Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[1st allocated day]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on 29 April, on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, HC 855.]

New Clause 69

Examination of applications for development consent

“(1) In section 89 of the Planning Act 2008 (Examining authority’s decisions about how application is to be examined), in subsection (1), after ‘light of’ insert “the assessment under section 88(1) and”.

(2) In section 97 of that Act (procedure rules), after subsection (5) insert—

‘(5A) Power under this section to make rules includes power to make transitional provision.’

(3) The amendment made by subsection (1) applies in relation to every application in respect of which the assessment under section 88(1) of the Planning Act 2008 is made on or after the date on which subsection (1) comes into force (whenever the application was made or accepted).”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This new clause requires the examiner of an application for development consent to take procedural decisions in the light of the initial assessment of principal issues made under section 88(1) of the Planning Act 2008, and makes a technical amendment regarding the power to make procedural rules.

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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—

[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.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

17:45

I turn to other important changes made to the Bill in Committee. To support our grid connections queue reforms, we introduced a small set of amendments to ensure that the relevant clauses operate as intended and that they support us to move from a first come, first served to a first ready, first needed, first connected approach. To help address the lack of capacity and resources within statutory consultees, we have introduced a new sustainable funding model for the statutory consultee system. The new surcharge that will be able to be applied to planning application fees will be used to fund bodies, including statutory consultees, that provide advice and ancillary support that enable good decision making. Alongside the localisation of planning fees provided for by clause 47, the new surcharge will allow us to address capacity and resourcing issues and support a faster and better quality decision-making process.

Finally, we have made changes to the nature restoration fund. Before I detail the various improvements made, let me take this opportunity to remind the House why part 3 of the Bill is so important. Put simply, when it comes to development and nature, the status quo is not working. It is not working for development because constraints like the requirements for nutrient neutrality in sensitive river catchments are stifling the building of new homes and infrastructure. Equally importantly, it is not working for nature, because the need to meet environmental obligations on the basis of site by site assessments and interventions all too often does little to drive the recovery and restoration of our protected sites and species.

[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.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

[Ellie Chowns]

On that specific point, will the Minister give way?

[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.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[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.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[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.

18:00

Before I close, I must turn to a number of substantive amendments that the Government propose to the Bill, starting with a further change to the NSIP regime. We have already included an ambitious package of reforms in the Bill that will deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for critical infrastructure. As part of our mission to speed up the process overall, it is critical that examinations are focused and efficient and that examining authorities continue to report to the Secretary of State within the regime’s statutory timeframes. Following feedback from stakeholders and a review of recent examinations, we are making an amendment with a view to reinforcing best practice in examinations already adopted by some examining authorities.

At the start of the examination process, the examining authorities are required to make an initial assessment of the principal issues—an IAPI—for each application, which will detail the key matters specific to an application. Although the Planning Act requires that an initial assessment of the principal issues is made at the start of the examination, there is no requirement for it to be used for or to influence anything in the subsequent examination process. We believe that that initial assessment stage could be working harder to set the foundations for effective and streamlined examinations. That is why we are amending the Bill to ensure that the initial assessment of principal issues is a meaningful step that ensures that more focused examinations can occur. Through the amendment, examining authorities will be required to make procedural decisions about how they intend to examine an application in the light of the IAPI. That will support their ability to ensure that examinations are focused, with time prioritised on the issues that are most critical to the project, as set out in the IAPI. The change will also give more certainty up front to all those involved in examinations, so that they have more clarity about what to expect during the examination process.

I turn to an important proposed change relating to transport infrastructure. As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill contains important reforms to the Highways Act 1980 and the Transport and Works Act 1992 that will streamline and improve the efficiency of delivering road infrastructure schemes and ensure that processes within the regime in the 1980 Act are fit for purpose and proportionate. Delivering a faster and more certain consenting process for transport infrastructure projects builds connectivity and tackles congestion and overcrowding. Following engagement with the Department for Transport and the Welsh Government, we are making a small number of technical amendments to these reforms. The amendments clarify beyond doubt that the responsibility for consenting marine licences in Welsh offshore areas remain with the Welsh Ministers. They also ensure that parts of clause 31 do not apply to instruments made by Welsh Ministers under the Highways Act 1980. That demonstrates our commitment to devolution and to working with all parties constructively to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.

Finally, we propose two further technical changes to the nature restoration fund. The provisions in part 3 of the Bill have always allowed for the nature restoration fund to operate in English waters out to 12 nautical miles. However, given the different regulatory requirements and protected sites at sea, we are making amendments to ensure the effective operation of the nature restoration fund in the marine environment—in particular, to enable marine-licensable activities in English waters out to 12 nautical miles to be covered by an environment delivery plan to support the development of new harbours and ports. In line with the provisions for terrestrial EDPs, any such plan in the marine space will need to take into account the relevant marine plan, marine policy statement and UK marine strategy as appropriate. That will ensure that EDPs support the Government’s marine priorities.

In bringing forward the nature restoration fund, it is also necessary to ensure that the provisions work effectively to support development delivered through different consenting regimes. To achieve that, we are making amendments relating to the Harbours Act 1964 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 that will ensure that the strategic benefits of environmental delivery plans can help to unlock the delivery of transport projects and better support nature recovery in those areas. I reiterate that we will continue to consider whether elements of the new nature restoration fund model could be strengthened to give greater confidence that positive environmental outcomes will be achieved. I look forward to continuing to engage with stakeholders and parliamentarians on this important issue.

I commend the Government amendments to the House. I thank hon. Members for their efforts to improve the Bill and for the scrutiny and challenge that the Bill has received so far, and I look forward to listening to the remainder of the debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes]

I thought I just spoke once at the end.

[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.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

Oh, is it?

[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.

[Mr Perkins]

Does the hon. Member have any proposals?

[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.

18:14

The Conservative party has tabled two amendments that I hope—rather fruitlessly, I suspect—the Minister will look kindly on. He did not look favourably on many Opposition amendments in Committee; he says that he has strengthened the Bill, but that is just through Labour amendments. However, I hope that he will look seriously at new clauses 39 and 43, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds).

New clause 39 would prohibit solar power developments on high-quality agricultural land. That is a vital safeguard for the future of British farming and national food security. At a time when global food supply chains are increasingly fragile, it is essential that we protect our most productive agricultural land from irreversible development. This clause will ensure that the UK’s best farmland is preserved for growing food, which is what it is intended for, rather than being covered in solar panels. The clause does not oppose renewable energy; rather, it calls for a smarter, more balanced approach that directs solar projects to brownfield sites, rooftops, and lower-grade land, so that we do not undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.

[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.

18:30

[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—

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Tomorrow.

[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.

18:45

People are not the problem. Ordinary people are not blockers, and they should not be swept out of the way. As I have said, they and we want to see new homes and development, but these particular changes, which so damage rights and trust in a damaged system, will not deliver any significant growth or development, because council planning committees already approve over 90% of the planning applications that come before them. Lib Dem-run Somerset council has consented to thousands of new homes and is building hundreds of new council houses, including for the first time in a generation in parts of the county, and it wants to build more.

Just as people and communities should have rights, we need to stand up for the rights of nature. People want to see our rivers and waterways cleaned up and our environment protected—rivers such as the Tone in Taunton, where communities, by achieving new designations, have uncovered poor water quality and a desperate need for investment. Precious chalk streams across the country have no protection at all, and our amendment 16 would give them the protection they require. People want to see development that treads lightly on the land and reduces harmful emissions.

[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—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

[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.

18:59

There is a British Standards Institution standard, PAS 1899, which sets out minimum standards by which charge point operators can ensure that electric vehicle drivers with accessibility needs are able to use public charging infrastructure both reliably and safely. It was developed in conjunction with the Motability Foundation and the Government, and was published in October 2022. It addresses common accessibility concerns, such as the placement of a charge point, minimum bay size, and the height and weight of the charging cable.

The problem is that the standard is not mandatory and thus far nobody can find a single public charging point that meets that standard. That is a fundamental question of equality which becomes more acute as the charging network becomes more extensive. Even without the additional impetus that the Bill is intended to provide, a new charger is currently being installed every 29 minutes. Ensuring those chargers are accessible to people with disabilities is therefore both urgent and sensible, not least because retrofitting accessibility on to an already installed network will be much more expensive.

The amendment would ensure that if voluntary compliance with PAS 1899 does not improve, the Government have powers to enforce compliance progressively. It would also allow local authorities to monitor that compliance and oblige charging point operators to collect and report data on the compatibility of individual charge points with key accessibility benchmarks. It does that by adding to the regulation-making powers in the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018, which currently seeks to ensure that the charging network operates to the benefit of consumers with regard to acceptable methods of payment, maintenance and compatibility with different types of electric vehicle. It is surely logical to add accessibility for people with disabilities to that list and to do so now, while we have a relatively rare legislative opportunity.

I want to take the opportunity to thank the Electric Vehicle Association England, the Motability Foundation and other organisations for their work on these proposals and their support for them. I hope the Government and the Minister will look favourably on these relatively modest changes, which I argue could have a big impact on the ability of drivers with disabilities to use the charging network that we are asking all motorists to use, and which can therefore ensure we all make the journey to electric motoring together.

[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.

[Gideon Amos]

rose—

[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?

19:15

[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.

19:30

Lutterworth East is one such example that should be informative for all hon. Members. It is a cautionary tale that we ought to have at the forefront of our minds when developers come to us making pledges. Lutterworth East was the development where 40% minimum was to be affordable housing. But what has the developer done, a mere two years after being given planning permission? That developer, without having to seek new planning permission, simply applied to amend the section 106 legal agreement—putting a gun to the head of the local planning authority, which had no choice other than to accept it for fear of losing housing for its targets—to reduce the 40% affordable housing not to 30% or to 20%; it sought 0% affordable housing. That was a disgraceful breach of trust. The local planning authority, whose local plan requires 40% minimum affordable homes, allowed a significant decrease. They settled on 10%, which means that, in the case of Lutterworth East, over 800 families will be denied an affordable house.

The Minister is not currently in his place, but I say to the Government that the Bill wholly lacks any suggested power to deal with that. I ask them to take on board the case of Lutterworth East and examine why the developer was allowed to renege wholly on its commitments in a way that totally excluded the local community. There was no public consultation, because it was not an application for planning permission; it was merely a change.

[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.

[Gideon Amos]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[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.

19:44

On Second Reading I highlighted to the Secretary of State that there are three nationally significant infrastructure projects proposed in my constituency. These mega-schemes relate to energy and transport. They may bring local benefit, but my constituents are deeply concerned by the way decisions are taken out of the hands of local representatives. They are especially concerned that these NSIPs sit outside local plans, so that their cumulative impact is not considered when other decisions are taken. Amendment 128 would ensure oversight of national policy statements and allow Members of this House to scrutinise the Government’s approach to national projects.

Local infrastructure is also critical. In my constituency, Bicester, Kidlington and a number of villages anticipate rapid housing growth in the coming years, yet our physical and social infrastructure is already struggling to cope. My constituents want assurance that housing growth will be preceded by sufficient investment in GP surgeries, dentistry and school and college places, as well as water infrastructure, energy capacity and transport networks. New clause 46 would require local infrastructure to be completed, while new clauses 4 and 23 would ensure that water and drainage infrastructure is sufficient for development.

The Minister acknowledged in his speech that many organisations and leaders devoted to protecting nature, such as the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust and, I believe, the chief executive of the RSPB, Beccy Speight, are deeply concerned by the way Ministers have characterised measures to address the nature emergency as blockers to development. The Minister disputed that, so it is disappointing that the Government have not accepted new clause 9, which would have had the modest goal of encouraging swift bricks and other measures for wildlife in new developments. I hope he will also reconsider new clause 1, which sets out the Government’s principal commitment to take all reasonable steps to avoid adverse environmental effects, and I urge the Government to accept new clause 17, which would ensure a fairer level of community benefit for new energy infrastructure projects.

At the same time, this Bill misses an opportunity to raise the environmental standards of new homes. I welcome the Minister’s commitment at the weekend that new homes will have solar panels by default, and the tribute he paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for campaigning on that issue. However, I regret that the Government have not accepted new clause 2, which would have set a zero carbon standard for new homes.

The Minister and I have frequently discussed the written ministerial statement of December 2023 under the previous Administration, which undermined the effort of West Oxfordshire district council in my constituency to set a low carbon standard for the development of Salt Cross. I appreciate that he may not accept new clause 2, but will he at least agree today to withdraw that written ministerial statement and to release the development of high-quality homes that will be good for the environment and good for their new residents?

[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.

20:00

[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.

[Ellie Chowns]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[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.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[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.

20:14

[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.

20:30

Thirdly, a big thing that is included in the text of the new clause is about the mix in housing. New clause 40 states that the Secretary of State should

“review the standard method for assessing local housing need”

and

“should consider different types of property”

looking at the

“price per square metre rather than price per unit.”

In areas such as mine, and in many constituencies across the country, we want more affordable houses to be built, but that is not what the formula delivers because often—not exclusively, but disproportionately—it is more attractive to developers to build larger, five-bedroom executive houses. That, combined with the fact that overall new build homes trade at a premium to the existing housing stock, means that the unaffordability of an area gets worse as a result of the formula, not better.

The formula then reacts upon itself to say, “You are now a more unaffordable area—now give us more of these executive homes.” I do not think that is what Ministers want, so the new clause is a helpful proposal from the Opposition. I hope that Ministers will give it serious consideration, to ensure that the housing formula creates incentives for high-quality but lower-price housing. The new clause does not prejudge exactly how that should be done, but calls upon the Government to look again at the system. I know the Minister is a reflective Minister and I hope he will do just that.

[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.

20:45

I want to spend a couple of minutes focusing on the big new clauses. New clause 43 is about the protection of villages. Mid Buckinghamshire is made up of many villages, some of which can no longer be recognised as villages. Haddenham, which is not really a village any more, has grown exponentially and is now struggling for infrastructure, and now sees the threat of another 700 homes on top. Stoke Mandeville has 650 more homes proposed, which would see it essentially merge with Wendover. This is unsustainable and challenging the rural identity of Buckinghamshire. I strongly believe that those new protections should be put in place.

New clause 51 would stop all solar development and battery storage development on any grade of agricultural land. This inefficient technology will not solve the problems we face as a country. The World Bank itself has said that only one country anywhere in the world is less suited to solar than the United Kingdom, and that is Ireland. It is simply not an efficient technology to solve our energy crises. Small modular reactors and nuclear power is the answer, not trashing our countryside with solar and battery storage.

Finally, new clause 55 is an appeal on the basis of fairness. My constituency has already suffered at the hands of big infrastructure—predominantly High Speed 2, but other projects too. It is about fairness. Where communities against their will have been forced to take these huge, massive infrastructure projects—my constituents will live for more than two decades in a construction site—they should be let off some of the other housing targets that are coming along. They should be let off that further unwanted development, because they have already taken enough.

[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—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.

[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.

21:00

I support new clause 39, because we should not be putting solar farms on all our agricultural land across the country. I do mind about that, even if it is only 1%, as the Minister and a number of Labour Members have made out—1% is 1% too much. Of course, I support solar panels, but why not put them on the roofs of new houses and factories? [Hon. Members: “We are.”] They are not. I did not see the Government coming forward to support the sunshine Bill—the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill—which was a private Member’s Bill about putting solar panels on new houses, so we will not take any lectures from the Labour party on that.

I fully support amendment 74, and I am surprised that the Government are not supporting it. They have made a number of announcements about “brownfield first”, so why have they not put that in legislation? Why do they not accept this amendment and put that in the Bill if they are so determined to protect our green belt? I am hesitant about saying that, because I do not think they are determined to protect it. I do not think the Government care about the green belt in this country, because if they did, they would amend the Bill to safeguard the green belt and make development “brownfield first”.

I also support new clause 46, and I have spoken a number of times about development, particular in my constituency of Broxbourne. As several Members have said, developments come forward, particularly under outline planning permission, painted in gold. As I have said before, there is to be a new school, a new GP surgery, a new road, a park, lots of community facilities and lots of community money, but they are changed completely in the full planning application, because the developer has taken away all the infrastructure, and there is no new GP surgery, no new schools, no new infrastructure and no new community facilities. New clause 46 would go some way to making the infrastructure first, which is what our residents want. When planning permission is granted, it is easier for us as politicians to support it and to get our residents more in favour of it if the infrastructure is going to come first. If our constituents see hundreds of new homes built with no infrastructure, particular no new GP surgeries, that is when they get really fed up.

I would also like to support new clause 63, which is about planting trees along highways. I think planting trees next to the highway makes a street beautiful and makes places where people want to live. This Government are focused only on building 1.5 million homes, which I do not think they will do. They are not focusing on designing, making the communities of the future and making communities liveable.

[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.

21:14

[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.

21:32

I want to speak briefly to three of the new clauses that I feel strongly about, covering net zero, sustainability and the social content of new development. A number of proposals have been tabled—including new clause 73 by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) and others—on the issue of swift bricks. That is another issue that was discussed at some length in Committee, and Members across the House recognise that we must do more to support vital species such as swifts. I welcome the steps that have already been taken by the house building industry on this issue, with a voluntary standard signed up to by 28 home builders, accounting for 100,000 homes a year, committing to a bird nesting brick or box being installed for every new home built, as well as hedgehog highways as standard for every new development. I hope that Ministers will monitor the effectiveness of this voluntary measure and look at what further steps might be taken in future.

I also support the sentiment in new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), that would require new homes to be built to a net zero carbon building standard and include provision for the generation of solar power. I hope, however, that he will welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on Friday that the future homes standard, when published later this year, will require all new homes, with a small number of exceptions, to include solar panels. Not everything we want to see happen needs to be included on the face of the Bill.

I want to finish by speaking in favour of new clause 82, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes). This would require local authorities to assess local play provision and to take reasonable steps to improve play sufficiency. As other Members have mentioned, hundreds of playgrounds have been lost over the past decade and a half. Speak to any young parent and they will tell you the value of play, especially outdoor play, where their children can meet and play safely with other young children. I hope that Ministers will see the strength of feeling on this issue and, whether they accept this new clause or not, do more to help create spaces to play for families across the country. Notwithstanding the amendments and new clauses that have been discussed tonight, I am proud to have helped move this vital piece of legislation nearer the statute book, and I look forward to the Bill helping to get Britain building again.

[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—

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[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—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I call Alex Brewer.

[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.

21:45

New clause 53 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) would prevent local planning authorities from allowing developments on functional floodplains. I visited far too many homes in my constituency last year that were devastated by flooding. By developing on these known sites we are sleepwalking into a crisis. Homes will be devastated, with homeowners finding their homes uninsurable, and there will be risks to life. The Government are exacerbating the problem of flooding under this Bill.

[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.

[Chris Curtis]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[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.

22:00

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New clause 69 added to the Bill.

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.”—(Paul Holmes.)

This new clause would prohibit the development of solar power generation on higher quality agricultural land.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

22:00

Division 215

Ayes: 113

Noes: 335

[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.

22:20

Division 216

Ayes: 167

Noes: 334

Clause 31

Procedure for certain orders and schemes

Amendment made: 93, page 47, line 37, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—

“(3) In section 326 (revocation and variation of schemes and orders)—

(a) in subsection (2)—

(i) after “An order” insert “or scheme”;

(ii) after “section” insert “10,”;

(iii) after “14B,” insert “16,”;

(iv) after “27,” insert “106(3),”;

(v) after “orders” insert “or schemes”;

(vi) after “subsequent order” insert “or scheme”;

(b) after subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply to an order or scheme under section 10, 16 or 106(3) made or confirmed by the Welsh Ministers (but see section 325(1A)).”;

(c) in subsection (6), before “14,” insert “10,”.”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This amendment excludes instruments made by the Welsh Ministers from a consequential amendment in this clause.

Clause 41

Deemed consent under marine licence

Amendments made: 94, page 54, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 on page 55 and insert—

“(1) An order of the Secretary of State under section 1 or 3 may include provision deeming a marine licence to have been granted by the Secretary of State for activities specified in the order (being activities for which the Secretary of State is the appropriate licensing authority).

(2) Activity specified under subsection (1) must be carried out wholly in one or more of these areas—

(a) England;

(b) waters adjacent to England up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea;

(c) an exclusive economic zone, except any part of an exclusive economic zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions;

(d) a Renewable Energy Zone, except any part of a Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions;

(e) an area designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, except any part of that area which is within a part of an exclusive economic zone or Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions.

(3) An order of the Welsh Ministers under section 1 or 3 may include provision deeming a marine licence to have been granted by the Welsh Ministers for activities specified in the order (being activities for which the Welsh Ministers are the appropriate licensing authority).

(4) An order including provision under subsection (1) or (3) may also include provision—

(a) deeming the licence to have been granted subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order;

(b) deeming any such conditions to have been attached to the marine licence by the Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the Welsh Ministers under Part 4 of the MCAA 2009.

(4A) If an order includes provision of the sort mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4), sections 68 (notice of applications) and 69(3) and (5) (representations) of the MCAA 2009 do not apply in relation to the deemed marine licence.”

This amendment reworks the provision for deemed marine licences in Transport and Works Act orders so that the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers may only authorise activity for which they are responsible under the marine licensing legislation.

Amendment 95, page 55, line 22, leave out “Marine and Coastal Access Act” and insert “MCAA”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 97.

Amendment 96, page 55, line 24, leave out “Marine and Coastal Access Act” and insert “MCAA”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 97.

Amendment 97, page 55, line 26, at end insert—

“‘the MCAA 2009’ means the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;

‘marine licence’ means a marine licence under Part 4 of the MCAA 2009;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 94.

Amendment 98, page 55, line 29, leave out “Marine and Coastal Access Act” and insert “MCAA”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 97.

Clause 51

Spatial development strategies

Amendment proposed: 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.”—(Gideon Amos.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

22:34

Division 217

Ayes: 73

Noes: 323

Clause 56

Other requirements for an EDP

Amendment made: 99, page 92, line 36, at end insert “and (2A)”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 100.

Amendment proposed: 69, 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.”—(Chris Hinchliff.)

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.

22:46

Division 218

Ayes: 180

Noes: 307

Clause 57

Preparation of EDP by Natural England

Amendments made: 100, page 93, line 19, at end insert—

“(2A) In preparing an EDP that specifies as the development area an area that includes waters adjacent to England (see section 53(2)(b)), Natural England must also have regard to—

(a) any marine plan,

(b) the marine policy statement, and

(c) the UK Marine Strategy,

so far as Natural England considers them to be relevant.”.

This amendment requires Natural England to have regard to the marine policy statement, marine plans and the UK Marine Strategy when it prepares an EDP that covers development in the territorial sea.

Amendment 101, page 93, line 20, leave out “subsection (2)” and insert “subsections (2) and (2A)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 100.

Amendment 102, page 93, line 29, at end insert—

“‘marine plan’ has the meaning given in section 51(3) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;

‘marine policy statement’ has the same meaning as in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (see section 44 of that Act);

‘the UK Marine Strategy’ means the strategy developed under the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/1627).”. —(Matthew Pennycook.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 100.

Clause 58

Consultation on draft EDP

Amendments made: 103, page 94, line 2, at end insert—

“(ca) any local highway authority for an area that is wholly or partly within the development area,

(cb) any strategic highways company for an area that is wholly or partly within the development area,

(cc) Network Rail Limited, if the development area includes all or part of its network;”.

This amendment adds local highway authorities, strategic highways companies and Network Rail Limited to the list of persons who must be consulted when Natural England has prepared a draft environmental delivery plan.

Amendment 104, page 94, line 25, at end insert—

“‘local highway authority’ has the meaning given by section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 103.

Amendment 105, page 94, line 30, at end insert—

“‘network’ has the meaning given by section 83(1) of the Railways Act 1993;

‘strategic highways company’ has the meaning given by section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980.”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 103.

Clause 64

Challenging an EDP

Amendment made: 106, page 98, line 26, leave out “before the end of” and insert “during”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This amendment clarifies that a challenge to an EDP (or anything done or not done in the course of preparing an EDP) cannot be brought before the day on which the EDP is published.

Clause 65

Commitment to pay the nature restoration levy

Amendments made: 107, page 100, line 3, leave out

“or the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981”

and insert

“, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 109.

Amendment 108, page 100, line 25, at end insert—

“(ba) in a case where the feature is a protected feature of a marine conservation zone, the developer does not have the option of satisfying the public authority determining an application relating to the development of the matters mentioned in section 126(6) or (7) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 instead of paying the levy;”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 109.

Clause 91

Interpretation

Amendments made: 115, page 118, line 40, at end insert—

“(d) a condition that may be attached to a marine licence under section 71(1)(b) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, or

(e) a condition that may be attached to a harbour revision order under section 14 of the Harbours Act 1964 or a harbour empowerment order under section 16 of that Act;”.

This amendment, which is partly consequential on Amendment 116, adds conditions attached to marine licences and conditions attached to harbour orders to the definition of “condition of development”.

Amendment 116, page 119, line 6, at end insert

“, and

(c) licensable marine activities, within the meaning of Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (see section 66 of that Act);”.

This amendment amends the definition of development so as to include marine activities that must be consented under Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (for example offshore construction works).

Amendment 117, page 119, line 20, at end insert—

“‘marine conservation zone’ means an area designated as such under section 116 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 118.

Amendment 118, page 119, line 27, at end insert

“or

(d) a marine conservation zone,”.

This amendment, which is largely consequential on Amendment 116, adds marine conservation zones to the definition of protected sites, so that an EDP can make provision for the protection of MCZs when it covers development in territorial waters.

Amendment 119, page 119, line 30, leave out “geological or physiographical feature” and insert

“feature of geological, geomorphological or physiographical interest”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This amendment, which is consequential on Amendment 118, reflects the grounds for designating an area as a marine conservation zone in section 117(1) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which include conserving not only marine flora, fauna and habitats but also “features of geological or geomorphological interest”.

Schedule 4

Environmental delivery plans: effect on environmental obligations

Amendments made: 109, page 162, line 17, at end insert—

“Protected sites: marine conservation zones

2A (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies where—

(a) an environmental feature identified in an EDP in accordance with section 54(1)(a) is a protected feature of a marine conservation zone, and

(b) a developer has committed to pay, in respect of a development, such amount of the nature restoration levy set out in a charging schedule to the EDP as applies in relation to an environmental impact of the development on that protected feature.

(2) The environmental impact of the development on the protected feature is to be disregarded for the purposes of section 126 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (duties of public authorities in relation to certain decisions).”

This amendment, which is consequential on Amendment 116, means that if a developer for a development affecting a marine conservation zone pays the levy, the effect of the development on protected features in that zone is disregarded for the purposes of the duties of public authorities set out in section 126 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.

Amendment 110, page 162, line 29, leave out

“by Natural England to the developer”

and insert

“to the developer by the relevant licensing body (see regulation 58(4A) of those Regulations)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 113.

Amendment 111, page 162, line 41, leave out

“by Natural England to the developer”

and insert

“to the developer by the appropriate authority (see section 16(8A) and (9) of that Act)”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This amendment is largely consequential on Amendment 116. It reflects the fact that species licences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 relating to marine animals are granted by the Marine Management Organisation.

Schedule 6

Amendments relating to part 3

Amendments made: 112, page 177, line 13, after “55” insert “(1)”.

This amendment corrects a minor drafting error so as to match the cross-reference in the new paragraph (4A) to that in regulation 58(2) (so both are to “regulation 55(1)”).

Amendment 113, page 177, line 15, leave out “Natural England” and insert “—

(a) so far as the licence relates to the restricted English inshore region, the Marine Management Organisation; and

(b) otherwise, Natural England.”.

The effect of this amendment is that where developers for developments in the territorial sea are treated (by paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Bill) as having been granted a species licence under regulation 55 of the Habitats Regulations, the licensing authority is the Marine Management Organisation rather than Natural England.

Amendment 114, page 177, line 15, at end insert—

“(da) in paragraph (6), for “paragraph (2)” substitute “this regulation”;”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 113.