current powers, as outlined in amendment 1. As we have heard, each area is different. In my constituency we are fortunate to have the Loddon and Whitewater chalk stream rivers nurturing ecosystems and sustaining biodiversity.
The Labour manifesto promised
“more high-quality, well-designed, and sustainable homes… creating places that increase climate resilience and promote nature recovery.
Chalk streams in this country are at risk. A third are over-abstracted, a third failed their phosphorus targets, and a third failed their fish and plant assessments. Only 11 have any form of protection. We cannot rely on the local nature recovery strategy or the national planning policy framework to protect those ecosystems. These rivers need bespoke national protection written into primary legislation in this House, as outlined in amendment 16. We cannot make reparation after the fact. Once chalk aquifers are destroyed, they cannot be replaced. When we say irreplaceable, we mean it.
The Government also say they want to make the UK a clean energy superpower. My colleagues and I are thrilled that the Liberal Democrats’ call for solar panels on new homes is finally being implemented. Solar power is a key way to harness the power of the natural environment as we develop infrastructure for our communities. Supporting new clause 7 and putting solar panels on all new car parks would be the natural next step in the right direction.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Electric vehicles are key to achieving energy independence, but charging inequalities are simply holding us back, undermining net zero and energy security. Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities must be empowered to approve safe cross-pavement charging solutions without expensive and time-consuming street work licences or planning applications?
Alex Brewer
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on those policies.
Solar panels do not just soak up the sun and create clean energy; they also provide shade, protect vehicles and, frankly, over a car park they look quite good while they are doing it. We should be prioritising solar panels on the 250,000 hectares of rooftops and car parks across the country, not on our precious green spaces. Car parks are often located in energy intensive areas— near hospitals, shopping centres and office buildings—so it makes perfect sense to generate the power right next to where it is needed.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that car parks and rooftops might be a good place for solar, but this country’s prime agricultural land is not?
Alex Brewer
We must find the right balance between agriculture and renewable energy.
France has already taken the lead by mandating that all car parks with more than 80 spaces must be covered with solar panels. The Bill is the right place for us to implement a similar clause. Solar photovoltaics produce about 10 times more energy per square kilometre than biomass. Solar is efficient, clean and ready to go. I am highly concerned that the Bill is overcommitted to biomass, which is not a form of renewable energy. In Britain, we have the knowledge and expertise to develop new housing, energy and infrastructure with nature in mind. The Government are treating this issue as an either/or, but we could and should be much more ambitious and have both.
Helen Maguire
I rise to speak in support of my new clause 93 and amendments 122 to 126, which aim to tackle the growing electric vehicle charging divide—an issue that is not only about infrastructure, but about fairness, affordability and climate action.
Nearly four out of every 10 households in the UK do not have a driveway. For many of them, the transition to EVs remains a challenge because bureaucratic barriers mean that they face charging costs that are 10 times more expensive compared with those who can charge their car at home. Today, someone with a driveway can charge their EV overnight for as little as 7p per kilowatt-hour, but a driver without one may be forced to pay up to 80p at a public charger. That means over £1,000 more per year, and renters, residents of terraced homes and lower-income families bear the brunt.
My amendments would cut unnecessary red tape and enable local authorities to approve safe cross-pavement charging solutions without expensive and time-consuming street works licences or planning applications. They would give councils control while empowering residents to take part in the EV transition. That is a vital step in closing the gap between those who can charge affordably at home and those who cannot. It would help to reduce reliance on overstretched public chargers, support grid resilience and build confidence in the EV transition, while unlocking green jobs and cutting emissions.
This is also an issue of energy security. Sky-high energy and fuel bills are hurting families and businesses, fuelling the cost of living crisis. Russia’s assault on Ukraine has reinforced the need to significantly reduce the UK’s dependence on fossil fuels and to invest in renewables, both to cut energy bills and to deliver energy security. Electric vehicles can help millions of families to avoid a petrol premium, save on travel costs and strengthen our national security and independence.
If we are serious about hitting net zero, cleaning our air and reducing the cost of living, we must make EV adoption a genuinely accessible and affordable option for everyone, not just for those with a driveway. I urge Members to support my common-sense, future-facing amendments and new clause 93.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I rise to speak to my amendments 145 to 147 and to highlight the importance of new clauses 39, 84 and—if I have time—83.
My amendments seek to correct a clear oversight in the legislation by extending the energy bill discounts to those who live near energy generation sites, rather than simply to those who live near energy transmission sites. Why is it that those who have pylons built near their homes are compensated, while those who have solar farms—such as the proposed Green Hill development near Grendon, Easton Maudit and Bozeat in my constituency —are not? That arbitrary distinction exposes the Government’s proposals as not only inconsistent, but fundamentally unfair. Such disparities understandably rile residents who must live cheek by jowl with solar farms. By simply extending the energy bills discount, the Government would at least put an arm around those who bear the burden, and would encourage communities to embrace renewables. I encourage the Minister to take that forward, but I will not hold my breath.
New clauses 39 and 84 are essential. The number of proposed battery energy storage systems is—if Members will pardon the pun—exploding. They should not be built on higher-quality agricultural land. The Government say repeatedly that food security is national security, but any plans that take agricultural land out of producing food leads the Government and this country down a very dangerous path. We must encourage and incentivise farmers to do exactly that: farm. The Government are creating an either/or situation by allowing battery energy storage systems and solar on higher-quality agricultural land. I urge Members to support these new clauses.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that it is hoped that new clause 82 has been selected to be called for a separate decision of the House. My concern is that the House will be denied the ability to have that separate decision.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that the Member who put forward the amendment has the right to withdraw it and has indicated that they will do so. It is at the Chair’s discretion whether a separate decision is called for, and in this case it is my understanding that the amendment is not going to be moved.
Sir Gavin Williamson
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that the Member should shout and make it clear on the Floor of the House that he does not wish the amendment to be put to the vote, so that Members can voice their opinion.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for his further point of order. If I do not call the Member to move his amendment, and it is not my intention to do so, there will be no separate decision.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] I am entitled to raise a point of order.
I appreciate your ruling on this matter, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I ask for clarification because it is my understanding that if we have been informed that an amendment is for separate decision, the Chair asks the Member whose amendment it is whether they want to withdraw it, with the leave of the House, and I have never seen that question not being put on the Floor of the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for that point of order. It is simply not the case that it has to be withdrawn on the Floor of the House; this has happened on numerous occasions.
I call the Minister.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to rise to respond to what has been a very comprehensive debate. [Interruption.] A significant number of amendments have been spoken to in the course of the debate—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) should not be shouting at the Clerks in that way. I have made my point.
I call the Minister.
Matthew Pennycook
A significant number of amendments have been spoken to in the course of the debate and the House will appreciate that I do not have the time to address the vast majority of them. I will therefore focus on addressing as many of the key amendments and points of contention as I can. I have been extremely generous in giving way in opening the debate, but I hope that hon. Members will now appreciate that to get through as many points as possible I will not be taking further interventions.
The debate this evening has evidenced support from across the House for nature and for ensuring we get the nature restoration fund right. I spoke in detail about the Government’s position in opening the debate. As I repeatedly made clear in the Bill Committee and will reiterate this evening, we are listening to the concerns raised by hon. Members and stakeholders. We are clear that this is the right model to take us forward.
We are of course open to ways to improve the legislation, however, and on that basis, and to emphasise the point I made earlier in the debate, we are giving serious consideration to ways in which we might instil further confidence that part 3 will deliver the outcomes we believe it will, such as providing greater confidence in the rigour of the overall improvement test, as raised by the OEP and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos).
We are also giving due consideration to how we can provide for greater certainty in the timescale for delivering conservation measures, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), as well as seeking to clarify the evidential basis and environmental rationale for strategic conservation measures, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins). The status quo is not working. The case for moving to a more strategic approach is compelling and I look forward to further consideration of part 3 in the other place.
Turning to the important issue of children’s play areas and playing fields, I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling new clause 16 and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for tabling new clauses 82. I particularly commend my hon. Friend on all that he is doing to make the case for high-quality, accessible and inclusive areas for play. The Government agree that access to play space is vital, which is why strong protections are already in place.
The national planning policy framework is clear that local planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities, and opportunities for new provision, including places for children’s play. In December, we strengthened the strong protections already in place in the NPPF by adding explicit reference to safeguarding “formal play spaces”. That means that those facilities can be lost only where they are no longer needed, or where there is a justified and appropriate alternative
Given the existing policy expectations, safeguards and sources of support, we do not believe that it is necessary to add the sort of legislative requirements the amendments would entail. However, I recognise the importance of what the amendments seek to achieve, and the provision of play space is one of the areas we are considering as we prepare a new set of national planning policies for decision making, on which we will consult this year. I commit to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East to writing to my counterparts at the Department for Education and at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that we are acting across Government to increase spaces for play. I will work with him to broker the necessary ministerial meetings that he seeks. With those assurances, I hope that he and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Turning to swift bricks, which were mentioned several times during the debate, we recognise that they are a vital means of arresting the long-term decline of the breeding swift population. While swift brick coverage is increasing, with nearly 30 house builders having made a voluntary commitment to install one for every new home built, the Government want to do more to drive up swift brick installation. However, there is a principled difference of opinion as to the best way to achieve that objective. Although I understand why many are attracted to the argument that the only way to make a significant difference to swift numbers and other red-listed species is to mandate the incorporation of swift bricks into all new-build properties, through building regulations or free-standing legislation, I take a different view.
In all sincerity, I do not believe that amending building regulations is the most appropriate way to secure the outcome that the House as a whole seeks. As building regulations are mandatory, going down that route would compel developers to install swift bricks in all new buildings, irrespective of what they are or where they are located.
Matthew Pennycook
No, I will not.
Contrary to what hon. Members might assume, amending building regulations is not a quick fix. It can take years for changes to feed through into building design and we do not think that swifts can afford to wait that long. For those and other reasons, I remain of the view that changing national planning policy is the more effective route to securing swift bricks as a standard feature of the vast majority of new buildings.
As the House will be aware, the revised NPPF published in December expects developments to incorporate features that support priority or threatened species such as swifts, bats and hedgehogs. However, as I have made clear to many hon. Members over recent months, we have always intended to go further. We are specifically giving consideration to using a new suite of national policies for decision making to require swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings, unless there are compelling reasons that preclude their use or that would make them ineffective. That would significantly strengthen the planning policy expectations already in place, so that, for example, we would expect to see at least one swift brick in all new brick-built houses.
I believe that is the best way we can achieve the objective of seeing swift bricks used as widely as possible, as the use and placement of swift bricks can be integrated into the planning process and become a standard expectation in the design of new developments. We will be consulting on a new set of national policies for decision making later this year. So that no one can be in any doubt about our intentions here, the Government have today published new planning practice guidance setting out how swift bricks are expected to be used in new developments, as an interim step ahead of the planned consultation.
We also heard from several hon. Members who want to see stronger protections put in place for chalk streams. The measures in the Bill will not weaken existing protections for those valuable areas for nature, but the Government continue to give careful consideration to this matter in the context of ongoing reform to national planning policy and I am more than happy to engage with hon. Members from across the House on it.
I turn to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, which would have the effect of preventing the Government from implementing a national scheme of delegation for planning committees. Put simply, it is a wrecking amendment, and the Government cannot accept it for the following reasons. Planning is principally a local activity, and the Government recognise the vital role that planning committees play. However, we must ensure that they operate as effectively as possible. At present, every council has its own scheme of delegation, and 96% of planning decisions in England are already made by planning officers. However, there is significant variation across the country, which creates risk and uncertainty in the system. As such, we believe that there is a robust case for introducing a national scheme of delegation.
Since Committee stage, when we debated these issues at length, the Government have published a technical consultation setting out our detailed plans for reform in this area. I encourage hon. Members to read that consultation, in which we propose splitting planning applications into two tiers, providing certainty about what decisions will be delegated to expert officers and at the same time ensuring that councillors can continue to focus on the most significant proposals for housing and commercial developments to allow for effective local and democratic oversight of the most controversial applications where warranted. I believe that if Members engage with the detail of that conversation, they will recognise that what is being proposed is not an attempt to ride roughshod over local democracy, but a sensible and proportionate change designed to improve certainty and decision making in the planning system. However, on the fundamental point of whether we should introduce a national scheme of delegation, the Government’s position is an unequivocal yes. For that reason, I cannot accept the new clause in question.
I turn briefly to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington relating to the Bill’s new reflective amendment procedure for national policy statements. I reassure the House that our changes are not about eroding parliamentary scrutiny, but about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made, and we absolutely recognise the value that such scrutiny brings to getting important changes right.
As I have discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, several safeguards are in place that will ensure parliamentary oversight is protected; I will happily restate them for the record. Where we intend to make a reflective amendment, a statement will be laid in Parliament announcing a review and we will write to the relevant Select Committee. Ministers will make themselves available to speak to that Committee as far as is practicable, and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period.
Let me be very clear in response: the Government recognise the importance of Ministers attending Committee to explain the proposed changes, and I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the Deputy Prime Minister and I will write to colleagues to ensure that is fully and clearly understood. Importantly, the NPPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted. I hope that clarifies the process and reassures my hon. Friend and the House more widely.
Finally, I will address some of the amendments about provision of affordable and social housing, including new clauses 32 and 50, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). The Government are committed to the biggest generational uplift in social and affordable housing, and in our first 10 months in office we have put our money where our mouth is. We have announced new £800 million in-year funding to top up the 2021-26 affordable homes programme, and we announced in the spring statement an immediate injection of £2 billion in new capital investment to act as a bridge to the future grant programme, which is to be announced this week in the spending review.
To date, we have not chosen to define a target for social and affordable housing, and there is good reason why that is the case, including the fact that the sector has faced significant financial constraints and needs regulatory certainty. That was made worse by many of the completely irresponsible and unacceptable decisions made by the Opposition when they were in government over the past 14 years. It would not be appropriate to set a target until after the sector is stabilised, knows what is required and, importantly, is clear on what investment will be available to support delivery, which will become apparent only after the spending review. A range of complex factors contribute to the numbers of affordable houses coming forward in this country and impact on the sector’s ability to build more homes, but we will of course keep that matter under review.
I will very briefly mention the green belt and the protection of villages. As the House will be aware, we recently published guidance in relation to the green belt. None of the long-standing green-belt purposes are touched by those changes, including the purpose of precluding the merging of towns. The guidance does not remove those appropriate and relevant protections from land around villages, and any green-belt land—including land in, or near, villages—that conflicts with the relevant purposes would not be identified as grey belt.
To conclude, I once again thank all hon. Members who have participated in today’s debate for their contributions. The Government will continue to reflect on the arguments that have been made. I urge the House to support the targeted amendments to this Bill that the Government have proposed, to ensure we can realise its full potential.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 69 accordingly read a Second time.
Simon Hoare
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you could fill a gap in my ignorance —I am sure you can. Earlier today, Mr Speaker announced that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), whom I will call my hon. Friend because he is my county neighbour, would not move new clause 82, to which I am a signatory. Mr Speaker had said that the new clause would be subject to a separate decision, and anybody would interpret that to mean that there would be a vote on it. My understanding, from previous experience, is that when the principal signatory to an amendment decides not to move it, any hon. or right hon. Member who is a co-signatory to it is at liberty to move it, to test the will of the House. It may well be that the Standing Orders have changed, and that I am negligent of that knowledge. If that is the case, I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but what has changed?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Had he been in the Chamber earlier, he would have heard several earlier points of order on this question. He would also have heard me say that a decision on the new clause would be at the discretion of the Chair, and Mr Speaker indicated earlier that there would be a separate decision. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), who tabled new clause 82, indicated that he wished to withdraw it. A decision on it is at the discretion of the Chair. If the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) wishes to question that further, he is at liberty to do so.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] Labour Members may chunter, but I have a right to raise a point of order on process in this House. Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask for your guidance? I am a relatively new Member, but it is my—[Interruption.] I want to raise a point of order, and it is not up to them to say I cannot.
New clause 82 has been signed by over 60 Members of this House. Through the usual channels, I was told, as shadow Minister, as were others, that the Speaker’s Office had selected the new clause for a separate decision. Over 60 Members have signed the new clause, and my understanding of precedent in this House is that any Member who has signed it can move it. It is a new and dangerous precedent if Members can indicate before the debate that they wish to withdraw a new clause, and other Members who have signed it are not given the choice to move it. May I seek your clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker? It seems highly unusual that over 60 Members have signed the new clause but none of them can move it, especially when we were given an indication that it would be subject to a separate decision on the Floor of the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his further point of order on this subject. I have provided the clarity for which he asks. The decision is at the discretion of the Chair.
New Clause 43
Protection of villages
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local planning authorities, or update any relevant existing guidance, relating to the protection of villages.
(2) Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate, as is provided for towns in relation to—
(a) preventing villages from merging into one another,
(b) preventing villages merging into towns, and
(c) preserving the setting and special character of historic villages.”—(Paul Holmes.)
This new clause would provide existing villages with protection equivalent to that currently provided to towns under the NPPF.
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Tuesday 10th June 2025
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 June 2025 - (10 Jun 2025)
17:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 73 / Noes: 312 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 107 / Noes: 314 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:27 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 78 / Noes: 309 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:09 - The House divided: - Ayes: 306 / Noes: 174 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 42—Alignment of basic and occupier’s loss payments—
“(1) The Land Compensation Act 1973 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 33B (occupier’s loss payment: agricultural land), in subsection (2)(a) omit ‘2.5%’ and insert ‘7.5%’.
(3) In section 33C (occupier’s loss payment: other land), in subsection (2)(a) omit ‘2.5%’ and insert ‘7.5%’.”
This new clause, being an amendment of the Land Compensation Act 1973, would align the occupier’s loss payments with the basic loss payments at 7.5% of the value of the party’s interest.
New clause 85—Compensation payments—
“(1) The Land Compensation Act 1973 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 30 (amount of home loss payment in England and Wales)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) omit ‘10 per cent of’;
(ii) omit ‘subject to a maximum of £15,000 and a minimum of £1,500.’
(b) omit subsections (3) and (4).
(3) In section 33A(2) (basic loss payment), omit from ‘payment of’ to the end of subsection (2) and insert ‘the market value of his interest in the dwelling’.
(4) In section 33B (occupier’s loss payment: agricultural land)—
(a) in subsection (2), omit from ‘payment of’ to the end of subsection (3) and insert ‘the market value of his interest in the dwelling’;
(b) omit subsection (3).”
New clause 107—Disposal of land held by public bodies—
“(1) Section 209 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Power to direct bodies to dispose of land) is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) In subsection (2), at end insert—
‘(C1) Steps taken in response to a direction under subsection (A1) must—
(a) include a duty to consider disposal of land for the public good, and
(b) provide that the difference between the unrestricted value of the land to be disposed of and the consideration for the disposal does not exceed £3,000,000 or 40% of unrestricted market value, whichever is greater.’
(3) Section 209 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) The Local Government Act 1972 is amended in accordance with subsections (5) and (6).
(5) In section 123 (disposal of land by principal councils), after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2ZA) But the Secretary of State must give consent if the disposal is in accordance with subsection (7) of section [Disposal of land held by public bodies] of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025.’
(6) In section 127(3) (disposal of land held by parishes and communities), after ‘(2A)’ insert ‘, (2ZA)’.
(7) Subject to subsection (9), a disposal of land under is in accordance with this section if it is in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 published in Department for Communities and Local Government Circular 06/03, as amended by subsection (8).
(8) Those amendments to the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 are—
(a) in paragraph 2(a)(iii), leave out ‘and’ and insert, at end—
‘(iv) the development and availability of affordable housing, and’
(b) in paragraph 2(b), for ‘£2,000,000 (two million pounds)’ substitute ‘£3,000,000 (three million pounds) or 40% of the unrestricted market value, whichever is greater’;
(c) after paragraph 3(1)(xii) insert—
‘(xiii) a combined authority;
(xiv) a mayoral combined authority;
(xv) the Greater London Authority;
(xvi) any successor body established by or under an Act of Parliament to any body listed in this subparagraph.’
(9) The Secretary of State may, to reflect inflation, further amend the cash value that the difference between the unrestricted value of the land to be disposed of and the consideration for the disposal must not exceed.”
New clause 114—Development corporations to provide green spaces—
“A development corporation must provide or facilitate the provision of—
(a) green spaces, including private gardens, balconies, and community gardens;
(b) the care and maintenance of the green spaces provided for under this section.”
This new clause would ensure development corporations include provision for green spaces in new developments.
New clause 127—Repeal of section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961—
“In the Land Compensation Act 1961, omit section 14A.”
New clause 128—Community benefit scheme for compulsory purchase—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a scheme for the purposes of providing members of a local community with certain benefits when a compulsory purchase order has been granted within the relevant area.
(2) Regulations under this section must—
(a) require that, where a compulsory purchase has taken place, the equivalent of 20% of the amount for which the compulsory purchase was made must be paid into a community benefit fund;
(b) describe the—
(i) governance of, and
(ii) purposes for which sums may be payable from the fund;
(c) specify the meaning of—
(i) ‘local community’, and
(ii) ‘relevant area’
for the purposes of a scheme established under this section;
(d) specify the circumstances of compulsory purchase to which the scheme should apply; and
(e) specify the proportion of the sum to be payable into the fund by each party to the relevant compulsory purchase.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a community benefit scheme in relation to compulsory purchase. The scheme would require the equivalent of 20% of the sum for which a compulsory purchase is made to be paid into a community benefit fund by parties to the compulsory purchase.
Amendment 151, in clause 93, page 122, line 2, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is practicable after a period of twelve months from the passing of this Act has elapsed, publish a report assessing the impact of this clause on—
(a) the achievement of sustainable development, and
(b) the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.”
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State must publish a report into the success of development corporations in achieving their duty to have regard for sustainable development and climate change.
Amendment 153, page 145, line 10, leave out clause 104.
Amendment 68, in clause 104, page 145, line 22, at end insert—
“(za) after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) Subsection (2) also applies if an acquiring authority submits a compulsory purchase order in relation to furthering the purposes of delivering housing targets set out in a local plan.’”
This amendment would provide that, where a compulsory purchase order is applied for to acquire land or property for the purpose of delivering housing targets set out in local plans, the prospect of planning permission being granted can be disregarded when calculating compensation (also known as “hope value”).
Amendment 88, page 145, line 22, at end insert—
“(za) in subsection (2), at end insert ‘unless the acquiring authority states that the whole of the land is being acquired for the purpose (or for the main purpose) of provision of sporting or recreational facilities in which case subsection (5) shall not apply.’”
This amendment would enable hope value to be disregarded in calculating the compulsory purchase value of land, where it is being purchased for recreational facilities.
Amendment 89, line 23, at end insert—
“(ab) in subsection (5), at end insert ‘unless the acquiring authority states that the whole of the land is being acquired for the purpose (or for the main purpose) of provision of sporting or recreational facilities in which case this provision shall not apply.’”
This amendment is linked to Amendment 88 above.
Freddie van Mierlo
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to new clause 22. Active travel—cycling, walking and wheeling—is hugely beneficial for health and happiness, and I know there is wide agreement on that point in this House. I welcome the investments being made by this Government in active travel through increases to the budget for Active Travel England, but even when there is willingness and funding to progress a scheme, it can be hard to get a plan off the ground, because landowners can refuse to co-operate. Compulsory purchase orders are regularly used for road transport projects, but when it comes to active travel, local authorities are reticent.
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), for responding to my written parliamentary questions on this matter. On 15 May, he informed me:
“The Department for Transport has not made an assessment of the effectiveness of compulsory purchase order powers in progressing active travel schemes”.
That is somewhat surprising given the scope of this Bill, which aims to speed up infrastructure project delivery, but he did reassure me that local authorities can use CPOs for active travel. However, there is a difference between what is theoretically possible and the reality.
In Committee, this issue was raised by my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), who is a powerful advocate for cycling. We were informed then by the Minister for Housing and Planning that updated guidance was published in October last year, and that it will be updated following the passage of the Bill. I have been through that guidance, and I can tell the House that nothing in it refers to active travel; it is covered only in so far as it falls under the umbrella term “highway”. The problem is that those rules work fine for roads, but are insufficiently adapted for the challenges of an active travel project. Furthermore, this guidance is non-statutory and is an interpretation of current law.
The Minister also signposted me to upcoming guidance from Active Travel England. This will support local authorities in the design and delivery of active travel routes, but it does not include consideration of CPOs. Again and again when the Minister states that there is already guidance, we see that it is insufficient and does not cover CPOs.
It is welcome news that, in response to another of my written questions, the Government have shared that future Active Travel England guidance will include case studies of the use of compulsory purchase orders for active travel routes. However, this is not enough. Active Travel England does good work, but it is not the Government and will never carry the same weight as statutory guidance. That is why new clause 22, which specifically requires such guidance to be published by Ministers, should be part of the Bill. All other options have been exhausted.
Before going further, let me make it clear that I do not believe that CPOs should be wielded lightly. It is far better to have a constructive relationships with landowners. CPOs should be a last resort, but without the threat of one in the back pocket, we are sending local authorities into negotiations with both hands tied behind their backs.
My county of Oxfordshire is hugely ambitious in its desire to reduce car journeys and roll out a county-wide strategic active travel network linking towns and villages together. In my own corner of the county, there is a clear case for the Thame to Haddenham greenway, which would link the town of Thame with the train station in Haddenham, and allow villagers in Haddenham to get safely to Thame and enjoy the town. There is widespread cross-party support for it, and I am pleased that Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire are working closely together to progress the project. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), another of my constituency neighbours, for his support.
When I was a councillor, residents of the beautiful small town of Watlington told me just how valuable a cycleway between Watlington and the village of Lewknor would be. Lewknor sits just off junction 6 of the M40, and it enjoys good bus connections to London and Oxford through the Oxford tube and airport buses. An informal park and ride works well enough, but would it not be so much better if there was a cycle route covering those 2.5 miles? Yet I learned early on that the landowner has no intention of co-operating, even though an old railway would be a perfect route, and the project was stopped dead in its tracks.
It may surprise Members that the issue this new clause seeks to address has already been considered closely by our colleagues in Wales. In 2019, the Welsh Assembly, as it was still called, looked in detail at the issue. The Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee made some observations within the context of the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 that I think are relevant to building the case for better guidance. The committee was cross-party and chaired by an AM for the Welsh Conservatives. It received evidence from Sustrans that:
“without effective support to ensure that land is made available, key sections of route which could make everyday journeys viable could take years to be delivered, or not be delivered at all.”
Sustrans suggested that the CPO process is a block on active travel routes, as objections to CPOs may be made on the grounds that there is one or more alternative—albeit lower-grade—route options, leaving local authorities vulnerable to challenge. As a result, local authorities are discouraged from beginning a lengthy and costly CPO process. The committee received further evidence from Sustrans that:
“Greater guidance and support is needed for local authorities”.
It concluded with a recommendation that the Welsh Government should work with local authorities and other stakeholders to find ways to “unblock” the process of using CPOs to develop cycle routes.
Perhaps recognising this problem, in response to another written question, the Minister yesterday pointed me in the direction of public path construction under the Highways Act 1980 for the creation of active travel routes. Although I am grateful for his response, it raises more questions than answers, and I am sure he will be pleased to hear that I will be submitting those questions through MemberHub. I have previously worked with local groups who wanted to get rights of way registered, and it is simply not possible for the highway authority to create public paths where none already exist. The application process requires statements from multiple people showing continuous use over at least 20 years, which does not work for a route that already cannot be used due to private ownership.
Before I wrap up, let me give another shout-out to the work of the Welsh Government, who have recognised that funding for active travel can be hard to find and is often assembled piecemeal. This gives rise to a chicken-and-egg situation: why seek a CPO if there is no funding, and why get funding if there is no viable route assembled? In Wales, guidance therefore requires a compelling public interest in acquisition, but not immediate financial readiness; in contrast, in England, guidance emphasises the importance of demonstrating financial readiness. Will the Minister therefore consider following in Wales’s footsteps? I ask the Government not to dismiss my concerns around the inadequacy of the current guidance or the good work of their colleagues in Wales. A Government serious about active travel would engage with these issues, as I am sure this Government will want to do following this debate.
Finally, I will spend a few moments on other new clauses and amendments, including those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). The Bill removes hope value to improve the use of CPOs for some projects, but there are further projects that would benefit from a similar policy. Amendments 88 and 89 would ensure that hope value is not added to the cost of recreational facilities such as playing fields when an authority purchases the land with the intention of keeping it as a playing field. Removing hope value is particularly important in an area like Oxfordshire, where any whiff of development massively increases costs. In fact, it is one reason that so many small and medium-sized farms will be caught by the Government’s changes to agricultural property relief. If this House accepts the principle of disregarding hope value, that should also apply to the value of land for the purposes of inheritance tax for farms that remain farms.
I also support new clause 107, which would create a duty for any public body to consider the public good when selling land or property. I am aware of local organisations and good causes in my constituency that are looking for space to support their activities where land is disposed of by local authorities. It is right that local organisations benefit when public bodies sell land or properties, such as the men’s sheds movement, which seeks to improve mental health by offering practical hobbies in a space where people can meet and share skills.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak to these new clauses and amendments. I humbly ask Members across the House to support new clause 22.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
It is fantastic to speak in the Chamber on a subject that has been part of my career for the better part of 20 years. I started working in the construction sector as a civil engineer and finished my time working on major programmes around the world.
Planning, and particularly planning in respect of national programmes and major infrastructure, has been a headache for me for a long time. The prolonged wasteful consultation that happens on major programmes, which stops the urgency and prevents an outcome-focused approach to delivering the major infrastructure that we need, is almost like death by a thousand cuts for a lot of communities. It is death by consultation and fatigue; it means that people do not engage in the process, and it drives a culture of nimbyism rather than a culture of wanting to deliver the homes and schools—the civil and social infrastructure—that we desperately need, and that everyone across this House calls out for in their constituencies.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader). He was very generous in congratulating many Members on their amendments and very constructive when he outlined his position on this piece of legislation.
I know that Members across the Chamber will be devastated to hear that this will be my last contribution on the Bill before the shadow Secretary of State makes his Third Reading speech. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I know! I wish to thank the Minister for his hard work, all the Members who contributed to our discussions, and the Clerks and the staff who gave us such amazing support throughout what I thought was a long, challenging and often frustrating Bill Committee. As a Committee, we all lived through the emotional journey of whether Charlton—a team that the Minister passionately supports—would be promoted. As I said to him during the Committee, he is welcome down to the Den for Charlton’s next match against Millwall. I will even let him sit on our side of the stadium.
As I have said, I wish to thank all members of the Bill Committee for their contributions. I also congratulate those, such as the hon. Member for Northampton South, who have tabled amendments to the Bill—we have had a weird, wonderful and varied number of new clauses and amendments. As the hon. Member said, finding them to be in scope of the legislation was quite challenging at times, but I trusted the Clerks to make the right decision and therefore most of them stood.
I look forward to briefly outlining the position of the Opposition on some of the new clauses and amendments before the House this afternoon. Only a small part of the Bill will be discussed this afternoon. The majority of mainstream clauses that we are opposed to were in the frustrating and rather emotive session last night. I look forward to challenging the Minister, who might, I think, look slightly less grumpy than he did last night, and to pleading with him to accept some of our amendments. Then again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I may be dreaming in that regard.
It is clear that the Minister and the Government have a driving mission in this legislation. The Opposition recognise that, but he knows that we have many disagreements on how to achieve the ambitions he has outlined. We have been very clear throughout the passage of the Bill—through the Bill Committee, Second Reading, Report and, later this afternoon, Third Reading— that we have many core, fundamental and principled disagreements with some of the measures the Minister has proposed. Although we agree that we need to build more houses, that we need to see an infrastructure-first approach and that we need to unlock some development, we have a fundamental disagreement with the centralising zeal of both the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to get us to where they want us to go. We also believe that the Minister could have looked more favourably on some of the new clauses and amendments that were tabled not just by my party, but by other parties in the House and by some of his own Back Benchers, who have proposed well-intentioned and well-meaning measures.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Like others, I sat in the Chamber yesterday listening to the Government voting down so many amendments. We had an opportunity to do something really good with this Bill, and we have missed it. Does the shadow Minister agree that, if we are not careful, we will end up with a piece of legislation that will drive a coach and horses through our communities and our green belt and that does nothing for nature, for farmers, for communities and for the very people who want those things?
Paul Holmes
My right hon. Friend, not uncharacterist-ically, has made an excellent point and I entirely agree with her. As I said yesterday, the Minister has had a unique opportunity with this Bill—a detailed and potentially groundbreaking Bill—to fundamentally change the planning processes in this country for the better. He told us many times on the Bill Committee that he was reflecting on some of the genuine points and key concerns that Members from across the House brought to him. However, those reflections amounted to nothing. He consistently said that he would reflect on the genuine principles that we brought forward, but we have seen no changes in the legislation. We have seen no acceptance of our thoughts and no efforts to change this legislation to reflect the genuine concerns that so many of us brought to this place.
The Liberal Democrats tabled many amendments and new clauses. As the Minister knows, I very rarely praise the Liberal Democrats on the Floor of the House or in my constituency of Hamble Valley, and I am not likely to do so going forward. However, what I would say is that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and his colleague, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), tabled some really good and principled amendments that would have this improved this legislation, particularly on chalk streams and on some of our other concerns.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be aware that Governments of all stripes tend not to accept amendments in this House, enormously to the frustration of colleagues from across the Chamber who put them forward. Will he join me in encouraging the Minister and his ministerial colleagues to take the opportunity to think again on some of the amendments if the Bill is delayed in the other place? All of us want to see more houses built, but in a way that works with communities. As my hon. Friend said, there is an opportunity here to do something historic, so let us make sure that when the Bill goes to the House of Lords—if that is what is required—the Government listen and act.
Paul Holmes
I have put it on the record, both here and in the Public Bill Committee, that I think this is a principled Minister who knows his stuff. Therefore, he should not be afraid to open his arms and embrace collective responsibility across the House to make sure that this legislation is better, and that it serves everybody in this country. He needs to make sure that the key principles that he wants to achieve are actually achievable. I say very strongly, as I did yesterday, that the key things that he wants to achieve, such as these housing numbers, will not be achieved through this legislation. He still has the opportunity to work with Members of all parties to make sure that this is a really important piece of legislation.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Emeritus Professor Sarah Nield, the chairman of the New Forest Association, writes:
“The current planning and environmental frameworks have played a crucial role in protecting the New Forest’s special qualities. However, the proposed changes in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, particularly those aimed at streamlining planning approvals, accelerating infrastructure projects and weakening environmental safeguards, would seriously undermine those protections.”
This is not a political statement; it is a statement of concern for our most delicate and valuable rural areas.
Paul Holmes
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. The expert he quotes is from Hampshire, so as a Hampshire MP I am bound to say that she is spot on. My right hon. Friend is spot on too.
Many Members made contributions yesterday in which they raised concern about the Minister’s response to some of the environmental concerns that were raised, particularly by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), but also by the Liberal Democrats and Conservative Back Benchers. There are concerns that environmental protections will be diminished under this legislation. The Minister seemed, quite frankly, to not take those seriously. The quote my right hon. Friend read out is a very good example of why there are many people who are experts through their professions and who day to day live their ambitions to ensure that the environment is improved.
I note that the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal), has said, “When did you start caring about the environment?”. [Interruption.] She can intervene on me if she wants to, or if she wants to contribute to the debate she might want to bob.
As I said, Members across the House have made very well-intentioned appeals to the Minister. I hope that between now and when he winds up he will open up his arms and ensure that he looks seriously at the amendments, not just from my party but from all parties, that seek to strengthen this legislation.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that where CPO powers already exist, there is a massive lack of trust between landowners and the acquiring authority? All too often a proposal will be put on the table, and an agreement will be reached, but then the legal agreement that actually comes along is totally different. Does he agree that there needs to be a CPO code of practice that gives landowners much greater protection?
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is right. I would also say that there needs to be a code of practice for our tenant farmers. Two of our amendments, which I will speak to shortly, seek to meet the challenges that our farming and agricultural communities face with CPO. I will elaborate on that later, and my hon. Friend is welcome to intervene on me then if he does not find my explanation satisfactory.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I totally agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) has just said. So many of our constituents, particularly those in the farming community, are already feeling totally let down by this Government, and they feel that this is a further steamroller on their assets. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government might want to show our farming community, who they are already putting under immense pressure, that they are on their side on some of these issues, and probably for the first time in a very long time? So much has already been done to this community—and it does feel like things are being done to them rather than that they are being listened to as part of any process?
Paul Holmes
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pleaded with the Minister at the beginning of my remarks to meet the concerns of not only Conservative Members or the Green party or Liberal Democrats but key people who have communicated through consultations on this legislation that this will harm their livelihoods and make their lives worse.
New clause 85, tabled by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), would deliver a fairer, more just system of compensation for individuals who are forced to give up their homes or land through compulsory purchase. The current framework under the Land Compensation Act 1973 sets arbitrary caps and percentages on home loss and occupier’s loss payments, which often fail to reflect the true value of what is being lost. By aligning compensation more closely with the full market value of a person’s interest in their property, the new clause acknowledges the deep emotional, financial and practical disruption that compulsory purchase can cause. It would ensure that those displaced by development were not left worse off or unfairly penalised. In doing so, it would uphold the principle that the burden of public interest projects should not fall disproportionately on individual homeowners or landowners, helping to maintain trust and fairness in the planning system. The Minister could easily get behind that, as could other parties. Given some of the real challenges we have talked about that CPOs bring to people, the Minister should be slightly more open to amendments to the Bill that would make their lives easier.
I turn briefly to new clause 42, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), which would align compensation payments more fairly and transparently for occupiers affected by compulsory purchase by amending the Land Compensation Act 1973. It would increase occupier’s loss payments for agricultural and other land from 2.5% to 7.5%, bringing them more in line with basic loss payments. Additionally, it would remove arbitrary caps and fixed percentages on home loss payments and instead base compensation on the full market value of the interest in the dwelling. The change would ensure that those displaced or impacted by compulsory purchase would receive equitable and just compensation reflecting the true value of their property and losses. By modernising and standardising compensation provisions, we would argue that the new clause would support fairness for land-owners and occupiers, making the compulsory purchase process more balanced and respectful of individual rights, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) rightly mentioned in his intervention.
I turn briefly to other new clauses. New clause 114, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would require development corporations to provide or facilitate the provision of green spaces in their developments, including a variety of green areas such as
“private gardens, balconies, and community gardens”.
Furthermore, it would impose a duty on development corporations to ensure the ongoing care and maintenance of such green spaces. I hope that the hon. Member realises that I am doing him a favour by reading out his new clause.
The Opposition recognise the well-intentioned motivation behind the new clause, but I gently say to the Lib Dem spokesman, who yesterday rightly—this is no criticism—made a big play about the role of local authorities, elected councillors and local plans, that we believe that this area should be dealt with purely by our local government colleagues, councillors and planning committees. We should continue to give them the power to serve and react to our constituents’ wishes. We are keen that local authorities such as mine in Fareham and Eastleigh as well as those across the whole of the country have the power to do that for the people they serve. That was a key disagreement between us and the Government—the Liberal Democrats agreed with us—on that provision in the legislation. The Opposition believe that new clause 114 is not required in the legislation because local authorities can provide for that themselves.
I turn briefly to new clause 22 tabled by the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). Although it is a well-intentioned new clause to promote active travel infrastructure, it risks weakening the careful balance that compulsory purchase powers must maintain between public benefit and individual property rights. By pre-emptively deeming such projects to be in the public interest and lowering the evidential threshold for route justification, the new clause could enable the use of compulsory purchase orders without sufficient scrutiny or community consent, which raises legitimate concerns about fairness, proportionality and transparency, particularly in cases where landowners could lose property without rigorous demonstration that the chosen route was necessary and the best option available. Given the Conservatives’ long-held position on CPOs and the overreaching powers that the Secretary of State and the Minister want to award themselves in terms of CPOs, we do not think it would be right to give those same powers to local authorities or some of the new authorities outlined in the legislation.
Freddie van Mierlo
Is the shadow Minister in favour of using CPOs for road projects? The new clause would simply equalise the opportunity to use CPOs to deliver active travel with their use for road projects.
Paul Holmes
I understand, and I say this with respect to the hon. Gentleman: I think the new clause is well intentioned, but roads are absolutely necessary. Sometimes, on the CPO powers currently allocated in existing legislation, even though we disagree with some of the overreach that the Minister wants to put forward, we believe fundamentally in the rights and responsibilities of local government to decide how they want to allocate routes in localities. We agree that in some cases, as in my constituency, which covers half of Fareham and half of Eastleigh, there needs to be better co-ordination between local authorities. However, we fundamentally disagree with the extension and provision of powers, which we do not believe should be allocated, in new clause 22.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Will the shadow Minister explain why the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 created vast new powers for development corporations, if he believes that all such powers should be discharged by local authorities?
Paul Holmes
I knew that was coming from the hon. Gentleman. The last Government put forward many things in legislation that we are looking at again. We have been very clear about that, and I have been clear about what this new Conservative party stands for. We said throughout the Committee stage that we do not support the extension of powers within CPOs.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am aware that you are looking at me to move on. I will do so and restrict the number of interventions I take, as I am about to wind up. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I knew I would bring universal acclaim once again, including from my Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). I thank him.
We have had a robust debate in this House on this groundbreaking piece of legislation. As I have said repeatedly, much to the Minister’s embarrassment— I hope he takes this in the genuine spirit in which it is said—even though we have fundamental disagreements on the measures that he is taking to get what he wants later on, we know that he has a well-intentioned and principled approach. The Labour party won the election and we know that. However, that will not stop us having principled and robust arguments around our disagreements with the methods by which he wants to get there.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) indicated in her intervention, the Minister had—and still has—a chance to listen to some of the well-intentioned, educated and intellectual amendments and new clauses that have been proposed by all parties to strengthen the legislation and make it better.
Paul Holmes
I will briefly, but he will let me finish this point. The proposals have been put forward by all parties to ensure that the legislation is better and more efficient, but fundamentally serves the people who send us here and who want to see differences in the way in which their country is run. We argue that this legislation does not do that, we argue that this is a massive centralising overreach advocated by the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, and we stand fundamentally against it.
Paul Holmes
I will give way to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) first because he is a sparring partner from the Public Bill Committee—I hope he does not have another quote—and then I will give way to the hon. Lady.
Luke Murphy
Unfortunately, I have another quote, which is from yesterday. With regard to the Opposition’s amendments, can the shadow Minister point to a single measure that would increase the number of homes? All the changes directed at the Bill seem to be designed to impede development. I also want to ask him what he meant yesterday in his opening remarks, when he said,
“The last Government built the largest number of houses in history.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 693.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It might be helpful if I emphasised that we are not here to relitigate yesterday’s debate; we are here to debate the amendments that have been tabled today. I am sure the hon. Member will restrict his comments to that.
Paul Holmes
I was expecting so much from the hon. Gentleman, given how he intervened on me consistently in Committee with an encyclopaedic knowledge of my previous quotes. I did not know that he took such an interest in my career up until this point. I know, as a county neighbour, that he is a dedicated and assiduous Member of Parliament who genuinely stands up for his constituents. I will say to him that my comments yesterday were absolutely accurate. Over 1 million homes were approved, and many more first-time buyers were given the chance of owning a home, under the last Government.
Rachel Taylor
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the entertainment he provided throughout the Bill Committee’s proceedings, and for his generosity in the Tea Room. Talking about reflection, however, would he agree that when one looks in the mirror, one does not always like what one sees? The Minister has reflected on many of the proposals that were brought forward in Committee and he has clearly decided that those things would be better left in the national planning policy framework, as opposed to being in this legislation. Would the hon. Gentleman also agree that we do not have more young people buying and owning their own homes now than we did in 2010, and that the reason for that is—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady will have the opportunity to contribute later. Interventions really do need to be shorter than this.
Paul Holmes
I know that many of my hon. Friends were concerned to hear about my generosity in the Tea Room. It was simply that we were very tired and I bought an espresso for the Minister, just once. I did offer one to the Lib Dem spokesman, but I have not delivered on that promise—
Paul Holmes
I expect to see a “Focus” leaflet—or whatever the Lib Dems put out in Hamble Valley—saying that is a Tory broken promise, but when did we ever take notice of the accuracy of Lib Dem literature? But I will buy him one, I promise. With regard to looking in the mirror and not liking what we see, I wake up daily basis and consider how much weight I have gained in this House over the past four years.
What I will say to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) is that in Committee the Minister consistently said that he would reflect, so she is right; she has accepted the premise of my argument on this. However, not once in this legislation has the Minister made any attempt to take into account our serious concerns. He has not changed this piece of legislation once. This is a parliamentary democracy and there is not a monopoly on brilliant ideas, despite the fact that the Minister likes to think he has one.
If the Minister wanted to make the Bill better, he could look openly at some of our amendments and accept them. I know that when he stands up to make his winding-up remarks, he will not accept them and that this legislation will therefore not be able to be supported by all parties in this House. If he had made some changes that could have delivered to the people of this country, we would have been able to support it. This is a shame, because some of his genuine and well-intentioned attempts to change the housing market in this country will now not be achievable because of the Labour Government’s intransigence.
As I have said, the Minister could have made some decent changes to the Bill. We and the Green party and the Lib Dems had serious concerns on environmental standards—[Interruption.] I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary for a very long time, and I thought that PPSs were supposed to sit and ferry notes for their Minister, and not to contribute to the debate. I am having real difficulty with this consistent heckling from the two PPSs. They are aspiring to high office and I really do not think they should be carrying on in this way; I never did—then again, I was never a Minister, so there we go. I am a big fan of them both, of course.
I shall finish on this point. The Greens, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party had a real disagreement on environment standards, and it is still our contention that environment standards will not be improved under this legislation. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) tabled a number of amendments because experts had clearly stated their concern that environmental standards would be reduced under this legislation. The Minister did not make any concessions. On the centralisation and erosion of local powers for planning committees, we tabled a number of sensible amendments—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The shadow Minister will know that we are debating the amendments that have been selected today, on development corporations and compulsory purchase. Perhaps his final minute could be restricted to those subjects.
Paul Holmes
I heed your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. Development corporations are an over-centralisation of the measures that the Minister is proposing, and planning committees will lose some of their powers to them. The Minister has not moved once on that. The Bill will do more harm than good to the power of local councils and our constituents, and it will diminish environmental standards.
We stand against the legislation because of the Government’s intransigence. We will continue to stand up for environmental standards and for local authorities; it is a shame that the Minister has not done so. That is why we will not support the legislation.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I am delighted to speak to this monumental piece of legislation, which is so necessary and so important. I cannot help but notice that many times in the debate a false dichotomy has been presented of a choice between nature and biodiversity net gain on the one hand and planning, infrastructure, housing and development on the other. As someone who comes from the most beautiful constituency and county in England—[Interruption.] You all know it’s true. I stress that that natural beauty is vital, but that the people of North Northumberland also want more development.
Too often the debate has been about nature versus development. I note, for example, that amendment 151 assumes that development corporations will come into conflict with the need to tackle climate change. I believe that the Bill will be good for our natural world in so far as it unlocks the “little and often” developments that will help Northumbrians to revitalise their rural communities and protect natural landscapes. As the MP for a constituency with a natural landscape, including a dozen sites of special scientific interest and half a national park, I cannot help but be awed by that beauty.
As amendment 151 acknowledges, our natural world faces an uncertain future, with climate change and other pressures. Organisations such as the Northumberland National Park Authority and the Northumberland Wildlife Trust do excellent work in stewarding Northumberland’s unique ecological inheritance. I encourage the Government to continue having a genuine dialogue with environmental groups as the Bill progresses and is implemented in due course. Our language and approach must honour our commitment to environmental stewardship, and we need to thread the needle of sustainable development together.
Perhaps the greatest threat to the ecological treasure trove that is my constituency is more straightforward: dwindling rural communities and the challenges that the next generation face in building a future for themselves in rural Britain. North Northumberland, for example, is ageing. Only 16% of its residents are children, while 30% are over 65—10% more than the national average.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
To bring the hon. Member back to the compulsory purchase measures in part 5 of the Bill, which we are discussing today, many residents along the A1 corridor have been severely impacted by the Government’s decision not to continue the development of the A1. Will he consider supporting our new clause 42, which would increase the occupier’s loss payment from 2.4% to 7.5%? That would help many of his constituents along the A1 corridor. With the new clause in place, they would receive bigger payments for compulsory purchase orders along the A1 corridor.
David Smith
All I can say is simply that I have been working with constituents who have been affected by the compulsory purchase orders, and I will continue to do so. The hon. Gentleman and I may disagree about whether that project should ever have gone ahead under the previous Government.
On rural development, where are the future rangers, conservationists and gamekeepers? Where is the next generation of farm hands to deliver environmental land management schemes?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I will keep reiterating the point: we are not going to relitigate yesterday’s debate, and we should be discussing the amendments that have been tabled on compulsory purchase orders, development corporations and extraterritorial environmental concerns. The hon. Gentleman might like to think of a way to weave those topics into his remarks, rather than rehashing either yesterday’s debate or a Second Reading speech.
David Smith
I am simply trying to make the point that many of the amendments proposed seem to set up a false dichotomy between the ability to develop our country, including with housing, and to protect the natural environment.
I will give one example of that. Norham parish council in my constituency is trying to open up a plot of land for a small development, because it sees the value of young families moving into the village. That development would go some way towards securing the future of the first school and the community at large. It is not helpful for the parish council to be caught up in red tape, which diminishes the possibility of that development happening. A recent local report said that nearly one in two businesses in rural Northumberland cited a shortage of affordable local housing for staff as a key barrier to business.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend recognise the value that development corporations have brought to new towns such as Harlow? New towns are a great example of where we can have affordable housing but also the environmental aspect, with green fingers and green wedges.
David Smith
Absolutely. There need not be this false dichotomy between what development corporations can do and the protection of our natural environment.
Rural Great Britain is crying out for “little and often” development. We can get this right, and the Bill is trying to deliver that by cutting through labyrinthine planning rules so that we can have more homes and more infrastructure. If there is no one left in rural communities, the natural world will be without the stewards and protectors that it requires.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos
I reiterate my thanks to all members of the Bill Committee and to the Clerks and officials, who I know had plenty to be getting on with during our sittings.
I am grateful for the support of my colleagues for the amendments I have tabled. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 22 on active travel, and new clause 114 on open spaces in new towns and other development corporation developments, and our amendments 88 and 89 on recreational land, form our key proposals for this part of the Bill. All of them urge the Government to go further when it comes to releasing land value for infrastructure that meets community and environmental needs.
On part 5 of the Bill generally, our compulsory purchase proposals included that where major permissions of over 100 homes are not built out, greater powers to acquire that land for housing would be given to councils in a new “use it or lose it” planning permission. I was delighted to hear in the news that the Government are taking up that idea—although I gained a slightly different impression in Committee—even if the promise of more conditionally approved compulsory purchase orders will not give councils the same strong “use it or lose it” power that our amendment would have.
Wary of your strictures to stay on topic, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will briefly allow me to add my welcome to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) of the fact that, following the introduction of his private Member’s Bill, the Government, to their credit, have agreed that all new homes will be fitted with solar panels as standard—his sunshine Bill really is “winning here”—bringing zero emissions a step closer, after all the hard work of Liberal Democrat and Labour Ministers on zero-carbon homes, before the Conservatives cancelled the programme in 2015.
I turn to our amendments on compulsory purchase and development corporations. Our community-led approach is about the essential infrastructure people want to see being put in place ahead of the building of new homes. Clause 104 could support that by helping the building of council and social homes. It would reward landowners with a fair value, rather than inflated prices from an imaginary planning permission no one has ever applied for, as set out in section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961. Our manifesto supports that for the delivery of council houses, and we are supportive of steps that ensure that landowners are awarded fair compensation, rather than inflated prices, for specific types of development scheme.
However, at my meeting with farmers in North Curry on Friday, there was concern about the idea—possibly as a result of rumours—that under the clause, farmers would lose land to Natural England so that it could carry out its environmental delivery plans, and in return would get only a reduced payment. I am not convinced that is what the clause does, but family farms have had a tough time recently. They provide food for our tables, and they have been hit hard by risky trade deals with Australia and New Zealand under the last Government, followed by a new inheritance tax on small family farms, the underspend of the agricultural budget, and the closing of the sustainable farming initiative.
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman just said that CPO powers are, to the landlord, an inconvenience. I would say that having a home, farm or business taken is absolute devastation, not an inconvenience.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman knows he is talking absolute rubbish because those are not the words I said at all. What I said was that the occupiers’ loss payments “are made to recognise inconvenience”. He may have misheard me. I did not say that farmers were an inconvenience or anything of the kind, and Hansard will reflect that. As the proposed payments would clobber the taxpayer by making them pay double the land’s value, we cannot support the new clause.
On the contrary, we say that people are fed up with money going to private developers, leaving local people with little to show for the sacrifices that they are making for new construction projects. There are further areas where the maximum commercial value of land should not have to be paid by public and community bodies. Under amendments 88 and 89, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), hope value would not have to be paid in CPO cases where land is being acquired for sport or recreation. Her new clause 107, relating to disposals of land by public bodies, would ensure that top dollar did not have to be paid where the Secretary of State certified that the disposal was for “public good”; in those cases, a discounted price could be paid.
As we have heard, another Liberal Democrat amendment, new clause 22 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), would provide a “compelling case” justification for compulsorily purchasing land for new footpaths and cycle paths. Knowing the location of Haddenham and Thame parkway station as I do, I congratulate him on this key proposal, which would really help his constituents.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Local authorities could really do with compulsory purchase powers for cycling and walking paths. The Devon local cycling and walking infrastructure plan that came out last December said that
“certain private sector development…may come forward sooner, or later, than anticipated”.
Local authorities do not have any control over when they can put in walking and cycling paths. Would my hon. Friend’s amendment correct that?
Gideon Amos
The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame would definitely provide a much stronger justification for a CPO that enabled footpaths and cycle paths to be made. As he said, it would create a more level playing field with the compulsory purchase powers already in use for highways. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). New clause 22 is a very logical amendment, and there is no logical reason why Ministers should reject it, although that has not stopped them so far; I hope that they break the habit of a lifetime.
We are clear in our amendments that communities should lead, and should be in the driving seat, when it comes to development and land. When people see the infrastructure for which they have been calling, it drives more community consent for the homes we need and the communities that we want to build. We need infrastructure for nature as well. Good places to live have gardens, open spaces, parks and meadows, so our new clause 114 would charge development corporations with ensuring those things.
I remind the shadow Minister that development corporations discharged planning powers under Conservative Governments, just as under Labour and coalition Governments. It is not always local authorities that deliver development. It is therefore right to ensure that development corporations discharge their duties as effectively as possible. If and when they build new towns and major developments, as the Government want them to, they must ensure open spaces for nature—spaces that work for people and our environment. Amendment 151 would require them to report regularly on their environmental and climate duties.
The first garden cities were supported by a Liberal Government and built without felling a single tree, as the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) confirmed yesterday. Their successes were emulated, and they are still emulated in the best developments, right up until today. The vision was a radical one of bringing people and the environment, town and country, and nature and humanity closer together. Those pioneers ensured healthier places to live in, an objective that our new clause 6, promoted by the Town and Country Planning Association, would insert in the planning objectives. Today, however, we face the much greater challenge of saving nature, as well as community cohesion and consent, before it is too late.
These amendments may not pass, but make no mistake: there are no greater threats to our way of life than the breakdown of trust, which risks destroying communities, and the breakdown of our environment, which is destroying nature. Those are the challenges that our amendments would tackle head-on, and I humbly urge Members to support them.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Once more unto the breach. I rise to speak in favour of amendment 68 in my name, and I hope to find as much common ground with Ministers as possible. I fully agree with the Government that we need bold reform of the planning system to tackle the housing crisis, and that is what even stronger reform of CPOs would deliver.
We have substantially more homes per capita than we did 50 years ago, yet over that time, house prices in the UK have risen by 3,878%. The Minister for Housing and Planning was right to argue that housing supply is not a panacea for affordability. There have been 724,000 more net additional dwellings than new households in England since 2015, so the Deputy Prime Minister was right to argue that there is plenty of housing already, but not enough for the people who desperately need it. The fundamental planning reform we need is an end to the developer-led model, which Shelter estimates is on track to deliver just 5,190 social rented homes per year, despite those being the very properties that we need to reduce waiting lists and get families out of temporary accommodation.
The housing crisis is one of inequality. We must move away from reliance on the vested interests of private developers, whose priorities will never align with the public good. Amendment 68 is intended to ensure just that. Half of England is owned by less than 1% of its population. Between 1995 and 2022, land values rose by more than 600% to £7.2 trillion, which amounts to more than 60% of the UK’s net worth. The amendment would build on Government proposals to give councils the land assembly powers necessary to acquire sites to meet local housing need at current use value, and so would do away with speculative hope value prices, which put taxpayers’ money into wealthy landowners’ pockets. That would finally make it affordable for local authorities to deliver the new generation of council homes that is the true solution to this nation’s housing crisis.
If we coupled strengthened compulsory purchase powers with a more strategic approach to site identification and acquisition, we could not only increase the amount of affordable housing built, but achieve genuinely sustainable development, and would no longer be beholden to whatever ill-suited proposals developers chose to bring forward.
The failings of our developer-led planning system are writ large across my constituency. In the 10 years from 2014 to 2024, North Hertfordshire and East Hertfordshire delivered a significant expansion of housing supply—3,973 and 7,948 net additional dwellings respectively. What happened to local authority housing waiting lists over the same period? They rose from 1,612 to 2,449 in North Hertfordshire and from 2,005 to 2,201 in East Hertfordshire. There have been more than enough new homes in my area to clear housing waiting lists, but the affordable homes we need are simply not delivered by a profit-driven model. A further fact stands out: over that decade, during which housing supply and waiting lists grew simultaneously in North and East Hertfordshire, not a single council house was built in either authority.
It is time for a genuine alternative to this farce. I urge the Government to look closely at the amendment, and to push onwards to create a planning system that once again puts people before profit.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I will speak to the amendments relating to compulsory purchase powers, and to my new clause 128. I note that much of the Bill and most of the clauses will not affect Scotland, but, unusually for a planning Bill, there are components that do affect it.
Before I talk about the detail of my concerns about compulsory purchase powers, I want to set out a little of the context, and say why the issue is exercising so many of my constituents. I am privileged to represent the Scottish Borders—the place I call home. It is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom, but it is under attack. The net-zero-at-all-costs agenda of this UK Labour Government, backed by the SNP in Edinburgh, is causing huge concern to my constituents. Massive pylons, solar farms, wind farms and battery storage units are ruining the Scottish Borders as we know them, and compulsory purchase powers are a key part of delivering many of those projects.
Wendy Morton
When it comes to infrastructure, such as battery energy storage systems, it is not just the Scottish Borders that are affected, but areas like mine, Aldridge-Brownhills in the west midlands. I support what my hon. Friend says about this feeling like encroachment, and about increasing compulsory purchase powers. Where will it end?
John Lamont
I share my right hon. Friend’s concerns. Ultimately, this is about choices. The choice that this Government and the Scottish Government are making is whether we protect our natural environment, and the rural communities that have sustained food production for many years, or turn them into an industrial wasteland. The compulsory purchase powers in the Bill that affect my constituency in Scotland will affect many similar communities in England.
My constituents in the Scottish Borders have had their fair share of new developments. In the Scottish Borders, the countryside is where we live. It is not some distant, remote area that is occasionally visited by tourists from Edinburgh or London; it is the place we call home. Compulsory purchase powers must be exercised with appropriate checks and balances in order to protect our communities, whether in Scotland or in other parts of the UK.
I now turn specifically to the amendment that stands in my name, new clause 128, which deals with compulsory purchase and the community benefit related to it. We all know that when compulsory purchase takes place, it is difficult and often devastating for those who are directly affected. Too often, though, we fail to recognise the impact on the wider community, especially when it comes to new energy infrastructure. We have to improve the relationship between those affected and those acquiring the land. Compulsory purchase can be a complex and intimidating process.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about choices, but this is also about fairness. The compulsory purchase powers contained in part 5 of the Bill disregard any hope value over and above agricultural value, which is not fair at all for those landowners who are having their land compulsorily acquired. If my hon. Friend’s new clause were accepted, the 20% to which he refers would be 20% of the agricultural value rather than the market value, as the Government have stipulated, so less money would be going into the benefit scheme. Would it not be better if the Government were advocating market value for compulsory purchase, rather than disregarding it in favour of agricultural value?
John Lamont
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I agree with him. I am sure he will speak to those points further when he contributes later. We should be protecting the market value and not doing anything to interfere with the market—not least because if my new clause were accepted, it would improve the community benefit fund, which in turn would benefit the local residents who are directly affected by these types of projects. If the Bill could be improved in this way, it would be better for the people who live in rural communities, such as those in the Scottish Borders.
As we saw again yesterday, this UK Labour Government have U-turned a lot over the past few months. I hope they will take this opportunity to listen to right hon. and hon. Members from across the House so that we can protect our beautiful environment, protect nature, and do better for rural communities.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is an honour to speak in this important debate. I will address three amendments that stand in my name: amendments 88 and 89, which go together and relate to hope value, and new clause 107, which relates to the disposal of public land.
Amendments 88 and 89 are linked and represent a simple yet important change to the Bill. They would extend the circumstances in which hope value may be disregarded in the event of a compulsory purchase order to include playing fields and recreational facilities. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues warmly welcome the important changes in the Bill. Ministers have brought forward measures to reform the CPO process for the purpose of building more affordable homes, so that hope value no longer over-inflates land prices for acquiring authorities. However, I believe that a prime opportunity has been missed. As such, my amendments seek to include recreational facilities such as playing fields in these provisions when an acquiring authority—for instance, a local authority—is using a compulsory purchase order to acquire land for use as a sports or recreational facility. They would ensure that hope value would not be applied, thus making the cost more affordable and helping to boost grassroots sports provision in communities up and down the country.
We in Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons, St Margarets and Whitton are incredibly fortunate to have a thriving grassroots sports scene, from football to cricket, rugby, hockey, tennis and much more. Girls’ and women’s football is just one example of the continued growth in grassroots sports in my constituency; my own daughter plays with the growing number of girls’ teams at Whitton Wanderers, and Twickenham Cygnets now boasts over 300 girls and has 40 women—Twickenham Swans—on its books. However, they are at the point of turning more away because they simply cannot get the pitch space to train and play matches. This problem affects many clubs across the country, and certainly right across the London borough of Richmond upon Thames. At the same time, we have the absolute scandal of Udney Park playing fields in Teddington lying derelict for more than a decade, with successive developers paying over the odds for the site, only to be rightly prevented from developing it; that precious site has numerous protections attached to it.
The brilliant Udney Park Community Fields Foundation —a community group in my constituency led by Jonathan Dunn, who has been a tireless campaigner for grassroots sports—has repeatedly bid for the site to bring the playing fields back into community use. The current owner has given notice that he wants to sell the playing fields, but has not engaged with the foundation at a realistic playing fields valuation. Trying to recoup a high purchase price for this precious and well-protected site does not look feasible. Extending the Bill’s provisions to playing fields to allow hope value to be disregarded for a compulsory purchase order could allow such sites to be acquired by the local authority or another public body.
Richmond council, like many other local authorities, is hardly awash with cash, but simply having that provision in law would provide leverage for community groups when they have to negotiate with developers, as we have seen in the case of Udney Park. I am certain that Udney Park is not the only example where this is happening. I was therefore extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response to these amendments in Committee, which, with all due respect, was contradictory. He rejected them on the following basis:
“Affordable housing, education and health are types of public sector-led development where the public benefits facilitated through the non-payment of hope value can be directly demonstrable to local communities. The Government have concerns that the provisions would be less compelling for sporting and recreational facilities.”––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2025; c. 489.]
I say that sport and physical activity are critical to physical and mental health, and he said that health is an important public benefit for the purposes of disregarding hope value.
Just yesterday, Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport stated that the Government
“are committed to supporting the growth of grassroots sports across the UK.”
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport made a brilliant speech last night at an event attended by many Members in this place to launch the inspirational Lionesses’ campaign to defend their European crown. She was passionate about the importance of grassroots sports and extending opportunity to every community. She has announced £100 million of investment in grassroots sports facilities, which is extremely welcome.
The change proposed through my amendments would help Ministers to achieve the important objective of expanding sports and recreation grounds without costing them a penny. It would not encroach on the principle that the use of CPO powers must be proportionate and justified in the public interest, given that Ministers have so strongly and correctly championed the growth of grassroots sport across the UK as being in the public interest. The amendments would apply solely to land that is already sports field or recreational land, where there is local need for that sports and recreational facility and it is at risk of loss to speculative development.
It is entirely proportionate and justified in the public interest that CPO powers and the removal of hope value should apply in such circumstances, so it defies all logic that Ministers have not embraced this change and that they continue to oppose it. I look forward to hearing an explanation from the Minister. I hope he will at least commit to engaging further on this issue as the Bill moves to the other place. Perhaps he will meet me to discuss it, rather than dismissing it completely.
Let me turn to new clause 107, which is also in my name. There is cross-party consensus on the dire need for more housing across our country. The Liberal Democrats have a strong commitment to delivering desperately needed social housing, so it was disappointing to see Labour Members vote against our amendment 15 last night to write a social housing target into law. One important way to secure sites for social and affordable housing is when public bodies dispose of land and buildings. In constituencies such as mine, with its royal park, a river and other important protected parks and spaces, sites are few and far between, yet week in, week out I see cases in my inbox and at my constituency surgeries of families on the social housing waiting list for years, with little hope of getting out of desperately overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation.
I am incredibly proud that Liberal Democrat-run Richmond council has consistently sought to repurpose, and sell below market value, sites that it owns but no longer needs to provide for more social homes from which families in my constituency can benefit. The council has done this despite the immense pressures on local government funding, but sadly other public bodies do not feel able to do the same, whether they are national Government Departments such as the Ministry of Defence, key public services such as the Metropolitan police, or arm’s length bodies such as NHS England. They all want to achieve as high a price as they can when selling assets that they no longer need in order to be able to invest in frontline public services. That is a laudable and important aim, but it prices social housing providers, and other public service providers, out of the market, while losing assets from the public sector balance sheet at the same time.
New clause 107 would fill the gaps in the existing patchwork of legislation and regulation that is somewhat piecemeal in the public bodies included and is not properly used to allow all public sector bodies to sell assets below market value for public benefit, whether that is for social housing or for much-needed community infrastructure like health facilities or a community centre. Not only would it extend that provision to all public bodies; it would go further still by imposing a duty on all public bodies to at least consider disposing of assets for public good.
This wide-ranging new clause builds on my successful campaign in the last Parliament, when I worked with a succession of Conservative Housing Ministers to secure a change in the then Bill, which became the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, that included police authorities under existing provisions to sell public assets below market value for public good. My campaign was born of frustration about the fact that the disused Teddington police station lies derelict in my constituency. A local housing association and the Park Road GP surgery are desperate to obtain the site to expand and provide state-of-the-art GP facilities on the ground floor, as well as much-needed social housing on the floors above. This Government think that all members of the public are blockers, but I can tell the Minister that the Teddington community are right behind my campaign, and we will fight tooth and nail to ensure that when the Met puts the site on the market we can obtain the GP surgery and housing that our community desperately need at a reasonable price, which will almost certainly not be as high as private developers can offer.
I secured the legislative basis to achieve that ambition in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, but in many other cases the provision is not there or is not used. Furthermore, the amount below market value for which some public sector bodies can dispose of their assets has not been updated since 2003. New clause 107 seeks to address that anomaly, although I note that the Conservative Government made a commitment to consulting on and reviewing the amount—something that did not happen before they left office, and something that the present Government have not implemented since they took power last year.
The Chancellor herself has previously said that surplus Government land is a
“huge untapped resource that could create opportunities for the next generation of homeowners.”
I warmly welcomed the news in March that Network Rail would set up a property company to use surplus land for house building. There is so much more than just Network Rail land, but we need both the legislative basis for public sector disposals below market value and the incentives to achieve those sales. I do not blame the Metropolitan Police Commissioner for wanting to get top dollar for Teddington police station, especially when I read about the cuts that he is having to make to frontline policing and the intransigence of the Treasury when it comes to proper funding for the community policing that the Government have promised.
I say to Ministers that this is robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need a duty on all public bodies, and financial incentives from the Treasury for them to repurpose or sell their assets for community good. We can achieve the homes and public services that our country desperately needs, not by ripping up our green belt and precious open spaces but by thinking creatively about how we repurpose existing sites, including those already owned by the taxpayer. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Robbie Moore
I rise to speak about new clause 127 and amendment 153, both of which are in my name.
Compulsory purchase is a highly emotive and highly controversial subject. Indeed, much of yesterday’s debate was taken up by discussion of precisely the new CPO powers that the Bill will grant to Natural England and local authorities. The fact that under the Bill a farmer in Keighley can be told how to use his land, on pain of a CPO, as a result of a development in Kent is complete and utter madness, but that is exactly the intention of the Bill. No matter where someone owns land, they may be put at detriment by a scheme that is taking place elsewhere. That is exactly what the Government intend to do through the additional CPO powers: to give Natural England—an organisation with which I have huge frustration and which, dare I say it, is not accountable robustly to a Minister—more power to use compulsory purchase orders.
Wendy Morton
I share my hon. Friend’s frustrations with Natural England. Does he agree that it is a bit strange that we have a Government who say they want to reduce the number of quangos, but who have reduced it by one and introduced 27? In this Bill, they are giving more powers to an unelected quango, which risks doing further untold damage to our green fields, our open spaces and our farmland.
Robbie Moore
That is exactly why I am so frustrated by the intent of the Government’s Bill. It gives Natural England more compulsory purchase powers, more funds through environmental delivery plans, and an ability to scrutinise and, indeed, to dictate to landowners how their land or farm may be utilised. That is wrong, especially when, as I say, a farmer farming in my constituency of Keighley could be subject to a CPO as a result of a development elsewhere in the country.
The Government and I absolutely disagree on the right to use CPO, and I really struggle with the expansion of section 14A orders, which will allow an acquiring authority to discount the hope value of a seized property. Property rights matter, because they are the foundation of our society. If the state chooses to use its powers to confiscate the property of a law-abiding person, stipulates how that land must be used, and then tells the landowner how much they are entitled to receive, that is wrong—in my view, it is an absolute theft of private property. So-called hope value is not a capitalist trick, a racket or unfair; it is simply the true market value of the property. That is why I fundamentally disagree with the purpose of the Bill, which entails the Government’s stipulating that hope value must be disregarded over and above the agricultural value that is to be paid. It should not be the law that decides the value of something; it should be down to negotiation and the market.
That brings me to fairness. Although I admire the Government’s aspiration to increase development, the Bill is fundamentally flawed on the issue of fairness, because it takes away the property rights of landowners—the very landowners who will have been encouraged by their local authorities to put forward their land to be zoned as part of a local plan, and encouraged through a service level agreement process to have their land zoned for housing, employment or whatever it may be. As a result of this piece of legislation, the local authority, or indeed Natural England, will have the ability to compulsorily acquire the land not at market value, but at agricultural value.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The powers to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and which his amendment seeks to remove— I will come on to speak about it in more detail—were set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he voted for that Act? He voted for these powers.
Robbie Moore
But the Government are going way beyond that and giving more powers to local authorities and, indeed, Natural England. If the Minister has gone out and spoken to anyone in the agricultural world, he will realise that trust in Natural England is shot, yet the Government are giving it more powers to compulsorily acquire land and then effectively dictate to our farmers and landowners how their land is to be managed. I am not in favour of that. That is why I urge the Government to consider my new clause 127 and amendment 153. It is frustrating that, despite this issue being raised in Committee, the Government have not given it due consideration, and I therefore urge them to rethink their position.
Section 14A orders represent an attempt to run roughshod over our landowners. We can debate the merits of that approach, but we must start by calling it out for what it is. This Bill extends the section 14A powers to parish councils and Natural England, and applies the cut valuation of occupier’s loss, which is a separate payment meant to reflect the disruption to the occupier, not the loss of an asset. That is exactly why I wholeheartedly support Opposition new clause 42, which would increase the occupier’s loss payment from 2.5% to 7.5% of what is paid for the land. It adds to my frustration that the valuation will be based on the agricultural value, not the market value.
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that one of the flaws of the Bill, which his amendments attempt to address, is that it overreaches not only in attacking property rights in this country and interfering with the market, but in taking away key aspects of democratic accountability? That is why so many of our constituents across the United Kingdom are so concerned about what the Bill attempts to do.
Robbie Moore
That is exactly why I urge the Government, as I have throughout the passage of the Bill—I know this point was also raised in Committee—to realise the huge level of disenfranchisement it represents for landowners. This Bill is not introducing fairness into the system, because it does not enable the state to pay the market value that should be attributed to anything that is compulsorily acquired. That is why I do not support the Bill, and I will be proud to vote against it on Third Reading.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way during his speech against all the things he voted for under the last Government, but I am confused by Opposition Members. Is there no limit to the amount of taxpayers’ money they would give to landowners, rather than to councils so that they can build social housing, roads and the other public facilities we need?
Robbie Moore
Here we have the Liberal Democrats setting out their position, and it is a good that they are doing so because I fundamentally believe that if a farmer owns land and the state seizes control of it through compulsory purchase powers, it is absolutely right that that farmer should be rewarded with the market value, not the agricultural value. I know the Liberal Democrats have set out their position that they fully support just agricultural value being paid, not what the land is really worth at market value, and I hope all farmers across the country understand the Liberal Democrat position, which is to disregard that hope value.
I want to know whether the Government have undertaken an impact assessment on the Valuation Office Agency. As we go through the compulsory purchase process, there will be many a challenge—quite rightly—by land agents or valuers acting on behalf of those many landowners to understand the true value of their land. I fear that the Valuation Office Agency will not be able to cope with the level of scrutiny there will rightly be of the Government’s position.
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend has set out some of the challenges the Bill presents for the farming community. Part 5 provides authorities with significant compulsory purchase powers, but with no definition or limits whatsoever. For our farming community, this all comes on top of the changes to agricultural property relief, business property relief and inheritance tax, and the increased national insurance for employers. What is it about the farming community that this Government do not like?
Robbie Moore
The farming community faces so much uncertainty not only as a result of the Bill, but because of all the additional pressures, whether it is the family farm tax or the increases in overheads, that are hitting cash flow this year.
That is why my new clause 127 and amendment 153 —and, indeed, Opposition new clause 42—are so important. It is frustrating that the Government are just throwing out these amendments and are not willing to consider them, because they have been put forward in the best interests of our farming community and our landowners, so that the state does not have the control that this Government are willing to give it. I urge the Government to consider these very practical, sensible amendments to the Bill.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I am happy to speak today in support of amendment 151, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). Our planning system needs reform, but the approach the Government are taking in the Bill is sadly all wrong and desperately needs to be amended.
Amendment 151 would compel the Secretary of State to produce a report that addresses a key principle of my concern with the current house building regime, which is good design. I am pleased that in drafting clause 93, the Government have recognised that good design goes hand in hand with sustainable development, but we need to see evidence that the houses we are getting are actually being designed and built better if we are to be confident that we are not just getting more of the same from the big developers.
No one has ever told me that they want more energy-inefficient chocolate box homes, buried deep in rabbit warren estates and built to maximise developer profit. What we see too often in North Norfolk is homes that people do not like and cannot afford, but which they must queue up to buy because there is no other option. I was horrified recently to find that developers had put covenants on an entire estate to ban branded vehicles from parking on private driveways—they might as well have marketed those homes as for rich second home owners only. That is not how we want to design our communities of the future.
The Government are already taking steps towards good design by accepting the provisions of the sunshine Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), which mandates solar panels on new builds. It can sometimes seem that politicians ignore good ideas if they come from Opposition parties, so I am particularly pleased that the Government have come to share the Liberal Democrats’ view that having solar panels on new builds is just common sense.
It is not just about the homes themselves; good design is also about how and where we build new houses. People are growing tired, rightly, of estates that are designed around car use, rather than putting public transport or walking and cycling at the heart of design. We can encourage more people to walk or use public transport if we design developments in a way that makes it easy and attractive to do just that. When we use scheme design to encourage walking and cycling rather than car use, access to public transport rather than car parks, and routes that take people to town centres rather than bypasses, we see the benefits right across society: in reduced pressure on health services, in better natural environments and in more cohesive, resilient communities.
Good design will also support the second key aim that amendment 151 seeks to have the Government report on, which is tackling the climate emergency. It is simple: a development that means fewer fossil fuel-powered cars are required to be on the roads will be better for the planet than one that does not.
I do not think that people in North Norfolk are unreasonable in asking for developments to be affordable to buy or rent and sustainable and low cost to heat and power, and to feel connected to communities and not a burden on them. My constituents want to end the housing crisis, but they do not want it done through unaccountable, top-down targets. They want a design-led approach to planning and infrastructure development. I hope the Government hear our proposals to achieve that and support them today.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
In my constituency, we have seen the consequences of house building without the infrastructure to match. This Bill is such a missed opportunity: the Government are repeating the same top-down, developer-led approach that has already failed, sidelining communities, undermining local plans and cutting local councillors out of key decisions. That is why I rise today to speak in support of some amendments.
The current system often sees vital infrastructure lagging or not being delivered for years after houses have been occupied because the delivery of infrastructure is left to developers that submit viability studies and variations of conditions. We need a planning system that puts people and places first, and that includes high-quality active travel infrastructure.
We are lucky in Stratford-on-Avon to have the much cherished Greenway, a traffic-free five-mile cycle path and bridleway, but we also need cycling and pedestrian infrastructure in high-volume streets in our towns so that children and young people can travel to school safely and families can access services, while reducing car journeys and keeping people fit and healthy.
In the rural areas of my constituency, the Two Shires Greenway group is campaigning for an ambitious cycling route along a disused railway. These will link villages to the towns of Stratford and Alcester in my constituency and then further afield to Evesham. But beyond the feasibility studies, the fragmentation of land ownership is an issue. That is why I support new clause 22, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), which strengthens powers to compulsorily purchase land for active travel routes.
Richard Foord
That sounds similar to the Otter Trail in my patch, which would link Feniton to King’s School at Ottery St Mary. Does my hon. Friend agree that these new active travel paths will enable young people to get to school safely?
Manuela Perteghella
Yes, absolutely. We need to ensure that our new generation of young people are fit and healthy and able to cycle. That would also reduce carbon emissions in our towns. We need high-quality cycling infrastructure to ensure that all this happens.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is making a principled speech. Can she explain to the House why she does not think the current local plan regime is adequate to ensure that we have sustainable travel routes? Bringing CPOs into such areas would be regressive to people’s rights and responsibilities.
Manuela Perteghella
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. Let me take the case of the disused railway in my constituency. It is not in public ownership any more, and it is fragmented. We can fund as many feasibility studies as we want to invest in cycling infrastructure, but an incidental green space is not used by landowners at all. If we compulsorily purchased such land—obviously we would offer compensation—we could have high-quality cycling infrastructure that would link up villages to the major towns, so that people can attend GP appointments, schools and so on. The paths are also off-road—away from our gridlocked roads.
Development must come with green and wild spaces, not just tarmac and bricks. That is why I strongly support new clause 114, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), which would ensure that development corporations include green space provision in all new developments. Green spaces are not a luxury; they are essential for mental health, biodiversity, wildlife, flood prevention and community cohesion. Like green spaces, playing fields and recreational facilities are fundamental for the development of grassroots sports and for youth opportunities, and therefore I support amendments 88 and 89 of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).
We also need serious, measurable action on climate. Development corporations are being handed significant powers, yet the Bill fails to guarantee that they are delivering in line with the UK’s climate targets. That is why amendment 151 is so important. It would ensure that the Secretary of State publishes a report on whether development corporations are meeting their legal duties on sustainable development and climate change. With so much at stake, we need transparency and accountability built into the system.
Finally, we need new homes that are genuinely affordable, warm and built to high standards. In Stratford, many families and young people are priced out of their own community. It is not enough to build houses; we must build the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure, green spaces and recreational and sports facilities that create communities.
I urge the Government to back these amendments and take this opportunity to deliver a planning system that is fair, sustainable and community led.
Matthew Pennycook
It is a pleasure to respond to what has been a thoughtful and, largely, well-informed debate about a piece of legislation that is, to quote the shadow Minister, “groundbreaking”. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon. Can I take the opportunity to thank the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), for their robust but civil and fair approach to scrutiny in Committee?
I want to respond to the key amendments and the arguments that have been made this afternoon. Among other reforms and interventions, the Government are clear that significantly boosting our housing supply requires a renewed focus on building large-scale new communities across England. Development corporations are vital vehicles for delivering large-scale and complex regeneration and development projects. The Bill creates a clearer, more flexible and more robust framework to ensure that they can operate effectively. While there is clearly widespread support across the House for the effective use of development corporations where appropriate, a number of amendments have been tabled that seek to impose specific requirements on them.
New clause 114 in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington would ensure that development corporations include provision for green spaces in new developments. The Government absolutely agree that delivery of large-scale development and regeneration projects must include the provision and stewardship of green space, which has a wide range of benefits, including supporting health and wellbeing, climate mitigation and adaptation, and biodiversity and wildlife.
We do not believe that the new clause is necessary to deliver on these objections. First, development corporations have a strong track record of providing suitable green space. Ebbsfleet development corporation, for example, has a target for the delivery of parks, open spaces and recreation areas, providing almost 15 hectares of parks in recent years, and this year aiming to provide around 10 hectares of new parks and open spaces.
Secondly, development corporations that take on local plan-making powers are already subject to national planning policies, including those concerning green infrastructure. This means that where development corporations take on local planning authority powers, any planning decisions made should be informed by the national planning policy framework, which, as hon. Members will be aware, is a material consideration when determining planning applications.
As the House will know, the NPPF sets out policies to encourage the provision of green infrastructure and outlines that plans should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, making sufficient provision for the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including green infrastructure. The NPPF also sets out that planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision that plans should seek to accommodate. It is the Government’s view that the duty proposed in this new clause may unhelpfully constrain some development corporations—for example, where development corporations are designated specifically for the redevelopment of smaller commercial spaces.
On the stewardship of green spaces, each development corporation has a designated oversight authority, which is either the Secretary of State, a mayor, or local authorities, and it is for them to set specific frameworks for stewardship arrangements. Although I commend the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for once again highlighting this important issue, I hope that with the explanation I have provided he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
I turn to the reforms to compulsory purchase in the Bill, which are designed to improve the CPO process and land compensation rules to enable more effective land assembly through public sector-led schemes. New clause 127 and amendment 153 tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) would repeal section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961. Let us be clear: the amendments propose to repeal a power introduced by the last Conservative Government, in which the hon. Member served and in which he voted for the specific piece of legislation containing the power.
The power allows acquiring authorities to take forward certain types of scheme by compulsory purchase and to pay a reduced value for land where it will deliver clear and significant benefits and is justified in the public interest. The hon. Member’s amendments do not seek, as proposed in the Bill, to limit the extension of the power to parish and county councils or to the use of compulsory purchase powers as they apply to Natural England. The amendments seek to repeal a power contained in a piece of legislation that he voted for, and it is frankly embarrassing to listen to him try to explain that sharp U-turn.
To support the delivery of the housing and infrastructure that this country desperately needs, we must make better use of underutilised land across the country. We know that many local authorities share this objective, but their plans are often frustrated by unrealistic compensation expectations on the part of landowners. This can result in significant amounts of developable land remaining unused and overpriced, with the result that the building of homes, transport links and schools becomes prohibitively high.
Chris Hinchliff
In the debate today, Conservative Members have robustly defended the principle of paying landowners the uplift from the current-use value to the value that land would have with planning permission. Given how Winston Churchill said such unearned increments in land are “positively detrimental” to the general public, are they not attacking their own best traditions?
Matthew Pennycook
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a shame that the Conservative party has seemingly changed its view. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State said, “Yes, that’s right. We’ve changed our view. It was a bad piece of legislation.” Many provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 were some of the best introduced by the previous Government. There is lots in the previous Government’s record that Conservative Members should rightly feel embarrassed about; these powers are not among that. Far from removing that power, we want acquiring authorities to use the power. For that reason, we cannot possibly accept the hon. Member’s amendment.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) suggested that market value would not be paid for such land in compulsory purchases. Will the Minister confirm that the amount paid in compulsory purchases is the market value for the existing use of that land?
Matthew Pennycook
The Liberal Democrat spokesman tempts me to stray beyond the specific measures in the Bill and how that power can be used. We are clear and have recently issued guidance about how that power can be used.
That leads me helpfully to amendments 68, 88 and 89, which would expand the LURA power in question. Sympathetic as I am to the more frequent removal of hope value from the assessment of compensation, the use of the relevant power must be proportionate and justified in the public interest so that it does not fall foul of article 1 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights. Seeking to expand the use of the power beyond that test and apply it much more widely is problematic for that reason. I cannot accept the amendments on that basis.
However, I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) that use of the direction power can be sought on mixed use schemes that include sports or recreational uses, but within those schemes there must be education provision, health provision or affordable housing provision to justify the use of the power in the public interest. On that specific point, and to respond to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I confirm that clause 104 does not extend the LURA power to other uses or social objectives; it merely enables parish and town councils to make use of the existing power.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not give away any more. I want to bring our remarks to a close because, as hon. Members are aware, there is a statement to follow our proceedings on the Bill.
I turn to new clause 85, which would change the lost payments regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973. To be clear, lost payments are an amount of compensation paid to eligible claimants to reflect and recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused by CPOs. They are an additional payment to compensation claimable under the Land Compensation Act 1961 for the market value of land or property taken by compulsory purchase. The new clause would allow claimants to claim compensation for the market value of their interests twice, and result in over-compensation being paid. That would be disproportionate. It would also run counter to the established, overriding principle of equivalence in compensation law where a person subject to compulsory purchase should be left no better or worse off in financial terms after an acquisition than they were before. On that basis, we cannot accept the new clause.
I will touch briefly on new clause 42 in the name of the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), regarding loss payments. It would introduce a change to the loss payment compensation regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973, increasing the amount that occupiers of buildings or land subject to a CPO would be entitled to and placing them on an equal footing with owners. As we discussed at some length in Committee, the Bill already achieves in part what the hon. Gentleman is seeking in the new clause as it increases the loss payment compensation due to occupiers of buildings and land.
The purpose of loss payments is to reflect the inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase. It is occupiers, rather than investor-owners, who bear the greater burden in that respect: they are the ones who will need to close or relocate their businesses. Loss payments are a separate head of claim from compensation paid for land taken under compulsory purchase. The Bill rebalances loss payment compensation to allow occupiers to claim a higher amount and landowners to claim a lower amount. We believe that the rebalancing of loss payment compensation in favour of occupiers is the right approach and will benefit, for example, groups such as tenant farmers, for which Opposition Members have made a case in this afternoon’s debate. On that basis, I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment and I request that the hon. Member does not press it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Could the Serjeant at Arms investigate the cause for delay in the No Lobby?
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It has been a real privilege to take this crucial piece of legislation through the House—“groundbreaking legislation”, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), described it earlier. I thank everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage. I thank my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for her unwavering support throughout the Bill’s passage; I thank the Department’s Bill team, led by Alex Bush, for their prodigious efforts over many months; I thank my consistently excellent private office, including its head, Grace Doody, and my brilliant private secretary Gabe Allason; I thank the Clerks, Chairs and parliamentary counsel for facilitating the Bill’s progress; I thank the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee; and I thank the hon. Members on both sides of the House who provided valuable input and challenge, today and at earlier stages.
This landmark Bill will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth, and deliver on the promise of national renewal. It is critical in helping the Government to achieve their ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England during the current Parliament, to making planning decisions on at least 150 major economic infrastructure projects, and to supporting the clean power 2030 target and transforming Britain into a clean energy superpower.
As the House will know, the Bill will deliver five key objectives. First, it will deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for nationally significant infrastructure projects. This is a crucial part of the Bill. Upgrading our country’s economic infrastructure—electricity networks, clean energy sources and public transport links—is essential to basic services and a growing economy. The Bill makes a number of changes. It will ensure that national policy statements are kept up to date by providing for a reflective amendment process so that the Government can quickly make minor policy changes or factor in legal impacts.
Secondly, the Bill adopts a more strategic approach to nature recovery that will unlock a win-win for development and the environment. As we discussed at length yesterday, the status quo is not working. It is not working for development, and—let me be clear—that is because constraints such as nutrient neutrality are stifling development and disincentivising planning applications across the country, which is having an impact on house builders, particularly small and medium-sized house builders. We need to remove those constraints. The status quo is also not working for the environment: all too often, the site-by-site process of assessment and meeting obligations is not driving nature recovery. Instead of retaining that suboptimal status quo, we want to take forward a new strategic approach across wider geographies, ensuring that Natural England presents plans that go beyond offsetting harm to driving nature recovery as well as unlocking development.
Thirdly, the Bill will improve certainty and decision making in the planning system. There has been widespread support for the measures on mandatory training for local councillors and on fee localisation. Local planning authorities, which we know have been hard-pressed in recent years, will be able to set their own fees and ensure that more of the burdens that they face in processing applications can be covered by those fees. The House has welcomed that.
We have taken the decision to introduce a national scheme of delegation. I appreciate that that is controversial, but we think it is an absolutely necessary means of introducing more certainty and clarity into the decision-making process. We have launched a technical consultation on the measure, and I urge hon. Members from across the House to engage with the detail of that consultation. I think that when they do so, they will understand that a category of planning applications should be delegated to expert local planning officers. However, with the agreement of the relevant chair of the committee and the lead planning officer in the authority, it will always be possible for the most serious and controversial applications to come before elected members, just as it should be the case that they take decisions on the most significant applications.
Fourthly, we are unlocking land and securing public value for large-scale investment. Today we have debated changes to development corporations, which will play an essential role in driving the delivery of more large-scale communities across this country, and we have discussed CPO powers. We want to see those CPO powers, including the very important CPO reforms passed by the previous Government, which I am sad to hear the Conservatives regret they passed—the shadow Secretary of State said very clearly from the Dispatch Box that it was a mistake. We think those powers are useful, and we want to see their application taken forward. The Bill makes targeted changes to those powers to ensure that they can be used by parish and county councils and, when it comes to nature recovery and the production of environmental delivery plans, by Natural England in certain circumstances.
Fifthly, the Bill introduces effective new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning. We must do planning on a larger than local scale if we are to get the best outcomes, and the Bill introduces new spatial development strategies. These are not big local plans; they are higher-level strategies for different sub-regions of the country to come together and decide, in co-operation, the most appropriate places for housing growth and the best way for infrastructure to be delivered across those areas. In response to feedback, we made a series of targeted changes in Committee: we are removing the statutory pre-consultation requirements from the NSIP regime, which we know are driving perverse outcomes, and we have introduced targeted improvements to the nature restoration fund and a new funding mechanism for statutory consultees.
When it comes to delivering new homes and critical infrastructure, the status quo is patently failing the country and the British people. We can and must do things differently, and this Bill will enable us to do so. It is transformative. It will fundamentally change how we build things in this country and, in doing so, help us to tackle the housing crisis and raise living standards in every part of the country. This Labour Government were elected on the promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this Bill, we will do just that. I wish Baroness Taylor and Lord Khan all the best with progressing the Bill in the other place, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
May I thank the Minister for all his hard work? He is an incredibly decent and polite man. He may be misguided at times, but we cannot agree on everything. I thank him and his team for all their work, and I thank my shadow ministerial team who did a fantastic job of subjecting the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny, the other Front-Bench teams, the Committee and the Clerks. I also thank hon. and right hon. Members from across the House for their contributions.
We are told that this Bill is about accelerating house building, unleashing growth and meeting a national target of 1.5 million homes in England alone in this Parliament. On the face of it, those aims are worthy, but what price are we prepared to pay for the Deputy Prime Minister’s ambition? Make no mistake: what is being proposed could fundamentally and irrevocably alter the character of our towns, our villages, and the green and pleasant land that makes Britain what it is.
This is not an attack on new homes—I am unashamedly pro-business and pro-development. Unlike the Secretary of State, the Minister and half the Cabinet, I have never objected to a housing development in my constituency. Let me be clear: we need homes. We need homes for first-time buyers, for young families, for key workers and for the next generation, but we need the right homes in the right places, shaped by the right principles. Instead, we are being offered a top-down model driven by arbitrary targets and central diktat. The result is soulless settlements, identikit developments and rows of uninspiring concrete boxes that bear no relation to the history, the heritage or the hopes of the communities they are built in.
Crucially, in the Government’s “centralising zeal”—as the excellent shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), calls it—local voices are being sidelined. Local councillors, and those who live in, love and understand their communities best, are being cut out of the process, with their role reduced and their judgment overlooked. The individual has been subordinated to being a cog in the machine. The Bill in its current form is not just flawed, but dangerous. It risks eroding trust in the planning system and widening the gulf between the Government and the governed.
The Bill must be considered in conjunction with the changes to the national planning policy framework. The Government’s approach of shifting housing targets from urban areas to rural areas is cynical and economically illiterate. While I welcome the restoration of mandatory targets in principle, raising targets by up to 400% in rural areas while simultaneously reducing them by over 11% in London, 30% in Birmingham and Newcastle, and over 50% in Coventry is unfair and wrong-headed. Their grey belt policy—presented as a few disused garage forecourts and wasteland in green belts—is a con. What they have actually done is remove important protections that prevent villages from merging into nearby villages and towns.
Of course, there is also the matter of the environment. Anyone who cares about our natural world knows that once a habitat is destroyed, a woodland torn up or a biodiverse landscape bulldozed, no cheque can bring it back. There is zero confidence on this side of the House that Natural England can successfully mitigate the significant environmental harms that will ensue through the environmental delivery plans. That is why we propose that they be delivered locally through local or strategic plans.
The truth is that we cannot concrete our way to community, we cannot meet our housing needs by overriding the very people we are building for, and we cannot call it progress if the Bill leaves our countryside degraded and our communities disempowered.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Residents in Bexley village in my constituency—it is one of London’s outer villages—are particularly concerned about the erosion of their green areas around the village. Does my hon. Friend share my concern and surprise that, when the outer London green belt issue was discussed in the London Assembly last week, Reform backed Mayor Khan in building over the green belt? Reform backed Khan against the interests of Bexley residents.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and the failures of the London Mayor to build more houses are well documented. What is perhaps not a surprise is that Reform would take the further step of supporting the London Mayor in the pursuit of Labour votes.
We have grave concerns about the enhanced compulsory purchase order powers for councils, mayors and even Natural England, without hope value or market value. This undermines one of the most important principles of our economy: property rights. Not only is this unfair, but it will face legal challenge after legal challenge in the courts.
During the passage of the Bill, we attempted to work with the Government to make sensible changes to make it fit for purpose, but to no avail. Let us not be seduced by false choices. We do not have to choose between development and democracy, between homes and heritage, or between ambition and accountability. We can build and we must build, but we must do so in a way that listens, respects and safeguards.
I urge the Government, yes, to be ambitious, but also to think again. They should rethink the Bill, and restore the local voice and reinstate environmental protections. Let us chart a path to progress that honours our need for homes, our obligation to communities and to the environment, and our duty to future generations. In its current form, we cannot support this Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos
It has been an honour and a privilege to represent the Liberal Democrats at the pleasure of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill in Committee and at all stages of the Bill. I thank my staff team for their work and my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches for their spirited amendments across all topics; in fact, we put forward 78 amendments in Committee, which I can only imagine was an absolute joy for the Minister and his officials to respond to.
I pay tribute to Members across the House for their work on this Bill. It has stimulated amendments from all corners of the House, as well as great debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) working with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on their amendment on rural housing exception sites, to give just one example of the cross-party approach from different corners of the House towards improving the Bill.
On Second Reading, where the Liberal Democrats were the only party—except Plaid Cymru—to vote against the Bill because of our principled concerns about it, we set out to address our concerns about people’s rights, communities and fairness, and the effects the Bill will have on nature. We sought to address all those topics with our amendments.
First, on rights for people and individuals, as the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), pointed out yesterday, what greater right could there be than the right to a decent, affordable home to bring up one’s family? We championed our proposal for 150,000 social homes a year to be built as a key target for this Government, and continue to encourage them through all means, including votes in this place, to move towards a target for building social homes, rather than simply a target for building millions of homes; without that, the target will be led by private market housing, which, on its own, is no solution to the problems we face.
We sought to address communities and fairness by seeking to remove the power that the Government will grant themselves, and all future Governments, to interfere in the running of councils and to give decisions to employees and planning consultants over and above the heads of the councillors who employ them, and who are meant to be accountable for those decisions. For the first time, decisions could be made by council officers and consultants, and, though every single elected councillor of that authority may disagree, those decisions will stand in their name, and councillors will not have the power to do anything to change them. That cannot be right.
It will undermine communities’ trust in politics and our planning system—a system in which people engage more at a local level than perhaps any other aspect of local government. The more people see the centralisation of planning powers, the standard method and guidance written by Whitehall, the appeals process dominated by Whitehall, and now even their own councillors not allowed to make decisions, the more we will damage communities’ trust in politics and their belief in the planning system and the system of local democracy, which is so important to our country. That is the principal reason that we object so strongly to the removal of powers from councillors in the Bill.
We support a number of the measures in the Bill; there are many good measures. In passing, I pay tribute to the Minister for his work on bringing back strategic planning, on which he has worked for a number of years. However, we are gravely concerned about its effect on nature. The National Trust has called the Bill a “licence to kill nature”. It is right, of course, to bring in a system for phosphates, for instance, which could be mitigated at a strategic level through environmental delivery plans, but it is wrong to completely remove from that process the principle of “first do no harm” on the site on which we are developing. We should enshrine the mitigation hierarchy in this new system in the Bill, so that, first, we seek to avoid harm to the site, then to mitigate it and, finally, to offset it, but only where that is absolutely necessary. Our new clause 1 would have put that protection of nature into this new system.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I am sure my hon. Friend knows his legislation very well, but the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 stated that Ministers have a duty to further the purposes of protected landscapes such as national landscapes. Does he think that we have missed an opportunity in this Bill by not giving national landscapes a seat at the table as statutory consultees, like, for instance, Chichester harbour in my constituency?
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has done so much work to champion national landscapes and the need for them to have a seat at the planning table. In my own national landscape, the mellow and beautiful Blackdown hills of Somerset also deserve a seat at the planning table. We do not believe that cutting out consultees, consultation and voices such as Sport England from the planning process is the way to deliver more homes or better communities. We need to bring in voices such as those who support our national landscapes, and we would dearly like to put forward amendments to achieve that.
On the rights of people to genuinely affordable homes, the rights of communities to fairness in the process, and rights to nature, we do not believe that the Government have gone far enough and we cannot support the Bill as it stands.
Wendy Morton
Fear not, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall keep my comments very, very brief. I cannot let this Planning and Infrastructure Bill go without saying that it was an opportunity to create the homes that we need, to support our communities, to support our farmers and farming, to support the environment, and to ensure that good development is supported by good infrastructure. I have sat in this Chamber for two days listening to amendments and debating amendments, including my own on battery energy storage systems. Time and again, the Government have just rejected them. What we have ended up with is legislation that drives a coach and horses through accountability. It seeks to steamroll over local people and to concrete over our precious green belt. It gives local people no rights, no voice and no say over how their communities are shaped for the future. On that basis, I will be voting against the Bill on Third Reading.
Richard Foord
I, too, will keep my remarks brief, but I wish to put it on the record that Devon, which is rightly celebrated across Britain for its rugged coastline, its rolling farmland, its spectacular moorlands and its ancient woodlands, is subject to the diggers of developers who are encouraged by this Government. Although we all need houses and we all need the protection that they afford, this Bill, if enacted, will only damage nature. Nature in Devon is part of who we are and we face a nature crossroads. The Devon Local Nature Partnership tells us that the loss and decline of Devon’s wildlife has accelerated rapidly over the past 50 years. The wooded valleys of the Blackdown hills and the wildflower meadows of East Devon are priceless, but once they are gone, they cannot be brought back.
Yesterday in the Tea Room, we were talking about the darkening clouds of the international system and how this Government are having to deal with such grave matters of state. Somebody then pointed out that, never mind grappling with wars and conflict, we cannot even create a system where a £44 swift brick is put in a new house to encourage nature in our rural areas.
Healthy natural systems underpin our economy and our communities, but unless we restore nature, we will have nothing left. Building homes does not need to come at the cost of nature. We must build in the right places with nature embedded at the heart of planning.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Thursday 12th June 2025
(6 days, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 June 2025 - (10 Jun 2025)