Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that I always like to start by emphasising where there is common ground and agreement, so that we can start off on a positive foot. I do agree that there is a housing crisis. I do agree that we need to build more homes. We need to tackle the outrageous inequality in the housing market and the fact that there are nearly 1 million empty homes, as well as 1.5 million for which there is planning permission but that are, as yet, unbuilt. We need to build more homes—the right home in the right place at the right price, though—and I am not sure the Bill goes far enough to address those concerns.

There are more areas of agreement. I agree we need to reform planning. I agree we need a strategic approach. I agree we need to tackle the issues of hope value, community benefit from energy infrastructure, and planning fees—so many areas of agreement. [Interruption.] I can see the Minister is smiling. [Interruption.] No, I am not going to stop there; sorry!

However, there are a number of areas of missed opportunity, as well as fairly deep concern. Currently, the Bill has no content on a range of important planning aspects. It does not contain any measures to secure affordable, healthy homes, or to ensure that the planning system is fully joined up with our climate and nature obligations. There is not even a statement of a positive visionary purpose for the planning system, and it is so important to provide the framework for what we are doing here. We need clarification that development should be sustainable, benefiting future generations as well as meeting today’s needs.

We need joined-up policy: a new climate and nature duty on all planning authorities to ensure that all policies tackle our Climate Change Act 2008 and Environment Act 2021 obligations. Planning is crucial for tackling the climate crisis and reducing the environmental impact of new development. We need solar panels on roofs and high levels of insulation. There is nothing here on zero-carbon heating or embodied carbon. There is also nothing on climate adaptation. I find it quite extraordinary that in 160 pages there is not a single mention of the words flood or flooding, yet they are crucial to planning and infrastructure. We need to ensure that the Bill plans for active and public transport. Let us see a “no net new traffic growth” test applied to all developments, so we incentivise the shift to active and public transport.

The Bill should include a nature duty. It provides a great opportunity to specify wildlife-friendly design, swift bricks—I have talked about them previously—hedgehog highways and green roofs. Let us have a new chapter of the building regulations specifically on biodiversity.

I recognise that environmental delivery plans could be useful in some cases, but I worry that they may be a bit too much of a blanket approach. What is suitable for newts is not necessarily suitable for all aspects of wildlife and landscape. I have a little concern that we are effectively outsourcing the environmental obligations of developers to Natural England, without requiring sufficient attention to be paid to those issues. For example, the removal of site-specific survey requirements means we will effectively be shooting in the dark when we specify what remedies need to be taken.

We need to legally guarantee that nature benefits will significantly outweigh any harm. We need to follow the mitigation hierarchy, strengthen protection for irreplaceable habitats such as the ancient woodlands and chalk streams that have been mentioned, and remove the viability test for the nature restoration levy. Otherwise, there is a real risk that developers will altogether escape paying for the nature restoration that they should do.

We need to ensure accessibility standards and affordability standards—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Joe Powell.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Q Robbie, you said you had no fundamental concerns democratically with the Bill. Could you give us a bit more on how you think the proposals will ensure continued meaningful engagement with affected communities and interested parties?

Robbie Owen: I would say two things. First, any right-minded applicant for a development consent order is clearly going to continue to consult formally and then engage informally with local communities, even with the changes that the Minister tabled yesterday. The role of the new guidance heralded by yesterday’s written statement is going to be critical in setting very clear guidelines in terms of what the Government think is appropriate by way of consultation and engagement. It is critical, though, that the guidance is not so specific that it almost undermines the effect of removing the provisions from the Act, as the amendments would do.

The second way in which the local community is involved is the public examination of proposals for up to six months—it normally is six months—once the application has been made and accepted. Compare that with the process for major planning applications, where communities may be given three minutes to address a planning committee: it is a much more inclusive process for local communities to take part in. Work is always ongoing to try to improve the usability and experience of the examination process, and hearings within that, and I support ongoing refinement there. But, fundamentally, those elements will completely remain—there is nothing in the Bill to remove them—and that is quite right.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Q Do you feel that the Bill will deliver a sufficiently strategic approach to national infrastructure? Are there elements still missing that you feel would enable that?

Sir John Armitt: It is worth saying first that the Government have announced that they intend to publish a 10-year infrastructure strategy later this year. That will be the first since 2020. We are working with Government Departments on that at the moment, but it is vital that there is a clear, long-term infrastructure strategy. As Robbie said, the other key ingredients to implement that strategy are the national policy statements related to the different sectors, and the regular updating of them.

We recently went almost 10 years without an update on the energy strategy. In rewriting that strategy, the challenge is that you start with a large strategic ambition that can be contained in half a page and, if you are not careful, you finish with 25 pages that follow on and set out all the ways in which that ambition must be satisfied while dealing with environmental, community or any other concerns. The challenge will remain that we are trying to do two or three things at once here: we are trying to deliver major economic growth and infrastructure that will enable us to be resilient, to deal with climate change, to reduce the impacts of carbon and so on, while also recognising that local people will always have concerns about the impact of that infrastructure on their lives, and the—in a sense—compensation that they may face from that.

We have a live debate at the moment about whether we should all pay a different rate for our electricity according to whether we are close to the generating infrastructure or not. There are many ways these issues could be addressed, and they will not be simple. We should not kid ourselves that we are going to wave a magic wand and all of a sudden everything will change. We are a very democratic society; we are not like others who can steamroller these things through. That is the major challenge, and I argue that that challenge sits, in the first place, with the promoter.

The promoter has to get out there and be willing to be open and frank about what they see as the opportunities, broad advantages and local challenges, and demonstrate a willingness to enter into relevant consultation with local people. At the end of the day, there will be people who do not change their minds. Noting some of the remarks that Robbie made, you will always need the Minister to have the ability to step in when appropriate and make the appropriate decision, given the scale of the challenge.

[The Chair]

Order. We are nearing the end of the time allotted for this panel. These shall be the last questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

If we keep this really tight, we can get three more questions in.

[Ellie Chowns]

Q It says on the front of the Bill that the Secretary of State has determined that

“the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law.”

You have spoken about how you think that there will be improvements. Are you absolutely confident that that holds, and that there is no way in which the Bill could result in a reduction in environmental protection—for example, in relation to irreplaceable habitats?

Marian Spain: I am trying awfully hard not to say that that is something for Parliament to be keeping a close eye on as the Bill goes through. There are risks. This is a very different system, and it will be embedded in legislation—theoretically, in perpetuity.

Again with our colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, we are watching issues that are being raised by others, including by parliamentarians and the third sector. We are conscious that the Bill needs to have those robust safeguards, and there may be drafting amendments that make those even more robust. The basic premise of the Bill is clear, as I have said already—that basic idea that the plans can be approved by the Secretary of State only if he or she is satisfied.

The bit that we want to keep an open mind on, however, is the fact that we need to have a system that is robust enough and has those safeguards, but that also allows flexibility in how we operate it for years to come. Nature is changing in the way it responds to climate change. Society is recognising that it needs different things from nature, with nature-based solutions to climate change and more nature for health and wellbeing, as well as just the protection of rare species. There is something about getting that balance right to have a system that is workable in a place, and that is adaptable to what a community needs and to a particular development, but that maintains that overall aim to make nature better.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

Q I think your position is clear from your response, but for the avoidance of doubt and in the time that we have remaining, is Natural England confident that this model will deliver better outcomes for nature overall?

Marian Spain: We are confident that the model works. The detail will come as we work through which topics and which situations we actually apply the environmental delivery plans to. It is perhaps also a version of the answer to a previous question; the plans themselves can rule things in and out. We may decide, for example, that a piece of ancient woodland cannot be replaced and would therefore not be subject to these measures, so that is another safeguard.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

Q I have one very brief question, to change tack slightly, and I would appreciate it if each witness could give a short answer, because I know other colleagues want to come in. The last witness that we heard from was the chief executive of Natural England. As you will know, one of the most controversial parts of the legislation is habitats and nature.

I do not want to put words into the chief executive’s mouth, because she is not here now, but she told the Committee that there was some concern with the new systems over potential shortfalls in funding because of the spending review, which has not yet allocated money in the short term to Natural England, compared with the extra responsibilities that Natural England will have to undertake on habitat and nature. Can you outline your individual organisations’ views on whether Natural England is adequately resourced at the moment to undertake those extra duties? Under its current guise and funding, do you think that it is in a fit state to deliver on those extra responsibilities?

Victoria Hills: We have been very clear in our position: we support Natural England taking forward some of these new powers and responsibilities, provided that it is adequately resourced to do so. I do not have a detailed diagnostic of its resourcing and capability plans, but we have been assured, working with the Department, that the resources will be there. That is something that we will be keeping a very close eye on.

We support the principle of coming up with strategic solutions to some of the approaches to the environment, which can be delivered at a strategic level. As you know, we are a strong supporter of strategic planning and we believe that some of the biodiversity and nature aspects of planning do not stop at district council boundaries, or even county council boundaries. It makes perfect sense to look at these things at a strategic level; we support that and we support the ambition of Natural England to do it. However, we will caveat that by saying that it must be adequately resourced to do so, and that is a point that we will continue to make.

Faraz Baber: I work as a practitioner for a planning, environment and design company called Lanpro, which operates across the country. With that lens, I would say that the provisions on what it is expected that Natural England will deliver are right. It is good that the Government are moving towards the delivery of environmental delivery plans and all the things that sit around them.

I thought that the challenge to Natural England earlier was interesting. The chief executive was challenged as to whether, given what is in the Bill, there could be a cast-iron guarantee of the environmental credentials that we need to see come through. I have to say that I was surprised at the response, because you cannot: we have to see how it works in practice. For Natural England to deliver that, it will need to significantly recruit dedicated teams to operate a number of the provisions that are set out in the Bill, the EDPs being a good example. It is right that there will be concern about the comprehensive spending review and whether Natural England will have the resources and function to deliver. In principle, the Government are right in their direction of travel on this, but they will need to commit to the resources and funding to deliver on their promise.

Hugh Ellis: To add to that, rather than repeat it, there are concerns about the scheme design. We at the TCPA are also concerned about the philosophy that lies behind it—that it may lead to an offsetting process. To be clear, the foundation of planning is that nature and development can be easily managed together to enhance both. That is our tradition, and it has always been the planning tradition, from Morris onwards. The philosophy of planning should always be that I can build a development for you that will enhance nature and provide housing. The setting up of the two ideas in opposition is destructive and distracting.

We need to focus on design quality in new housing, and principally that means allowing people to have access to nature immediately. They need that for their mental health and physical wellbeing. That is a crucial saving to the NHS and social care budget in the long run. We want high-quality design first, and offsetting and large-scale habitat creation elsewhere—as a second resort, but not as the first, principal test.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Q To follow on from that, Mr Ellis, what do you think the purpose of planning should be, and do you think it should be written into the Bill?

Hugh Ellis: Since 1947, the greatest absence in all planning reform measures has been that we do not know what the system is for. The current round of reforms raises that question profoundly. The purpose should be sustainable development. We are signatories to the UN charter, and key concepts around sustainable development do not feature in the national planning policy framework. Those are really crucial ones about social justice, inclusion, environmental limits and precautionary principles. Those are all key to giving the planning system a purpose. That purpose is crucial pragmatically, because across the sector we need to know what the system is for, so that we can have confidence in it.

It is also crucial to understand that the system has long-term goals, future generations being one of them, and addressing the climate crisis being another. Within three to five years, the repeated impacts from climate change will be the dominant political issue we confront, and we need a system that works for that, as well as for housing growth.

Faraz Baber: Whether it should be in the Bill or in an NPPF-style document is more about whether people are able to know what planning is and how that is communicated. I do not necessarily believe that that has to be enshrined in the Bill, but it certainly should be clear, whether it is in the national planning policy framework, a local plan or a spatial development strategy, so that people—by which I mean all those who interact with the planning system—can know what planning is about and what it means for them. I feel that a Bill, and ultimately an Act, is the wrong place for it to be enshrined.

[Ellie Chowns]

Q On the first part of my question, what do you think the purpose of planning should be?

Faraz Baber: Planning is there to help, for want of a better phrase, with the placemaking and the delivery, and to ensure that there are guidelines for how plan making should take place. It is there to ensure that the various levers associated with the plan-making process and the development process are understood. Planning is the guardian that ensures that sustainable development can come forward.

Victoria Hills: One of the most important questions that anybody—elected leaders or executive leaders—can ask is “Why?” Why are we doing it? What is it all about? What is the purpose of this Bill? What is the purpose of planning? That is why we think it is essential, within the realms of this Bill, that a public purpose of planning is stated up front. You do not have to take our word for it. Our research published yesterday shows that the vast majority of the public do not have a clue what planning is. They do not know what it is for, and if you are going to drive through a major reform programme for planning, the likes of which we have not seen for 15 years, it might be a good idea if we are very clear on what the purpose of planning is.

For us, the purpose is really clear; at a strategic level, it is about the long-term public interest, the common good and the future wellbeing of communities. You need to be open and honest with the public up front that all this change that is coming in planning and infrastructure is actually for the long-term common good. Some of it people may not like in the short term, but we are talking about the long-term common good— delivering on climate, delivering on sustainable development goals and delivering for communities. We think it is really important that the opportunity is not missed, not only to help inform the public and everybody else who needs to know what the purpose of planning is but to provide that north star, that guiding star, as to the why. Why are we doing this? What purpose does it have?

Thank you for your question. We are absolutely clear that having a public purpose of planning is really important for this legislation, and we will continue to make that case.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

Q I have two quick questions: one on planning decisions for Victoria and one on development corporations for Hugh. Victoria, you will know that at the moment individual local planning authorities have schemes of delegation. It would be great to get your take on how effective they are. What variation do we see out there? What principles should inform the national scheme of delegation that we intend to introduce via the Bill?

Hugh—the Bill provides a clearer, more flexible and more robust framework for the operation of development corporations. You know that it is clearly our view that they have to do a lot of work in the coming years to drive the kind of delivery we need and the types of development we want to see come forward. What is your assessment of how effective those development corporation powers are to support development and regeneration?

Victoria Hills: One thing we know about from our members, but also from those people who are actually in the business of building things—of course, that is really what is important if you want to see some growth coming—is consistency. You asked about the variation. Some councils have fantastic schemes of delegation and it is very clear what is and is not going to committee, but other councils have a slightly more grey scheme of delegation—let’s call it that—whereby things can pop up in committee on the basis of an individual issue or individual councillor.

The opportunity afforded to us by the Bill is for some consistency through a national scheme of delegation. We have in place some very robust processes that look at the business of development, through the local plan process. It goes to not one but two public inquiries, through the Government’s inspectorate, and then back to the community. What we recognise is that if you have had some very robust considerations of the principles of development and you have good development prescribed by, for example, a design code that says, “This is what good development looks like here”—so we have worked out what we want, where it is going and what it looks like—it is perfectly possible that suitably qualified chief planning officers can work out whether something is in conformity with a plan. We therefore welcome the opportunity to clarify that through a national scheme of delegation.

This is not to take away anybody’s democratic mandate to have their say. Of course, there are all sorts of opportunities to have that say in the local plan process, but if we are to move to a national scheme of delegation, we would want a statutory chief planning officer who has that statutory wraparound and has the appropriate level of competency and gravitas to be able to drive forward that change, because it will be a change for some authorities. For some, it will not be a change at all, but taking forward that innovation via a national scheme of delegation will require that statutory post, so that those decisions cannot be challenged, because they will be made in a professionally competent way.

Hugh Ellis: I think development corporations are essential if we are going to achieve this mission. You would expect the TCPA to say that, because we are inheritors of the new towns programme. The interesting thing about them is that, for the first time, they bolt together strategy and delivery. The existing town and country planning system is often blamed for not delivering homes, but it has no power to build them.

The development corporation solves that problem by creating a delivery arm that can effectively deliver homes, as we saw with the new towns programme, which housed 2.8 million people in 32 places in less than 20 years of designation, and it also paid for itself—it is an extraordinary model. The measures in the Bill to modernise overall duties on development corporations are really welcome. I assume you do not want me to talk about compulsory purchase orders right now, but hope value and CPOs are critical accompanying ideas in the reform package that go with that. In the long run, I think that they will become critical.

Obviously, the new towns taskforce has to decide what it wants on policy. The challenge that we face with them is legitimacy, and there is still work to do in making sure that there is a Rolls-Royce process of getting public consent for this new generation of places. However, the outcome is such an opportunity to generate places that genuinely enhance people’s health, deal with the climate crisis and provide high levels of affordability. What a contrast that is with what we have delivered through town and country planning at local plan level, which is a lot of the bolt-on, car-dependent development. Frankly, as a planner, I find that shameful. The opportunity with development corporations is there and I hope that the Government seize it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We can possibly get two more colleagues in, so let’s be succinct with our questions and answers.

[Ellie Chowns]

Q Two of my questions have already been asked, so I will ask one more to Richard Benwell—apologies to the other witnesses. In addition to bringing back the mitigation hierarchy, you talk about the need to make sure that polluters really pay. Can you elaborate on that?

Richard Benwell: Let me see whether I can winkle out my clause numbers. Clause 62 requires the EDP levies to be set at a level that takes into account the viability test, and we all know how often viability gives wriggle room for developers. Our view is that the level of levy payments should be enough to secure the compensatory measures needed to go further than remediating the damage caused to nature.

Again, when you look further, you will find the provisions say that the levy needs to cover “wholly or partly” the amount needed to remediate that damage. That could lead to dangerous situations where you are cross-subsidising developers for harm to nature from other pots of money, such as farming funds. It would make far more sense to have a straight-up “polluter pays” principle, where developers pay for the cost of remediating the harm they cause to nature.

[Ellie Chowns]

Q Indeed, that is one of the Government’s fundamental principles, isn’t it? For consistency, that would need to be the case, if the Bill is to do what it says on the tin, which is not reduce environmental protections.

Richard Benwell: We have a “polluters possibly pay” principle here, a “maybe prevent” principle with the mitigation hierarchy, and the overall improvement test is a “possibly improve” test. All the way around, those fundamental principles are brought into doubt by the ways in which the Bill is drafted, particularly for species protection, where these are least appropriate.

[Ellie Chowns]

Q But you are saying that these are easily fixable through amendment. They are not devastating to the Bill, in principle.

Richard Benwell: They can be fixed, but we know it will take bravery and leadership from the Government. We hope that Ministers will go for it and the House will unite behind those changes.

[Luke Murphy]

Q I am afraid that my questions are also to Richard, so apologies to the other witnesses. I want to go back to your original comment about nature and development not needing to be in conflict, with which I entirely agree. You also pointed out that we are suffering from significant species loss and environmental degradation.

As someone who has worked on both housing and protecting the environment for the last 10 years, I support this approach because the current system is not delivering. Do you agree that the current system is not delivering for either nature or development? Notwithstanding the flaws—I think there can be some honest disagreement on what the outcomes might be—do you welcome the fact that a new approach is being proposed, given that the current system is not delivering for either development or nature?

Richard Benwell: There is good scientific evidence that the habitats regulations are the most effective site and species protections in the world, but we definitely still need to go further. Some of those strategic solutions, particularly for landscape issues like water pollution, air pollution and water availability, can be improved.

You are right. There are loads of places where we could go further. We would love to see things like building regulations for biodiversity in the Bill, to help get nature built into the fabric of development as we go. To suggest that the habitats regulations are not working is wrong, but their implementation can definitely be improved and more use can be made of this kind of strategic approach if it is done well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

Accepted.

Matthew Pennycook: In terms of the top-up, we have already allocated £800 million to the affordable homes programme since coming into office. We have also pulled forward £2 billion as a down payment. A significant proportion of the homes coming through those funding routes are social rented homes—almost half, but I am happy to provide the Committee with the specific figure. So we are getting a huge uplift coming through, and the successor grant programme will give particular priority to social rented homes coming through.

Where I think spatial development strategies can add to what we see coming through is that these will not be big local plans—let us be very clear. They need to be pretty high-level documents that make decisions about where housing growth and infrastructure provision is best sited and delivered on a sub-regional basis. That will allow groups of local authorities to take a far more sophisticated approach to, for example, bringing forward large-scale new communities in strategic locations that allow them to meet housing targets in a more sophisticated way. Through other measures that we are introducing—the CPO measures in the Bill are a good example—we will capture more land-value uplift and deliver more social and affordable homes.

[Ellie Chowns]

Q To Minister Pennycook, I welcome your confirmation that you recognise that environmental, social and economic goals can be achieved together, and are not automatically or even frequently in contradiction with each other. Likewise, I welcome your confirmation that, as it says in the Bill, the purpose of the Government in bringing forward the Bill is to retain the existing level of environmental protections.

Given that commitment from the Government, given Richard Benwell’s observation that there are risks that could be addressed through amendments and given Marian Spain’s comments—that the Bill needs robust safeguards and that drafting amendments may make it more robust—I return to the question that Mr Murphy asked. Can you confirm that you retain an open mind and that you may consider tabling further Government amendments in response to the concerns raised, so that the Bill does what you are saying it does on the tin?

Matthew Pennycook: I appreciate the question. To reiterate—and this is where I slightly disagree with Mr Benwell and others—we are very clear that the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protections, in terms of existing environmental law. We are very clear about that, and confident in the safeguards that exist in the Bill.

I am happy to look at any amendment, and we will in the normal course of the Bill Committee; we will debate each of them in turn and I will keep an open mind about any that we think is feasible, workable, aligns with the objectives of the Bill and delivers what we want to see—absolutely. We will debate all of those in due course. As you rightly made clear, we tabled a package of Government amendments yesterday.

To bring it back to the specific point, some of those amendments on removing the statutory requirement for pre-applications consultation in relation to national significant infrastructure projects were tabled partly because we were getting feedback through the working paper, and also because there were a number of calls on Second Reading for us to specifically look at that area of reform. As you would expect in the normal course of the Bill, we will respond to challenge, criticism, scrutiny and any amendments, which we will debate in due course.

[The Chair]

If there are no more questions, I thank all our witnesses across the day for their evidence.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me be clear. I appreciate the concerns that hon. Members have expressed. I hope that I can provide some reassurance, but I am more than happy to have further exchanges on this point, which is an important one.

The clause introduces a new streamlined procedure for making material policy amendments to national policy statements, where the proposed amendments fall into four categories of changes to be made since the NPPS was last reviewed: reflecting legislative changes or revocations that have already come into force; relevant court decisions that have already been issued; Government policy that has already been published; and changes to other documents referred to in the NPPS.

A good example is our recent changes to the national planning policy framework—consulted on publicly and subject to a significant amount of scrutiny in the House. If a relevant NPPS had to be updated to reflect some of those policy changes, which have already been subject to consultation and scrutiny on their own terms, as I said, that would be a good example of where this reflective procedure might be useful.

The primary aim of the clause is to expedite the Parliamentary process for updating national policy statements. By doing so, it ensures that amendments that have already undergone public and parliamentary scrutiny can be integrated more swiftly into the relevant NPPS. In enabling reflective amendments to be made, the new procedure will support the Government’s growth mission by ensuring that NPPSs are current and relevant, increasing certainty for developers and investors, and streamlining decision making for nationally significant infrastructure projects.

Hon. Members should be assured that, where applicable, the statutory and regulatory prerequisites of an appraisal of sustainability and habitats regulation assessment will continue to apply to amendments that fall within this definition, as will the existing publication and consultation requirements for material changes to a national policy statement. The clause does, however—this is the point of debate that we have just had—disapply the requirements for the Secretary of State to respond to resolutions made by Parliament or its Committees. We believe that change is necessary to enable reflective changes to be made to NPSs in a more timely and proportionate manner.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way in one second, if the hon. Member will allow me, because I think this is some useful context for some of the discussions that have taken place over recent months.

The Government are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and the relevant Select Committee Clerks for engaging with me and my officials on the implications of the new procedure. We have agreed on certain guarantees to ensure that there will still be adequate parliamentary scrutiny when the procedure is used.

As such, I am happy to restate today that, when the Government intend to use the reflective amendment route to update a national policy statement, we will write to the relevant Select Committee at the start of the consultation period. We would hope in all instances that the Select Committee responds in a prompt and timely manner, allowing us to take on board its comments. Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the Committee during that period, in so far as that is practical.

The process retains scope for Parliament to raise matters with the Government in the usual fashion. Should a Select Committee publish a report within the relevant timeframes of the public consultation period—in a sense, that is one of the challenges we are trying to get at here: not all select Committees will respond in the relevant period, therefore elongating the process by which the reflective amendment needs to take place—the Government will obviously take those views into account before the updated statement is laid before the House in the usual manner.

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the Minister for reminding us that we are talking about a specific amendment to a specific clause about a specific thing. But the issue that is at stake here was communicated by his complaint that parliamentary process might slow things down. Surely, the whole point of Parliament is to make our laws. I am worried by the implication that Government see Parliament as a hindrance to getting things done, rather than as a crucial part of scrutiny and checks and balances. If the Minister has concerns about timescales, it is perfectly achievable to address those by setting timeframes. But the removal of the clause that requires the Government to pay attention to the views of cross-party Committees scrutinising particular statements is concerning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

This set of amendments is, at first sight, very sweeping and broad, as it will remove large sections of the Planning Act 2008. However, we have some sympathy with the Government. Provisions were put into the Act to proscribe dangerous commissioners who might make decisions without proper scrutiny. Given that the decisions reverted to the Secretary of State in 2011, it seems that a number of them may not be needed.

None the less, it is important to ensure that consultation is meaningful and of high quality. In place of the Planning Act provisions, we want a consultation test on the face of the Bill; if the machinery of the Committee so allows, we would like to table an amendment along those lines. If there is no test at all for meaningful consultation in NSIPs, these amendments would simply remove a great number of requirements for consultation without putting anything in their place. We should be moving from a set of sections in the Act that are about the mechanics of consultation to a qualitative test: consultation should be meaningful, and people should have had the opportunity to be consulted.

We would like to see the key principles in the guidance on the face of the Bill. That is the spirit in which we will respond to the amendments. We hope to be able to bring forward proposals for the Committee to consider.

[Ellie Chowns]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, as I should have said earlier. There are three reasons why I, too, have concerns about new clauses 44 and 45 and the removal of the requirement for pre-application consultation.

First, pre-application consultation is often a very useful process, as a way of highlighting and addressing issues between developers and other stakeholders before we get to the formal, structured, legalistic processes. There was a case in Suffolk in which engagement between the Wildlife Trust and National Grid resulted in the trust’s concerns being addressed in such a way that they did not have to be raised in a more legalistic way later in the process. Pre-application consultation is useful and productive for all parties. It is not for developers to decide whether pre-application consultation will be useful in a particular case, but there should be a statutory requirement for key stakeholders, such as local authorities, to be consulted in that way.

My second concern is that the replacement guidance requirements set out in new clause 45 do not provide sufficient clarity for developers, communities and other stakeholders, or for the Planning Inspectorate, on what pre-application engagement is required specifically, because the wording is too vague to provide sufficient clarity. “Have regard to” is a relatively weak duty, while

“what the Secretary of State considers to be best practice in terms of the steps they might take”

is very vague language. It would be open to interpretation and potentially to contestation, which could be unhelpful to speeding up the process in the way we seek.

My third concern, notwithstanding individual examples of processes that might have been held up, is that generally speaking pre-application consultation and public engagement is not the main constraint on the rapid processing of such applications. I understand that research conducted by Cavendish in 2024 looked at DCO consent times from 2011 to 2023. It found that for the first 70 projects going through the DCO process up until 2017, the response time was pretty reasonable. What changed in 2017? It was not the pre-application consultation requirements, which remained the same throughout the process.

Political chaos is what caused the change. Cavendish’s report identifies that it was political turmoil and manoeuvring that caused delays to happen once projects reached the Secretary of State’s desk—I see my Conservative colleague, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, nodding. Who was in government at that time? We had the turnover of Prime Ministers, Ministers and so forth. Bearing all that in mind—the fact that pre-application consultation is a very useful way of deconflicting issues of contestation, the fact that the replacement guidance is so vague as to be unhelpful and itself probably subject to test, and the fact that this is the wrong solution to the problem of delays—I am concerned.

[John Grady]

rose—

[Ellie Chowns]

I had come to the end, but I give way.

[John Grady]

I am grateful. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse.

Is the hon. Member disagreeing with the evidence that we heard from Catherine Howard, one of the most eminent planning lawyers in the United Kingdom? Catherine Howard said:

“We cannot magic up more comms consultants, lawyers, environmental impact assessment consultants and planning consultants in that period, so we desperately need a way to apply those professionals most efficiently in a really focused way across all the projects we need.”

She then went on to talk about the pre-app process, which has gone up from 14 months to 27 months:

“I suspect it is even longer now…The pre-app is always something I feel I have to apologise for and explain, and give the best story about how quick it might be”.––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 24 April 2025; c. 67, Q86.]

She explained that investors welcome this change. The pre-application process, in the mind of investors who want to invest in clean energy projects that lower carbon emissions and other critical infrastructure, is a very material source of delays, according to that witness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I would observe that generally speaking the way oral evidence sessions work is that the Government decide who they want to come and give evidence to support the arguments that they wish to put forward in Committee, so I am not all that surprised that we might have heard that evidence. I am not discounting what the witness said, but I am suggesting that there are other ways to look at it. A blanket removal of the pre-app consultation process with stakeholders who have a huge stake in applications, such as local authorities, is an excessively blanket position to take.

[Gideon Amos]

Would the hon. Member support a test in the Bill of the quality of the consultation carried out, in place of the mechanistic requirements in the previous Act? They do not actually exist in the Town and Country Planning Act, for example, and normal planning processes.

[Ellie Chowns]

Indeed, and I noted the hon. Gentleman’s comments about bringing forward a proposal about meaningful consultation. I would very much welcome looking at that. I think that would help to address the concerns being raised here.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I note the hon. Member’s comments about how the Government arrange the witness sessions, but surely she would not dispute the point about the increasing delays in the pre-application process from 14 months to 27 months. That is a serious issue. The Fens reservoir spent more than 1,000 days in pre-application. The National Grid’s application for Bramford to Twinstead spent 717 days in pre-application for just an overhead line and underground cables covering less than 30 km. Hinkley Point C spent three years in pre-app. Sizewell C spent seven and a half years in pre-app. The hon. Member cannot possibly be suggesting that pre-application is not an issue.

[Ellie Chowns]

I addressed those points in my comments. I am not disputing the fact that there are individual cases in which huge amounts of time have been spent. In response to the comments from the hon. Member for Glasgow East, I am not dismissing the evidence from the witness he referred to, but I have offered evidence from a report that looked at the whole spectrum of applications from 2011 onwards, which says that the representation of nature and community in pre-application requirements is not the underlying causal problem.

These issues are really complex. There is always a tendency to pick a particular example where the situation has clearly been problematic. I am not disputing the fact that some change may be needed. My argument is that it seems excessive to bring in a blanket policy and shift the pendulum too far away from the opportunity to use the pre-application consultation process to resolve issues that might clog up the process later on, because the requirement for meaningful consultation has been removed. Planning applications will always be contested, but these measures take it too far and sweep aside the rights of communities and organisations representing nature to have their voices heard, as well as the opportunity to resolve conflicts before they reach a legalistic stage.

[Jim Dickson]

Is the hon. Member aware that Cavendish, the organisation that produced the report, is a company that undertakes consultations? It might just be in its interest to make the case that consultation is not at fault for the delays. Does she agree that the five separate consultations over 15 years that were required—or not required, in my view—for the lower Thames crossing were excessive?

[Ellie Chowns]

I am aware that Cavendish is a consultancy company. It is perfectly reasonable to make that observation. Most people—I mean, pretty much anyone—who will ever give evidence or produce a report will have some sort of interest. We are not saying that anyone who works in the planning system in any way cannot have a viewpoint that is objective, evidence-based and so forth. There are clear examples of processes that have got stuck. I am concerned not only about unsticking the planning process, but about the proposal to let the pendulum swing too far away from the opportunity to have meaningful pre-application consultation that could be more effective than waiting until things bang up against each other further on in the process.

[John Grady]

rose—

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

rose—

[Ellie Chowns]

I am happy to take as many interventions as hon. Members want to make, but I am concerned about the timing, Mrs Hobhouse.

[The Chair]

It is up to you. You may take as many interventions as you wish.

[Ellie Chowns]

If Members feel that they have additional things to raise, they should feel free to speak.

[Nesil Caliskan]

I was rising to make my speech, Mrs Hobhouse, not to intervene; I apologise. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.

A crucial component of the ability to deliver homes across the country will be to deliver transport and other infrastructure projects. The measures in the Bill go some way towards speeding up the statutory processes of consultation in the delivery of infrastructure projects. As I outlined in my speech on Second Reading, the pre-consultation period for infrastructure projects is a major cause of delay for infrastructure being delivered. To echo the Minister’s remarks, the status quo in this country is simply not working to speed up the process.

As matters stand, applicants operate in what I describe as a hyper-risk-averse context. Delays caused to pre-application contribute not only to the length of time that it takes for infrastructure to be delivered, but to the cost. Other Members rightly identified the lower Thames crossing, which impacts my constituency; 2,000 pages and £800 million spent are figures that have served absolutely no one, and certainly not the taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan]

I do not accept that, because the statutory consultation period will still be in place and thresholds will still have to be met. The reality is that, as things stand, the pre-consultation period has become a beast in itself, which I do not believe is serving our communities. Years and years of endless consultations, including pre-consultations and pre-application consultations, is not true engagement with communities. That part of the process has become a period in which the applicants just try to derisk their approach to crucial infrastructure in this country, which will see land unlocked so that homes can be built.

[Ellie Chowns]

I do not think that anybody wants “years and years” of contest, but is it impossible to retain the requirement for a degree of pre-application consultation—perhaps within a shorter timescale or with a more tightly drawn set of consultees—so that issues can be dealt with informally and in advance, to prevent more problems arising further down the line? To sweep everything away seems excessive.

[Nesil Caliskan]

Manifestly, we do not want years of delay before the delivery of infrastructure, but the truth is that that is exactly what is happening in this country. There are years and years of delay, in part because of the pre-application consultation period.

There is nothing preventing applicants and local authorities, or communities and organisations, from working pre-application on the sort of engagement that the hon. Member is referring to, but including it in the proposals in this way would heighten the legal risk for applicants, making them very resistant to submitting their application formally before going through every single possible step. As hon. Members have highlighted, there is a very long list of examples where the status quo has created a huge burden, made the processes incredibly long and cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money. I think I recall the Minister saying that the proposed amendment would save up to about 12 months and £1 billion, which could be the difference between an infrastructure project being viable or not being viable. Infrastructure projects being viable will mean the land value will increase, and the potential for land to be unlocked and millions of homes to be built across the country will be realised.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting)

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I would say two things in response to that, and then perhaps, Ms Jardine, in the interests of making progress on the Bill, I will happily write to the Committee to set out further details of the operation of the surcharge.

First, on how the surcharge will be processed and distributed, it will, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, be paid by the person collecting the fee to the Secretary of State in a manner and at a time prescribed by regulations, which are forthcoming. Outside the regulations, the proceeds will then be earmarked for distribution to bodies that provide advice and assistance in the planning process, including by way of consultation responses.

Secondly, the question has been asked several times whether the Government have properly considered the cumulative impact of fees and charges—are we getting the fees right? We are very aware that the surcharge will increase the fees that are already out there—it is an additional levy in that sense—and that other measures in the Bill may already result in fee increases. I repeat that we are committed to consulting on the proposed rates and the type of application that this should apply to—not least to allow the development sector to fully engage with those proposals.

On that basis, I think it would help the Committee if I set out later—chapter and verse—how we think both the clause and the surcharge will operate, on a very practical basis, and how local authorities can understand the Government’s intent in bringing them forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

Training for local planning authorities in England

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I beg to move amendment 152, in clause 45, page 58, line 3, at end insert—

“(c) require that any training accredited under this section includes content on—

(i) inclusive design principles in the built environment;

(ii) the requirements and intent of Approved Document M, Volume 1: Dwellings of the Building Regulations 2010, with particular emphasis on the M4(2) accessible and adaptable standard and the M4(3) wheelchair user standard;

(iii) the requirements and intent of Approved Document B of the Building Regulations 2010;

(d) require that all members, elected members, and officers of a relevant local planning authority who carry out any function relevant to planning undertake mandatory training comprising the content set out in paragraph (c).”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 49, in clause 45, page 58, line 15, at end insert—

“(7A) This section applies in relation to a relevant planning function conferred on a mineral planning authority as if references to a local planning authority were to a mineral planning authority in England.”

This amendment has the effect that (if regulations under inserted section 319ZZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are made) members of a mineral planning authority in England who have not completed any training required by the regulations will be prohibited from exercising certain mineral planning functions on behalf of the authority.

Clause stand part.

[Ellie Chowns]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I did not prepare anything in advance—apologies—but I do think it is important for the Committee to consider amendment 152, tabled by an hon. Member from another party. The amendment asks the Government to consider using the opportunity offered by the Bill to ensure that the training provided—which is essential for those involved in planning decisions, whether elected members or officers—includes a specific focus on accessibility.

This is a really important issue. If we are to be an inclusive and equitable society, it is vital that planning decisions are made in a way that takes into account the importance of accessibility. It is also an increasing issue. We are an ageing society: in 2022, 19% of our population was over the age of 65, but in 50 years’ time that will be 27%—half as many people again. We know that disability is associated with age; we know that 45% of people over the age of 65 report a disability, and half of those disabilities are mobility-related. So, accessibility of buildings—accessibility of all the areas that come within the remit of planning decisions—is a crucial aspect.

I ask the Minister to comment on the suggestion made in amendment 152. Does he recognise the importance of these issues? Would he consider taking this away and exploring whether the clause could be amended to make this minor but important additional change, to ensure that all planning decisions going forward recognise the importance of accessibility?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Member understandably tempts me to start to specify what will be in the training, but I will not do that. Further details will be brought forward in due course, but I have certainly heard the case made by Committee members about what the training should include in respect of accessibility and other issues.

Finally, Government amendment 49 is a minor and technical amendment that clarifies that members of mineral planning authorities should also undergo training in planning matters. Mineral sites deal with complex planning issues, so it is only right that members of mineral planning committees, acting on behalf of mineral planning authorities, should be included in the requirement to undergo relevant training.

Along with amendments 50 and 51—which we will come to shortly—this amendment clarifies the position of mineral planning authorities for the purposes of the Bill. To be clear, we want to remove any doubt as to the requirements of the Bill with respect to the training of members of mineral planning committees, and that is what this amendment achieves. For those reasons, I humbly invite the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to withdraw amendment 152.

[Ellie Chowns]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 49, in clause 45, page 58, line 15, at end insert—

“(7A) This section applies in relation to a relevant planning function conferred on a mineral planning authority as if references to a local planning authority were to a mineral planning authority in England.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This amendment has the effect that (if regulations under inserted section 319ZZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are made) members of a mineral planning authority in England who have not completed any training required by the regulations will be prohibited from exercising certain mineral planning functions on behalf of the authority.

Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46

Delegation of planning decisions in England

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 46, page 61, line 39, at end insert—

“(7) Sections 319ZZC and 319ZZD and this section apply in relation to a relevant planning function conferred on a relevant mineral planning authority as if references to a relevant local planning authority were to a relevant mineral planning authority.”

This amendment has the effect that the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring certain planning functions conferred on mineral planning authorities in England to be discharged by certain persons or by committees of a certain size and composition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan]

I have heard comments about the planning system during the debate, but less focus on the fact that we have a housing crisis that has manifested itself in record numbers of people living in temporary accommodation, with young people unable to buy properties and many people priced out of the communities into which they were born and in which they live. A national housing crisis requires a national solution.

I do not believe that the proposed changes in any way hinder or damage democratic oversight from a local perspective. The reality is that with the existing framework, it is not possible to deliver planning approvals at the scale that is required to meet the national housing crisis, and a national delegation will help to speed up delivery. We cannot simply depend on a handful of brave councillors who too frequently find themselves in the firing line of decision making for schemes that it is clear to everybody should already have been approved.

I hear what Members say about local authorities, and what the LGA has said. However, the LGA is also clear about the housing crisis our communities are experiencing. The national scheme of delegation gives clarity not only to local authorities and planning officers, but to the industry that we so depend on to be able to build homes up and down the country. The scheme will also speed up processes. The speed at which planning permissions could be granted means that developers are more likely to put bricks on the ground and build homes. It is about recognising the severity of the housing crisis in this country and its impact on millions of people, and choosing whether one is willing to take action to address that need.

[Ellie Chowns]

I absolutely recognise that we have a housing crisis in this country, but does the hon. Lady recognise, in turn, that it is not just a question of building our way out of the housing crisis? Does she recognise that we have nearly 1 million empty homes in this country, that we have an incredibly unequal housing system, and that financial mechanisms such as the introduction of buy-to-let mortgages had a huge effect in making our housing system even more unequal and unaffordable for many people? Does she recognise that a key part of resolving the housing crisis has to be for Government to take a more direct role in funding the development of more genuinely affordable social rented housing?

[Nesil Caliskan]

I recognise a number of those points, but supply of housing is the fundamental reason why we have a housing crisis in this country. The amendments being proposed sit alongside many of the solutions that she is seeking. Without our ability as a country, including local authorities, to see housing delivered at the necessary speed, we will never see the number of affordable homes we need or a buy-to-let market being constrained in the way that it needs to be. Supply is the No. 1 reason why we are experiencing a housing crisis. We cannot deliver the number of homes we need without fundamentally looking at the planning system.

Finally, on councillors having their say, the idea that councillors run for public office only because they want to sit on a planning committee—it sounded as if a number of Members were insinuating that—is, I am afraid, a little out of touch. There are lots of ways in which local authorities and councillors can make a difference. Planning committees are indeed one of the most attractive committees, but there are multiple layers of regulatory policy in a local authority that members not only can have a say on, but get to vote on. Earlier, I referenced a local plan that full councils are required to vote on.

An officer making a decision on an application that will not go to a planning committee does not remove a local authority’s ability to put out for consultation. Members of the public, and indeed councillors, will still have the opportunity to submit their views through what will be a statutory consultation period. Local authorities and planning officers will be obliged to take those views into consideration.

I want to underline the point that if we accept that there is a housing crisis in this country and that the planning system is broken, surely planning has to be an aspect that we look at in recognition that local authorities are sometimes being hindered by the existing framework. The speed at which we can deliver housing through a more streamlined planning system, putting faith in professionals in a local authority alongside councillors, will allow us to deliver the 1.5 million homes that we so desperately need.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting)

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. I will turn to the substance of the amendment before I get into trouble, Mrs Hobhouse.

The amendment seeks to set the level of benefit at £1,000 per year over 10 years. First, I should say I welcome the fact that across the Committee today there is support for that principle. That is really important, because the principle that we want to recognise—to be fair, the previous Government did when they launched the consultation—is that if we host nationally important energy infrastructure, particularly transmission infra-structure, which so often has less of a community benefit in the communities that it passes through, there should be some benefit from it. That is a really important point.

The balance that we sought to strike was to find a way to give a benefit to those households affected by the transmission infrastructure, but also make sure that the wider bill payers across the country that will pay for those community benefits are not saddled with a significant bill as a result. So the balance that we struck was £250 per year over 10 years. I would never seek to question the House of Commons Library, but I think perhaps the hon. Member for Broxbourne might not be correct in his interpretation of its figures. It would be £2,500 over the course of the 10 years that the scheme would be in place. I think that is what he was referring to.

In our view, the point here is that this still provides a significant benefit regarding bills for those households for a substantial amount of time—10 years—but at the same time does not result in significant amounts being added to the bills of other people right across the country who will pay for this. We think £1,000—which we looked at carefully as part of this process—is too much.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I thank the Minister, and I absolutely recognise the importance of the principle of community benefit. However, would he not agree with me that it becomes problematic if we put in specific numbers, such as £250 or £1,000 a year? Inflation will change what that means, so is it not more relevant and logical to place a requirement more like the amendment advocated by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, which talks about a community dividend that is in proportion to the revenues generated by the project rather than an absolute number?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point; I will come to the new clause shortly. The difficulty with that approach for transmission infrastructure is that by definition it goes through so many different communities in a linear way that it would be really difficult to divide up that funding among communities. How you define each community is quite challenging, whereas defining households that are within a certain distance of pylons, for example, is very easy, and we want to give a direct benefit to those households.

[Ellie Chowns]

Logically, we could divide by the number of miles of transmission infrastructure in each community.

[Michael Shanks]

I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making, but a transmission line goes through a significant number of communities in a linear way. For a wind farm, you could draw a line around it and benefit all those communities; a transmission line does not work that way, so we would be giving to a significant number of communities who have maybe one or two pylons near them. That is why we think what is most important is that the households closest to the infrastructure get the direct community benefit.

To the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, this is not the only part of the Bill—we will also have a community benefits fund for infrastructure like substations, where if there is one particular piece of infrastructure built in a community, with all the disruption that goes with building that, wider community benefits come from that as well. It is not one or the other; we are doing both, but in a legislative sense, we only have to legislate on the Bill discount scheme, which is what we are talking about in this amendment.

The shadow Minister asked for detail on some important points—including that we should set out in secondary legislation the specific level of benefit and the duration over which it will be paid. Of course, the £250 a year is a “minded to” position that we have come to as a result of the consultation that the previous Government did and the evidence that we have seen, but that will be set out in secondary legislation, which—to the hon. Lady’s point—allows us to alter that over time if the scheme is successful. This is, in some ways, a trial to find out whether the intended policy outcomes result. I hope that for those reasons—I will come to some others—the hon. Member for Hamble Valley might withdraw his amendment.

Clause 22 is about creating a financial benefit scheme for eligible households living near certain new or significant increases in network transmission infrastructure, and inserts new sections into the Electricity Act 1989. It empowers the Secretary of State to establish and determine the overall design of the scheme, including qualification criteria, scheme administration, enforcement, and provisions requiring the benefit to be passed on.

The “pass-through provision” is outlined in new section 38B(2), and is essential to ensure that the right consumers benefit and to ensure that when an intermediary sits between the electricity supplier and the end user—as happens in some cases—the intermediary will be required to obtain the full benefit and then pass it on to the end user. If this is not complied with, new section 38B(3) allows regulations to provide for the withdrawal or recovery of benefits made to intermediaries.

To enforce compliance with the scheme, new section 38C details the enforcement provisions that may be made in regulations, and I hope this answers the shadow Minister’s point around potential fraud in the system and the imposition of penalties that we will make through secondary legislation for instances of regulations not being complied with. Finally, new section 38D deals with provisions around data collection for the purposes of administering the scheme. Overall, it is worth remembering the purpose of this clause: it is to improve the public acceptability of network transmission infrastructure.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting)

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We now come to amendment 29—

[Ellie Chowns]

Are we not having three more votes?

[The Chair]

No, because the debate was now, but the votes on amendments 75 and 82 and new clause 104 will come later.

[Ellie Chowns]

Sorry, but did we just vote on amendments 72, 75 and 82?

[The Chair]

Just 72 on its own.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

Amendment 29 would give effect to the Liberal Democrat target of building 150,000 new social homes per year by introducing such a requirement into spatial development strategies. It is a commitment set out in our manifesto, alongside a funding commitment of £6 billion per annum of capital investment—above current levels of affordable housing programme spending—to get to that level of provision over the course of a Parliament.

In contrast, the Government’s commitment of £2 billion in affordable housing programme funding for 2026-27, for up to 18,000 homes, is welcome but, in our view, does not go far enough. For too many people, a decent home has crept out of reach. The National Housing Federation and Shelter both make it clear that at least 90,000 new social homes are needed per year, given the loss of 20,500 social homes in 2023-24. According to the New Economics Foundation, 2 million council and social rent homes have been lost to right to buy since the 1980s, but only 4% of those have been replaced—a massive sell-off, leaving far too many people out in the cold when it comes to their housing aspirations.

A bath cannot be filled if the plug has been taken out. We need to end the current system of right to buy and allow councils the power to do so. As the University of Glasgow has shown, the building of private homes—even at the rates the Government advocate—will not mean any significant reduction in house prices. We should not rely on the private sector to build those low-rent and social rent homes we need. Private sector homes are built for profit. We need private market housing, and we have consented to thousands of new homes in my Taunton and Wellington constituency. However, those homes will never be released on to the market at a rate that will diminish prices or bring rents down to the levels that most people can afford. For all those reasons, we need to build 150,000 social rent homes per year, and that is the target that this amendment seeks to install into spatial environment strategies.

[Ellie Chowns]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I rise to speak to amendments 17 and 94. Can you clarify this is the correct time to do so?

[The Chair]

It is, yes.

[Ellie Chowns]

Marvellous! These amendments have been tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), and I speak to them as probing amendments. Amendment 17

“requires strategic planning authorities to include a specific housing density in their plans which ensures land is used effectively where it is considered strategically important.”

In our previous debate, we discussed questions of housing density. This amendment would help ensure land is used as effectively and efficiently as possible and prevent urban sprawl by encouraging strategic planning strategies to specify the optimal level of housing densities. It is not about specifying particular levels of housing densities but making sure that, in the preparation of strategic plans, adequate attention is given to the question of housing density.

That has a couple of benefits. First, it prevents unnecessary encroachment on green spaces, which, as I think we all agree, are so important—not just for nature protection but human wellbeing. It is also about ensuring that developments themselves have the life they need to succeed. The hon. Member for Barking made the point about the facilities, size and density of communities being at the critical mass to generate liveable communities. That means enough people to provide transport infrastructure and services, for example.

That is particularly relevant, as obviously our vital targets for decarbonisation require a modal shift away from short car journeys and towards active travel and public transport. Those forms of transport are especially supported by increasing housing density, so I would very much welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

Amendment 94 is concerned with the definition of affordable housing in clause 47, and suggests that, for the purposes of the clause, “affordable housing” should be considered to mean “social rent housing.” In our debate yesterday, it was pointed out that so-called affordable housing should be done only with air quotes around it, because so often it is not anywhere close to being affordable. We have, however, already set out in existing legislation and guidance what social rent housing means.

The reality is that in our housing market, social rented housing is the most affordable form of housing by far. In the context of a housing crisis and an increasingly and incredibly unequal housing market, it is crucial that when we set strategic plans to create affordable housing, that housing must be genuinely affordable. That has to mean social rent. I very much look forward to the Minister’s comments.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Gideon Amos]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise to speak to amendments 88 and 89, which together relate to spatial development strategies and their content. The important point is that spatial development strategies should provide properly for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Currently, the Bill says that they “may” provide for those matters. From the Liberal Democrats’ point of view, spatial development strategies must provide for tackling climate change.

Amendment 89 seeks to change the Bill’s current wording so that instead of saying that spatial development strategies may consider mitigation “or” adaptation, it says that they must consider mitigation “and” adaptation. It seems perverse that it should be one or the other. That may not be the intention, and no doubt the Minister will have a lengthy explanation as to why the Bill is drafted as it is, but our position is that climate change must be tackled in spatial development strategies. It is not an either/or in terms of adaptation and mitigation: it needs to be both.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I speak in support of the amendments tabled by my colleague, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, and also in support of amendment 79, on social infrastructure.

Amendment 79 is a probing amendment, emphasising the importance of social infrastructure such as parks, libraries, community hubs and sports facilities. These elements of the public realm are so important for community cohesion and strong communities. There are many communities that are doubly disadvantaged: they are economically disadvantaged and they lack the social infrastructure that is a key catalyst for development, social cohesion and wellbeing locally. We have a real opportunity in the Bill to specify the importance of social infrastructure—the elements of public space that enable people to come together to make connections and strengthen communities, and that act as the springboard for prosperity.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mrs Hobhouse. On your comments about the speed with which you handled things yesterday, that is to your credit as a Chair, rather than the other way around.

I rise to speak to Lib Dem amendments 89 and 123. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. Climate change mitigation and adaption are needed. Mitigation is about preventing climate change and adaptation is about dealing with the effects of climate change that we have not been able to prevent.

Amendment 123 relates to our earlier amendment on infrastructure delivery plans, and is intended to achieve something similar. House building is essential, as the Committee has discussed, to provide the homes that people need, but there are significant problems with our current approach to planning. We have targets for building homes, but we do not have the same targets or focus for all the things that come alongside housing.

My Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage has seen population growth of 35% in 20 years, which is why the boundaries of the predecessor constituency of Wantage shrunk considerably ahead of the 2024 general election. The single biggest issue I hear on the doorstep is that our services are struggling to cope. People cannot get doctor’s appointments, their children cannot access vital special educational needs and disabilities services, roads are often at a standstill and residents are not happy with the amount of amenities provided.

We must invest more in local infrastructure, particularly where there has been considerable housing and population growth, and support our local authorities to deliver it. Local authorities often do not have the powers or funding to deliver some of the most important infrastructure, particularly in respect of health, which is administered at a more regional level, and major transport schemes, as I will to illustrate. Nor does anyone within local authorities have the power to hold the bodies responsible to account—at least not fully.

For example, a new housing estate in my constituency has a bare patch of land designated to be a GP surgery. There is money from the developer in the section 106 agreement, to put towards the build, but the body responsible for delivering healthcare is the regional integrated care board, and although the development has been finished for a number of years, the land for the GP surgery still sits undeveloped. Fortunately, the district council is working with the ICB, and the GP surgery now has planning permission. But if the ICB had chosen, it may not have been delivered at all—there are no targets as part of the planning process that say the ICB has to deliver it. I am sure that is not the only case and that the same thing is replicated across the country.

Another example from my constituency is that of a new railway station at Grove to support the enormous population growth we have seen at Wantage and Grove. Local authorities do not have the power to insist that funding is allocated to that station on the Great Western main line, and are dealing with significant problems in accessing facilities in Oxford, as well as access to London and beyond. By not delivering the services that people need, we are undermining public support for housing growth, which is essential, as the Committee has discussed.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 10

Ayes: 3

Noes: 11

[Ellie Chowns]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—

“(6A) A spatial development strategy must—

(a) list any chalk streams identified in the strategy area;

(b) identify the measures to be taken to protect any identified chalk streams from pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage; and

(c) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the protection and enhancement of chalk stream habitats.”

This amendment would require a special development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm, and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 30, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—

“(6A) Where a strategy area includes a chalk stream, the spatial development strategy must include policies on permissible activities within the area of the stream for the purposes of preventing harm or damage to the stream or its surrounding area.”

This amendment would ensure spatial development strategies include policies to protect chalk streams.

Amendment 28, in clause 47, page 66, line 41, at end insert—

“(11A) A spatial development strategy must—

(a) take account of Local Wildlife Sites in or relating to the strategy area, and

(b) avoid development or land use change which would adversely affect or hinder the protection or recovery of nature in a Local Wildlife Site.”

This amendment would ensure that spatial development strategies take account of Local Wildlife Sites.

[Ellie Chowns]

I am delighted to move amendment 1 on chalk streams, which was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff).

Clause 47 introduces spatial development strategies to provide a new strategic layer to the planning system. That creates a real opportunity to create new planning protections for strategic but threatened natural resources, such as chalk streams. We have talked about these matters in the Chamber throughout my time here, so I think we all know that the south and east of England are home to fresh waters that rise on chalk soils, whose filtration qualities result in crystal-clear, mineral-rich waters teeming with aquatic life. They are truly beautiful.

A handful of chalk streams occur in northern France and Denmark, but the majority are found in England, so this globally rare ecosystem is largely restricted to our shores. We have a huge responsibly to protect it, and a huge opportunity with the Bill. Sadly, however, we are currently failing to look after this natural treasure adequately for the world. These rare habitats are threatened like never before due to development and other pressures. Some 37% of chalk water bodies do not meet the criteria for good ecological status, due in large part to over-abstraction of water to serve development in inappropriate locations. This spring is the driest since 1956, and there is a risk that some vulnerable chalk streams will dry up altogether, which would be terrible.

Amendment 1 would equip the Bill to address those risks and reduce the impact of development on chalk streams. It would direct the Secretary of State to create new protections for chalk streams and require spatial development authorities covering areas with chalk streams to use those protections to protect and enhance them within the SDS. The affixing of chalk stream responsibility to spatial development strategies would allow the protections to be applied strategically and effectively across entire regions where chalk streams flow. Water bodies, rivers and streams do not respect our administrative boundaries, so we need cross-boundary co-operation to ensure effective protection in the whole catchment. That would also allow the protection requirements to be fairly balanced with development objectives, furthering the wins for both nature and development that Ministers say they are so keen to see from this Bill.

Successive Governments have failed to bring forward the planning reforms needed to address the development pressures that are eroding some of England’s natural crown jewels, and chalk streams are absolutely in that category. There is significant cross-party support for this amendment and for action—I have heard many Members speak about this matter in the Chamber—so I hope the Minister listens, accepts the amendment and delivers a timely new protection for one of our most threatened habitats.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship Mrs Hobhouse. I do not agree that this is the right place to make such an amendment to the Bill, but I agree with the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about chalk streams and I want to put on my record my appreciation for those rare and irreplaceable habitats.

In Basingstoke and Hampshire, we are blessed with the River Loddon and the River Test. During the election campaign, I enjoyed—or was subject to, depending on your point of view—a sermon from Feargal Sharkey about chalk streams, and I learned much. As the hon. Lady says, they are very rare and irreplaceable, and they mean a lot to many people.

Although I do not believe this is the place to put this amendment into legislation, I would be grateful if the Minister can set out the Government’s position on how to protect these rare and special habitats. I also pay tribute to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Natural Basingstoke and Greener Basingstoke for their outstanding work and campaigning to protect these much-loved rare habitats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

Although I take the Minister’s point that there is nothing to prevent strategic planning authorities from making provision for protecting chalk streams, there is not anything to ensure that all the strategic planning authorities in which chalk streams exist will definitely take those measures.

I am going to be tabling further amendments later about irreplaceable habitats. I am not in the habit of proposing amendments about every single specific ecosystem, but chalk streams specifically have global significance and are cross-border in nature, and the spatial planning strategies offer a huge opportunity to tackle the issue head-on.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 14

Ayes: 6

Noes: 10

[Ellie Chowns]

I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—

“(6A) Where a spatial development strategy includes a Smoke Control Area or an Air Quality Management Area, the strategy must—

(a) identify measures to reduce air pollution resulting from the development and use of land in that area, and

(b) outline the responsibilities of strategic planning authorities in relation to the management of air quality.”

This amendment would require spatial development strategies which cover Smoke Control Areas or Air Quality Management Areas to consider air pollution and air quality.

This amendment would require that, where a spatial development strategy includes a smoke control area or an air quality management area, the strategy must identify specific measures to reduce air pollution from the development and use of land, and must outline the responsibilities of strategic planning authorities in managing air quality.

Currently, over 10 million people in the UK live in smoke control areas: zones where restrictions are placed on burning certain fuels or using specific appliances to reduce particular emissions. Likewise, more than 400 air quality management areas have been declared by local authorities under the Environment Act 1995 in locations where air pollution exceeds national air quality objectives. These are places where we are really not doing well enough on air pollution. Despite the formal recognition of these zones, they are often not meaningfully integrated into spatial development strategies, so this legislation gives us an opportunity to ensure that new housing, transport and infrastructure projects, when approved, must fully account for their cumulative impacts on already poor air quality.

Construction and land development are direct contributors to air pollution through increased traffic volume, emissions from building activity and the removal of green space that helps to filter pollutants. In many cases, strategic planning authorities are not required to take those factors into account when drafting or approving development strategies. The amendment would close that gap by ensuring that air quality is treated not as a secondary consideration, but a fundamental part of sustainable planning. Perhaps I should declare an interest as an asthmatic, like huge numbers of people in the UK.

The amendment also strengthens the accountability of strategic planning authorities, by requiring them not just to assess air quality impacts, but to work out what they are going to do—to define their roles—in addressing them. That would help to prevent the recurring issue where the responsibility for mitigating air pollution falls between Departments or different levels of government, central and local. It would ensure that development strategies are consistent with the UK’s broader legal commitments to air quality, including the targets that we set under the Environment Act 2021 and the national air quality strategy.

From a public health perspective, the case for the amendment is clear. Air pollution is linked to an estimated 43,000 premature deaths annually in the UK. That is a huge number and contributes to a range of serious health conditions, particularly among children, older adults and those living in deprived areas. The economic cost of air pollution, including its impact on the NHS, is estimated at a whopping £20 billion a year. Embedding air quality considerations directly into spatial planning is a proactive and cost-effective way to address the crisis before further harm is done to human health.

I believe that the amendment provides a clear, proportionate mechanism for ensuring that planning strategies support our clean air objectives. I strongly urge the Minister to consider warmly the amendment.

[Gideon Amos]

I very much sympathise with the amendment. Indeed, I have air quality management areas in my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, including two that breach the lawful limits of air pollution. We desperately need the bypass for Thornfalcon and Henlade, which would solve that particular issue.

In brief, I feel that the approach in amendment 93 is not quite right, because it would be better directed at local plans. As I understand it, spatial development strategies are not site-specific or area-specific in their proposals. We do not feel that the amendment is quite the right approach, but we are very sympathetic to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire’s motivation for tabling it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Once again, I understand the positive intent of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire’s amendment. Of course, improving air quality is a highly important issue in many parts of the country, not least in my own south-east London constituency. It is part of the reason why, many moons ago now, I established the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution. It is a public health issue and a social justice issue, and the Government are committed to improving air quality across the country. Amendment 93, however, is another example of trying to ask SDSs to do things that they are not designed for, and replicating existing duties and requirements that bear down on authorities in an SDS.

[Ellie Chowns]

Does the Minister not recognise that the fact that we have such huge problems with air pollution means that existing regulation is not working well enough?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy, in the interests of time, to set out what the Government are doing on this agenda through ministerial colleagues, but I return to this fundamental point: what are we introducing spatial development strategies for? They are high-level plans for infrastructure investment for housing growth. They need not replicate every existing duty and requirement in national policy.

Local authorities are already required to review and assess air quality in the area regularly, setting air quality management areas where national objectives are not being met. National planning policy is clear that opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impact should be identified at the plan-making stage to ensure a strategic approach. Again, I make the point that SDSs have to ensure that local plans are in general conformity with them. Planning decisions should ensure that any development in air quality management areas and clean air zones is consistent with the local air quality action plan.

Placing responsibilities—this is the fundamental point, which also applies to other amendment—on strategic planning authorities in relation to air quality management would replicate existing duties, and we therefore do not think the amendment is necessary. The hon. Lady may feel strongly and wish to press it to a vote. However, although it is entirely laudable that hon. Members with amendments are taking an opportunity to make points about the value of existing national duties and requirements, or the ways those may need to change, I hope that I have clearly outlined why the provisions on introducing an effective layer of strategic planning across England are not the place to have those debates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the Minister for his response. We will have to agree to somewhat disagree on this matter, but in the interests of time—and because I can count—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to speak to amendments 90 and 91—hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I will be brief. We have significant concerns about community involvement in consultation and about many of the points that have just been made. I have more to say on all that for the next group, in which we have tabled an amendment to make those points.

Amendments 90 and 91 would simply ensure that disabled people are consulted in the preparation of spatial development strategies. The Equality Act 2010 includes a public sector equality duty: a duty on public authorities to advance equality and eliminate discrimination. That implies that disabled people should be consulted on spatial development strategies in any case. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report on disabled people in the housing sector said:

“Despite the cross-government effort to ‘ensure disability inclusion is a priority’…we have found little evidence that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is treating disabled people’s needs as a priority in housing policy.”

We need to make sure that the voices of disabled people are heard in the preparation of spatial development strategies.

[Ellie Chowns]

I rise, briefly, to support the substantive point about the necessity of public consultation on something as important as a spatial planning strategy. As new section 12H of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is entitled “Consultation and representations”, it is disappointing that there is actually no provision for consultation. There is provision only for the consideration of notification, which is inadequate for strategies that will be as important as these. I urge the Minister to consider going away and aligning the text of his clause with the title of his clause.

[David Simmonds]

When we were drafting amendment 78, we gave a good deal of consideration to the direction of travel set out by the Government. The concerns that underlay the drafting were reinforced in the evidence sessions, where the Committee heard from a cross-party panel of local government leaders that the consultation process in planning was an opportunity to get things right, and for a public conversation about the impact of any proposed development, large or small, in order to forestall, through the planning process, objections that might later arise, by designing a development that would meet those concerns.

We have heard today a number of examples from Members that fall within that category. We have heard cross-party concerns about the impact on chalk streams, where consultation would allow effective parties with an interest to bring forward their views—for example, on the impact of run-off. A developer would therefore have the opportunity to build those concerns into the design of their proposed scheme to mitigate the impact and address the concerns.

We heard about the impact of air pollution on asthmatics—including, for the record, me. If a developer says they are planning to use biomass or wood burning as the heat source for a development, and the stoves are on the DEFRA exempt list—that is, if the Government consider that they produce little or no environmental pollution—that might be acceptable to people with that concern. However, if it will simply be up to the developer to install whatever they wish, that will have a significant negative impact and there is no opportunity for mitigation. The consultation is therefore critical.

There is a direction of travel: it feels very much that the Government’s view is that consultation and democracy are a hindrance to getting new units built. It is very clear from the views expressed by many Members—from all parties, in fairness, but certainly in the Opposition amendments that have been put forward—that we are keen to retain a sufficient element of local democracy and local voice to ensure that the kinds of concerns I have described are properly addressed. I invite the Minister to consider accepting the amendment, which would not in any way derail the intentions that he sets out in the Bill, but would achieve the opportunity for consultation, which is critical.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I take on board the strength of feeling that has been expressed. As with all the debates we are having, I will reflect on the arguments that hon. Members have made. However, we do not think the amendments are necessary. As I have sought to reassure the Committee on previous occasions, each SDS will have to undergo public consultation and then be examined by a planning inspector. Once a draft SDS is published, it is open for anyone to make representations about that SDS. For those reasons, I hope that, in dealing with the specific amendments, I can reassure the Committee that they are unnecessary.

Turning first to amendment 78—

[Ellie Chowns]

I have been reading the clauses very carefully. As I read the Bill, it provides that a draft SDS can be produced without any public consultation whatsoever—in other words, a draft SDS can be produced by somebody in a cupboard with access to the internet. New section 12H, which deals with consultation and representations, provides an opportunity for consultation on the draft, preparatory to the examination and then the finalisation.

The problem is that new section 12H does not provide for consultation; it provides only for the consideration of notifying various local bodies. According to the Bill, it provides that

“the authority must also publish or make available a statement inviting representations to be made to the authority”.

Without any clarity on what that involves, an authority can just put something on a website that says, “If you’re interested in this, send us an email,” and nobody in the local area would have a clue that it was happening. The point of consultation is that it is an active process of engagement with those who have a legitimate interest in the matter. I think the Bill’s drafting does not reflect that.

[Matthew Pennycook]

May I press the hon. Lady, so that I understand her carefully made point? A draft SDS will be published and it will be a requirement, under clause 12H, that the strategic planning authority either notifies or consults, and that will then be open for comment or representations. I want to understand the hon. Lady’s point, because I will go away and reflect on it. In what way does she think that is different from the consultation process on, for example, a local development plan?

[Ellie Chowns]

New section 12H(3) says that the authority

“must consider notifying…the following”,

so there is no specification that it must notify; it must only consider notifying. The person in the cupboard could consider notifying them and decide, “No, I’m not going to notify them.” The only hard requirement is that

“the authority must…publish…a statement inviting representations”.

As I have just outlined, that is not the same as consultation. I taught this subject at university: according to Arnstein’s ladder of participation, consultation is at a higher level than notification. Will the Minister take that away and consider improving the provisions for consultation?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Lady cut me off early in my remarks, so let me develop them somewhat and deal with the specific point that, by our reading, the amendment deals with. The list of public bodies detailed in new section 12H(3) sets out that strategic planning authorities must consider notifying community and interest groups that a draft of their spatial development strategy has been published. In subsection (3), it is very clear who the strategic planning authority must consider notifying—I have it in front me. That list is by no means exhaustive or exclusive. Indeed, new section 12H(4) requires strategic planning authorities to invite representations, as I have said, about their draft strategy. That invitation is open to all, including residents and businesses within the strategy area.

The purpose of new section 12H(3) is to ensure that strategic planning authorities consider a broad range of opinion when they consult on their draft strategy. There is nothing in the Bill, or elsewhere, to prevent residents or businesses from participating in the consultation, or to prevent strategic planning authorities from notifying them of the consultation specifically. For those reasons, we do not think—

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

In the interests of making progress, let me say that I have understood the hon. Lady’s point, and will happily go away and reflect on it, but we do not think the amendment is necessary. For the reasons I have set out, we will resist the amendment if she presses it to a vote. As I said, I am more than happy to reflect on her point; she has made it very clearly and it has been understood.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister is being very clear in his position on the amendments, but I have extreme sympathy for, and agreement with, the hon. Member for Hereford north.

[Ellie Chowns]

North Herefordshire.

[Paul Holmes]

I am sorry about that. I am not very good at geography; I did not teach it at university.

I hope the Minister takes these concerns in the spirit in which they are intended. I say that a lot, but there is genuinely a huge concern about the difference between notifying and consulting, and about what he has said in Committee today. The minimum wording in the Bill—I guarantee that strategic planning authorities will look at it and follow it to the letter, given the work they have to do—is that the strategic planning authority

“must consider notifying (at least) the following about the publication of the draft spatial development strategy”.

New section 12H(4) outlines that the planning authorities should publish the draft spatial strategy

“as required by subsection (1)(a)”,

or make

“such a strategy available for inspection”,

but there is a vast difference between “notifying (at least)” and consulting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I am grateful to the Minister and I know he is doing his best in this regard. I am challenging not to be obtuse or difficult, but because, as I have said, there is clear concern about the wording in the Bill, and his interpretation, which is the really important thing, is an interpretation of language in the Bill that we just do not feel is tight enough. I know he has committed to writing to the Committee, and we would like him to do that. I did ask whether he would consider looking at the consultation element in relation to proposed new section 12H(3).

On his reference to the London plan, that is fine—we can compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges—but let us look at the fact that this is a provision in legislation that will be new. I think that he should be looking at this afresh, aside from what happened before. Just because something has happened before does not mean it is correct or right, and we want the language in the Bill tightened up as much as possible. I really regret to say to the Minister—

[Ellie Chowns]

I plead with the hon. Member not to press the amendment to a vote, in the interests of time and also because I cannot vote for his amendment proactively, because I think it is even more poorly written than the text it is trying to replace, so can we—[Laughter.]

[Paul Holmes]

After I was so kind to the hon. Lady! Actually, we agree on this issue, and it is not my amendment; it was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, so it is his fault. But whether she thinks it is poorly worded or not has no bearing on my inclination to press the amendment to a vote or not, because I think the principle is what matters. I think we both have a principled stance on what we want to achieve in the Bill, which is consultation.

Whether the hon. Lady thinks that the amendment is worded wrongly or not—I say that with all due respect, genuine respect, to the hon Lady—what I was saying to the Minister was that he has made a number of commitments, but I fear that coming back to this on Report and not—[Interruption.] I am coming to a close, Mrs Hobhouse, but other people have had their say on this and it is important that we have our say on our amendment. The Minister has been very clear on what he wants to do, but I do not think he has gone far enough, so we will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Applications for development consent: costs

[Ellie Chowns]

I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 50, page 84, line 27, at end insert—

“(2A) An environmental feature identified in an EDP must not be—

(a) an irreplaceable habitat;

(b) ecologically linked to an irreplaceable habitat to the extent that development-related harm to that feature or the surrounding site would negatively affect the irreplaceable habitat.

(2B) For the purposes of this section, ‘irreplaceable habitat’ means—

(a) a habitat identified as irreplaceable under The Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Irreplaceable Habitat) Regulations 2024, or

(b) an ecologically valuable habitat that would be technically very difficult or impossible to restore, create or replace within a reasonable timescale.”

This amendment would mean that an Environmental Delivery Plan cannot be created for irreplaceable habitats, and would maintain existing rules and processes for the protection of irreplaceable habitats, including under the National Planning Policy Framework.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 13, in clause 50, page 84, line 32, leave out “an” and insert “a significant”.

This amendment would require that an improvement made to the conservation status of an identified environmental feature within environmental delivery plans should be significant.

Amendment 33, in clause 50, page 84, line 33, at end insert

“, and deliver new nature-based solutions to flooding and sustainable drainage systems in the area covered by the EDP.”

Amendment 148, clause 50, page 84, line 38, at end insert—

“(4A) Subsection (4) does not apply where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site and is—

(a) a chalk stream;

(b) a blanket bog.”

Government amendments 95 and 96.

Clause stand part.

[Ellie Chowns]

I rise to speak in very strong support of amendment 18 to clause 50, which is one of a number of amendments I have tabled to part 3. I have significant concerns about part 3—concerns clearly shared by a wide range of environmental organisations, the Office for Environmental Protection and by many prominent scientists.

Amendment 18 seeks to ensure that irreplaceable habitats, those rare and exceptional ecosystems that, once lost, cannot be recreated, are explicitly excluded from being subjected to environmental delivery plans under the Bill. In simple terms, it provides a critical safeguard for our most ecologically valuable places by ensuring that EDPs, tools designed to offset and manage environmental harm from development, cannot be applied to irreplaceable habitats or to features whose degradation would harm such habitats. It is not possible to offset an irreplaceable habitat; it is, by definition, irreplaceable.

--- Later in debate ---

With that explanation, and fully appreciating that we may come back to this, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

If the hon. Lady wants to intervene, she is more than welcome to.

[The Chair]

Order. Does the hon. Lady want to intervene, or shall I call her to speak at the end?

[Ellie Chowns]

I want to say something further, but not specifically as an intervention.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will continue then and turn to amendment 148.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Indeed. I look forward to seeing how Hansard tidies up that exchange.

As the shadow Minister said, amendment 148 would prevent chalk streams and blanket bogs from being an environmental feature for which conservation measures can be put in place that address the harm from development at a different location from the impacted site. Where the feature to which an EDP relates is an irreplaceable habitat, such as a blanket bog, it would not be possible for impacts on that feature to be compensated for elsewhere. That is the nature of their being irreplaceable.

The Bill is clear that impacts must be adequately addressed for an environmental delivery plan to be made by the Secretary of State. Moreover, as I just set out in relation to a previous amendment, both chalk streams and blanket bogs are protected by the national planning policy framework. They are not environmental obligations that can be discharged through the nature restoration fund, so they would not be the focus of an environmental delivery plan.

The NPPF makes it clear that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Those protections will continue to apply. On that basis, I hope the shadow Minister will not press the amendment.

Due to the slightly muddled way in which we have debated these amendments, I have not had the chance to respond to amendment 13, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, so I will do so now. As he set out, it would require environmental delivery plans to go further than the current requirement to contribute to an “improvement” in the conservation status of an environmental feature to contributing to a “significant improvement”. The Government have always been clear that they would legislate only where we could secure better outcomes for nature, and that is what we have secured through these clauses by moving beyond the current system of offsetting to secure an improvement in environmental outcomes.

Clause 50 requires that an environmental delivery plan must set out not only how conservation measures will address the environmental impact of development, but how they will contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the environmental feature in question. That reflects the commitment that EDPs will go beyond neutrality and secure more positive environmental results.

That commitment ties into the crucial safeguard in clause 55(4), which ensures that an EDP can be put in place only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the delivery of conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development. That means that environmental delivery plans will already be going further than simply offsetting the impact of development.

However, requiring environmental delivery plans to go even further, in the way that the amendment proposes, risks placing a disproportionate burden on developers to contribute more than their fair share. In effect, I am arguing that EDPs already go beyond the status quo. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member will not press the amendment, not least because we will discuss these issues in more detail in the debate on clause 55.

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the Minister and other hon. Members for their comments; I would like to push the amendment to a vote. I agree with the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on the importance of including the word “significant”, but as the Minister says, we will come on to that later. I recognise the importance of chalk streams and blanket bogs, but they are not the only habitats that should be protected, which is why I think my amendment is clearer and more comprehensive. It incorporates the issues that were raised by the hon. Member.

The Minister argued that my amendment is not required because there are existing protections for irreplaceable habitats, but he indicated that there could be some grey areas, for example where certain features of irreplaceable habitats, such as particular creatures or aspects, are considered as part of EDPs. That creates an unhelpful greyness and is concerning.

The Minister mentioned the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection. That advice has caused me considerable concern. The OEP is worried by several aspects of the Bill and states:

“In our considered view, the bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law”,

so it would undermine protections that are currently in place. The OEP states:

“As drafted, the provisions are a regression. This is particularly so for England’s most important wildlife—those habitats and species protected under the Habitats Regulations.”

That says very clearly that changes are urgently needed to part 3 of the Bill. If we cannot amend part 3 to protect irreplaceable habitats, what hope do we have of tackling other issues? This is very important, and I would like to push the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I understand the shadow Minister’s point, and I will offer to write to him. His point about the sequencing of an EDP and the conservation measures that it would give rise to is valid. How can we essentially, through the fee and charging schedule process, ensure that those measures can be carried out on the basis of that fee? I will write to the shadow Minister with more detail on how we envisage that particular part of the Bill working. While later clauses set out further detail on the framework governing charging schedules, EDPs cannot function without them, and this clause ensures their inclusion and proper regulation.

Let me turn to clause 52. As well as clear charging schedules, it is important that EDPs include a range of other matters. Clause 52 supplements clauses 50 and 51 in setting out further detail on the information that Natural England must include in an EDP, ensuring that EDPs are transparent and robust.

As with all environmental matters, it is vital to understand the underlying environmental condition, which is why an EDP must describe the current conservation status of each identified environmental feature. This is crucial to set the baseline against which improvements can be measured. Flowing from that baseline, Natural England must set out why it considers the conservation measures to be appropriate, including details of alternatives considered and why they were not pursued, as well as listing the plans and strategies to which Natural England had regard in preparing the EDP in question. Like the assessment of the baseline, the consideration of alternatives is an important step that ensures that the best approach is taken forward and justified.

The EDP must also include an overview of other measures being implemented, or likely to be implemented, by Natural England or another public body to improve the conservation status of the environmental feature. This will provide confidence that the EDP is properly targeted and that the conservation measures are additional to other ongoing actions to support the relevant environmental features.

To ensure clarity in respect of protected species, EDPs must also specify the terms of any licences that will be granted to a developer or to Natural England. A further important element of the clause is that Natural England must set out how the effects of an EDP will be monitored, which will be critical to ensuring that further action can be taken, if necessary, across the life of an EDP. Natural England is under a duty to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in doing that.

The clause also provides a power for the Secretary of State to stipulate further information that must be included in an EDP. It may be used for various purposes, for example, to require an EDP relating to a protected species to set out how relevant licensing tests are met. For those reasons, I commend both clauses to the Committee.

I would like a chance to respond to amendment 3 if it is spoken to in due course.

[Ellie Chowns]

I rise to speak to amendment 3, a crucial amendment relating to timing. The current wording in clause 52 opens the door to conservation measures in EDPs coming long after the environmental features that they relate to having been damaged. Such a delay could be fatal to some habitats and species that have already suffered decline, so the mitigation could come too late. That is what the amendment aims to address. The absence of direction on the timing of EDP measures has been highlighted by the Office for Environmental Protection as one of its key concerns about part 3. The OEP’s advice to the Secretary of State observed:

“The bill is silent as to when conservation measures must be implemented and by when they must be effective. This gives rise to the possibility of significant impacts on the conservation status of protected species or sites arising before the successful implementation of conservation measures.”

That is the exact concern at the heart of amendment 3.

I want to illustrate the point with the example of the hazel dormouse. This rare, beautiful species has declined in number in England by 70%. Populations have become extinct in Hertfordshire, Staffordshire and Northumberland in the last few years. In places where they are clinging on, EDPs could be the final nail in the coffin. Hazel dormice are reliant on woodlands, travel corridors, established hedgerows and scrub. If an EDP permitted the destruction of those habitats on the basis of replacement habitats being provided some years down the road, it could be too late. It takes seven to eight years for hedgerows and scrub and significantly longer for woodland to become established, but a dormouse’s life span is three to five years, so there are several generations of dormice that could be affected by the destruction of habitat. Without their home, the populations would quickly die off, causing irreversible damage to the species before the replacement habitat came into effect.

Amendment 3 would deliver on the OEP recommendation to rectify that part of clause 52 and prevent such harm before mitigation, which is not intentional, I hope, but could arise accidentally if we do not adopt amendment 3. It would require Natural England, when setting the content of an EDP, to set a timetable for the delivery of conservation measures, guided by the principle that gains for nature should come in advance of harm from development. When Natural England is of the opinion that harms to an environmental feature are irreversible, it would have to ensure through the timetable that a boost to conservation status had been achieved before harm from development occurs.

I stress that the irreversible harm element would likely only apply in a small minority of cases when the most threatened habitats or species populations face possible destruction from harm coming before mitigation. In most cases, the amendment would simply mean that Natural England would be required to show careful consideration of how it would be ecologically best to sequence conservation measures when drawing up an EDP, prioritising up-front environmental gains. In sum, the amendment is a constructive effort to resolve a key threat to nature identified by the OEP itself. I very much hope the Minister will accept it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I recognise that the amendment is a constructive attempt to highlight an issue that the OEP highlighted to us. I make the broad point again: we are carefully considering the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection and will continue to work with the sector and parliamentarians to deliver on the intent of the Bill in this area. We have been very clear on the intent of this part.

The amendment seeks, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire has just outlined, to require Natural England to produce a timetable for the delivery of conservation measures and additional requirements to secure environmental improvement in advance of development coming forward. While recognising the good intentions behind the amendment, the Government are confident that the legislation strikes the right balance in securing sufficient flexibility around the delivery of conservation measures, alongside safeguards that ensure conservation measures deliver an overall improvement for nature.

[Ellie Chowns]

How can the Government have that confidence when the OEP says that they should not?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is worth reading the OEP’s letter in full. It broadly welcomes the overall thrust of the Bill in this area. We will reflect on and respond to the concerns it has highlighted. We want to ensure there is confidence that this part of the Bill can deliver on those objectives—that win-win for nature. If the hon. Lady will let me set out how different elements of the Bill might provide reassurance in this area, she is more than welcome to follow up and intervene.

The legislation is clear—we will come on to debate this—that the Secretary of State can make an EDP only when they are satisfied that the conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development. That test would not allow irreversible or irreparable impact to a protected site or species. It would allow Natural England, the conservation body for England, to determine what the appropriate measures are for bringing forward an EDP and how best to bring them forward over the period of the delivery plan.

We will come later to Government amendment 97, which in part deals with this issue by introducing a timeframe to the overall improvement test. It would mean that in applying that test, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the negative effects of development will be outweighed by the conservation measures by the end date of the EDP.

[Ellie Chowns]

The Minister has tabled amendments 95 and 97, but is that the sum total of the Minister’s response to the OEP’s advice? Those amendments do not, by any means, address the thrust and specifics of that advice. What further response does the Minister intend to make in response to and recognition of the OEP’s advice?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not think I could have been any clearer that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s letter and the points it has set out. I will not issue the Government response to that letter today in Committee; I am setting out the Government’s position on the Bill as it stands, but we will reflect on those concerns. If we feel that any changes need to be made to the Bill, we will, of course, notify the House at the appropriate point and table any changes. We are reflecting on whether they are needed to ensure that the intent of this part of the Bill, which we have been very clear must deliver both for the environment and for development, is met.

I will finish by making a couple of more points, because there are other provisions of the Bill that pertain to this area. There is already a requirement in clause 57 for Natural England to publish reports at least twice over the environmental delivery plan period, which will ensure transparency on how conservation measures are being delivered. That requirement is a minimum, and it may publish reports at any other time as needed. The reports will ensure that Natural England can monitor the impact of conservation measures to date to ensure that appropriate actions are taken to deliver the improved outcomes.

In establishing an alternative to the existing system, the Bill intentionally provides flexibility to diverge from a restrictive application of the mitigation hierarchy. We will come on to that again in clause 55. That, however, will only be where Natural England considers it to be appropriate and where it would deliver better outcomes for nature over the course of the EDP. The status quo is not working, and we have to find a smarter way to ensure there is that win-win. The alternative is to say that the status quo remains as it is, and we do not get those more positive outcomes for nature, but as I have said, we are reflecting on the OEP’s letter.

--- Later in debate ---

I will also make a broader point, which is important. We published a planning reform working paper on this approach, and had huge amounts of feedback. We have taken the sector with us at every point in attempting to produce the clauses that have come forward and to find a solution that works for all. That is why this part of the Bill was so warmly welcomed by a range of external stakeholders at the point of publication—I refer hon. Members back if they did not see that—including by many environmental NGOs.

[Ellie Chowns]

I have seen comments from a number of environmental NGOs that were upset with how their previous comments had been taken out of context and used to indicate support for the Bill in a part of it that they do not feel so strongly supportive of. I have also heard feedback from environmental and nature protection NGOs that are frustrated with the fact that there was not a huge amount of consultation, or the formality of consultation that there could have been.

I genuinely do not want to get into a “He said, she said” debate or anything like that. I encourage the Minister gently to recognise the seriousness of the critique and the concerns that have been expressed. The Minister has said that the status quo is not working and that we need to change it. Amendment 3 proposes a further improvement; it is not a wholesale chucking out of absolutely everything in the Bill. A genuine attempt to strengthen this particular aspect of the Bill is being proposed in respect of the timing of measures under EDPs, recognising that given how nature works, it is important that the improvement comes before the destruction. That is all the amendment is about.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I say it once again for the record: I have understood the hon. Lady’s point. I will reflect on it, in the spirit of this Committee as a whole. I have sought to take points away when they are well made, and to give them further consideration.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting)

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Dr Huq.

I was speaking to this group of measures at the tail-end of yesterday’s sitting. I discussed clause 55, I spoke to the purpose and effect of clause 56, and I mentioned Government amendments 97 and 98. I will now turn to the other amendments in this group, beginning with amendment 119, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, which seeks to amend the threshold for when the Secretary of State may make an environmental delivery plan.

Amendment 119 speaks to the shift from site-by-site assessments to our strategic approach. In developing an alternative to the existing system, we need to recognise that a strategic approach that covers a potentially large amount of development over a number of years is a materially different proposition from assessing the impact of a single development. We must therefore approach that proposition in a different way. Put simply, we cannot be as unequivocal about outcomes as we would be on a site-by-site assessment basis.

The drafting of the clause reflects that, as it would not be appropriate to replicate the approach applied to assessments of individual sites. Instead, the Bill provides a wider package of safeguards, such as appropriate monitoring, the ability to deploy back-up measures and the ability to amend environmental delivery plans, to ensure that plans deliver the positive outcomes over the plan period.

That is also why clause 50 requires that an environmental delivery plan must set out not only how conservation measures will address the environmental impact of development, but how they will contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the environmental feature in question. It is also why clause 52(2) requires a draft environmental delivery plan to set out why the conservation measures selected are “considered appropriate” to meeting that goal.

As we have said since the Bill’s introduction, it is about delivering more for nature, not less. As I said in a previous sitting, we are therefore carefully considering the advice of the Office for Environmental Protection and its support for the intentions of the reforms. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Lady will in time agree not to press amendment 119.

Amendment 14 seeks to introduce a new threshold for when the Secretary of State may make an environmental delivery plan. Again, in developing the new approach, we have always been clear that the nature restoration fund will deliver more for nature, but that is not a substitute for wider action to support nature recovery. While it is right that we seek to do more and to outweigh the impact of development, we must ensure that we are not asking developers to contribute more than their fair share. That is not a check on ambition, but an acknowledgment that positive results can be realised only if environmental delivery plans are a viable option for developers.

The test in clause 55(4) ensures positive outcomes, but it cannot be set at a level that would make it impossible to bring forward an operable environmental delivery plan—that would be a lose-lose situation for the economy and for nature. Again, on that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will not press amendment 14.

Finally, I turn to amendment 20, also tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. This amendment seeks to amend the operation of the overall improvement that the Secretary of State must consider before making an environmental delivery plan. As I have already clarified for the Committee, the nature restoration fund will provide a different route for developers to discharge existing environmental obligations. In establishing this new approach, it is necessary to depart from existing process.

As I have outlined, the new approach will go further than the existing system, which requires measures only to offset harm to achieve neutrality. By taking this new approach we will deliver more for nature, not less. Although the Bill does not require a restrictive application of the mitigation hierarchy, we believe it nevertheless effectively maintains that hierarchy, as does the chief executive of Natural England, who gave oral evidence to the Committee.

Moreover, the flexibility that the Bill provides in respect of the hierarchy will be used only where Natural England considers it appropriate, in line with the overarching objective of delivering better outcomes for the relevant environmental feature over the course of the environmental delivery plan. The hon. Lady’s amendment would remove that flexibility and tether the nature restoration fund to the existing status quo that we know—I emphasise that again—is not working for our sites and species.

I also emphasise, however, that I understand the importance of ensuring that the flexibility is used only where it needs to be, and that everyone can be confident that harm is being avoided. I very much understand the concerns about the certainty of outcomes. We want everyone to be confident, so I am open to considering ways to underpin that confidence in a way that still allows the model to work as we want it to and as it needs to; my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke also asked yesterday what more the Government might consider in that regard. With that explanation, although I know further debate is forthcoming, I hope that the hon. Lady will consider not moving her amendment.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Dr Huq. I thank the Minister for his comments. He emphasised that his intention in the Bill is to continue to protect nature at the same level, but differently. He emphasised a different but not worse approach. I share his desire to ensure that even if it is different, it is not worse, but I am concerned about the way the Bill is framed.

In clause 55, we are really getting to one of several cruxes of the matter. The Secretary of State’s environmental statement on the front of the Bill states:

“the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law.”

A completely different opinion is expressed, however, in the letter from the Office for Environmental Protection, whose people know about this issue. I am glad that the Minister said yesterday that he is considering very seriously what the OEP said; I read the letter again in detail this morning—it is really hard-hitting.

The Minister points out that Natural England thinks there is no problem with the application of the mitigation hierarchy, but that is not the opinion of the Office for Environmental Protection. Given that Natural England will effectively have a conflict of interest under the Bill’s provisions, we need to pay serious attention to what the OEP says. I very much look forward to his promised comprehensive response to the OEP’s advice.

Amendment 20 is essential to ensure that the overall improvement test applied to EDPs, which is mentioned in clause 55, is robust, scientifically grounded and consistent with domestic and international environmental law. It is about making sure that when we talk about overall improvement, we really mean it—not on paper, not in theory, but in reality.

Amendment 119 makes a simple but essential change. Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, as set out in the OEP’s advice, there is a high degree of certainty established in statute and case law that environmental standards will be maintained beyond reasonable scientific doubt. In the overall improvement test in clause 55, however, conservation measures need only be “likely” to ensure that the environment is maintained. That leaves huge leeway for ministerial subjectivity, and it opens the door to damaging development. It is a clear regression in environmental law. Again, that is emphasised very clearly by the OEP, which states that the test in clause 55

“would be considerably more subjective and uncertain than under existing environmental law.”

How is that compatible with the statement on the front of the Bill? It cannot be.

Given that the Minister has assured us that it is not the Government’s intention to weaken environmental protections, amendment 119 would fix the loophole by replacing the words “are likely to” with the word “will”. That would mean that an EDP would require an objective test that conservation measures will achieve an overall improvement.

This amendment is not about gold-plating; it is simply about matching the level of certainty that currently exists in law and assuring the House that environmental protection will be maintained. I would be deeply worried if the Bill passed as it stands, with the weakening in certainty, because that would clearly be contrary to the Government’s statement on the front of the Bill.

Amendment 20 sets the minimum legal and scientific thresholds that must be met before an EDP can be said to pass the overall improvement test. Again, the advice from the OEP is very robust—there needs to be scientific certainty. Amendment 20 would specifically introduce safeguards when protected nature sites are involved, such as European sites, Ramsar wetlands and other internationally important conservation areas.

Amendment 20 would ensure that the Secretary of State must apply a standard of evidence equivalent to the rigorous integrity test under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. This is not new law; it is a reaffirmation of the protections that have guided habitat conservation for decades, ensuring that there is no regression, as per the Environment Act 2021. The amendment is absolutely necessary, otherwise clause 55 risks watering down the existing protections.

Let us not forget what is at stake here. The UK has 658 designated special areas of conservation, special protection areas and Ramsar sites across the four nations. They include places of global ecological importance— the Norfolk broads, the Severn estuary and the north Pennines—and places that are very dear to my own heart, such as the River Wye and its catchment. These places support rare and endangered species, and are central to our commitments under the Bern, Bonn and Ramsar conventions. However, many of them are already in unfavourable condition. Natural England’s latest data shows that only 38% of England’s sites of special scientific interest are in favourable condition and many of those overlap with European sites.

This amendment would provide three layers of safeguards. First, it says that an EDP cannot be approved if it would harm the “integrity” of a European or Ramsar site, unless that harm is either fully avoided or meets the high bar set under existing habitat regulations. Secondly, it would require Natural England to demonstrate that “all reasonable opportunities” to avoid or minimise harm have been taken.

Thirdly, the point about the mitigation hierarchy is really important—we will discuss it again when we debate a future clause. It is a key concern for the Office for Environmental Protection and all who care about nature. The mitigation hierarchy means that we avoid environmental harm before we go to mitigation or offsetting. The problem with EDPs, as they are set out under part 3 of the Bill, is that they shift straight to offsetting. As I tried to explain yesterday, some things cannot be offset; irreplaceable habitats cannot be offset.

In addition, unless we are certain that offsetting is done in advance and that the habitat is linked to the one being destroyed, that could lead to the inadvertent destruction of species—for example, dormice, as I said yesterday. It is important that the Bill strengthens the commitment to the mitigation hierarchy and that that strengthening is written into the Bill, as well as ensuring that the overall improvement test is compatible with the existing level of protection under existing environmental law.

The expert advice of the OEP directly supports the points that I am making. It concluded that the overall improvement test, as currently drafted, would weaken existing legal protections, and has consequently called for amendments to ensure that the test aligns with environmental law and principles.

We also need to ensure that the UK remains compliant with international and trade obligations. Under the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, we are bound not to weaken environmental standards in ways that affect trade or investment. Removing or diluting protections for SACs and SPAs through a vague or permissive improvement test could fall foul of that requirement and expose the Government to legal challenge.

Fundamentally, the amendment also reflects the will of the public. More than 80% of people support strong legal protections for nature sites, even when development is proposed. I fully agree with the Minister’s articulation of the view that development does not have to come at the expense of nature—it is absolutely possible to build the houses that we need in a way that respects and indeed improves nature protection—but we can do that only if the legal framework ensures that development takes place in that way. Otherwise, there is a serious risk that the clear weakening of environmental protections, as outlined in the current drafting of the Bill, will lead to the opposite of what the Government say they want to do on the front of the Bill.

These two amendments do not prevent development. They simply ensure that development is compatible with the integrity of our most protected sites, give effect to long-standing legal protections, uphold the Office for Environmental Protection’s recommendations, and ensure that the overall improvement test is not a loophole but a genuine environmental safeguard. I strongly urge hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to support both amendments if we are serious about development going hand in hand with nature protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, although I do not expect hon. Members to just take me at my word; I think they should both interrogate the Bill and the provisions and reflect on my further comments. Although I caveat everything by saying that we are grateful to the Office for Environmental Protection for its recent advice and its support for the intention of these reforms—let us be clear: it supports the intention and we are carefully considering its advice —we are clear that this approach will deliver more for nature, not less. The important thing is that those improved outcomes—and they are improved outcomes; we are not talking about merely maintaining the status quo—can be achieved only if we are willing to do things differently. That is why the Bill establishes an alternative to existing processes, but only where that will lead to better outcomes.

I should make a brief comment about Natural England, as the other body that will be involved in the design and implementation of environmental delivery plans. It is slightly unfair, if I may say so, for the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to suggest that there is a stark conflict of interest here. As I have said in previous sittings, Natural England has the expertise and ecological skills to make the right judgments. It will put in place suitable propriety barriers to ensure that it can act effectively as both an advisory body and the body tasked with preparing, designing and implementing EDPs.

[Ellie Chowns]

I have a genuine question and concern. Under the Bill, Natural England has responsibility, as advisers, preparers, developers and deliverers, to implement the EDPs, and it is also judge and jury on the effectiveness of EDPs and whether they are doing the job that they are intended to do. That is a lot of functions to give to one body. There are not checks and balances within that system. This is no comment on the expertise and commitment of Natural England. I am certain that everyone working for that body shares my and the Minister’s desire to see the natural environment thrive and improve, but the reality is that the Bill’s structure and the responsibilities that it gives to Natural England span the full gamut, from implementing to checking, and that is effectively a conflict of interest, is it not?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not think it will be, for the reasons I have given: suitable propriety barriers will be put in place and the House will be able to take a view on whether those are sufficient. I would also slightly push back on the idea that Natural England is judge and jury when it comes to EDPs. The Secretary of State has responsibility for judging whether an EDP meets the outcomes test on the basis of advice from Natural England.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will make a bit of progress, then I will be happy to give way.

Hon. Members may say that those safeguards are not sufficient, but we trust elected Members in ministerial capacities to exercise their judgment, in line with the ministerial code and taking into account their obligations under both international and domestic law. We trust them to do that. If hon. Members take issue with the basic fact that a Secretary of State can exercise judgment, then we disagree.

[Ellie Chowns]

I have two points. The first was raised by the Office for Environmental Protection in its advice. I was going to come to it when discussing clause 58, because it is specifically about the amendment of EDPs. Only Natural England and the Secretary of State get to decide if an EDP should be amended. There is not even any requirement for consultation. There is no mandatory requirement to assess whether an EDP is doing its job. If we are to trust Natural England and the Secretary of State to do that, when they will both have an in-built interest in declaring that an EDP is doing its job, there is no mechanism for ensuring that an EDP is actually meeting the outcomes that are envisaged.

The Minister asks us to trust in the good judgment of the Secretary of State, but I remind the Minister that previous environmental Secretaries of State—who would, under these provisions, have been expected to make these decisions—include Liz Truss from 2014 to 2016, Owen Paterson from 2012 to 2014, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), and Thérèse Coffey. Those are not people who necessarily share the Minister’s espoused commitments, and not necessarily people who everybody who cares about nature protection might automatically trust to make important and sensitive judgments about whether environmental protection is taking place.

The entire point of a Bill—we talked about this in a previous sitting—is that it sets out what has to happen and why, because we cannot simply trust whoever happens to be in the seat of Secretary of State to always do the right thing. That is why we have law. I beg the Minister to recognise that we cannot simply trust the judgment of whoever happens to be Secretary of State for the next however many decades. The Bill must be written correctly, so that it embeds environmental protections and does not leave the door open for activity contrary to the Minister’s stated aims.

[The Chair]

The Clerk is frowning at me and saying that the hon. Lady’s contribution was a little overlong for an intervention, which is usually on one point. It sounded a bit speech-like.

[Ellie Chowns]

I apologise.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Lady tempts me down a path of commenting on past Secretaries of State—I would enjoy that, but I will not do it. She is absolutely right that we must ensure that this legislation can be exercised appropriately by any Secretary of State, whoever they might be, in years to come.

Where the hon. Lady and I slightly differ is on what legislation is required to do in all circumstances. We rely on Ministers to exercise their judgment in line with the relevant legislation and other obligations, for example on call-in decisions that the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers in my Department are asked to make. They are judgments. They are exercised on the basis of a recommendation by the Planning Inspectorate, and of the relevant material considerations, but a judgment is still exercised. We are saying that the Secretary of State has to exercise a judgment on the “overall improvement test” but on the basis of advice from Natural England, once consultation has been carried out.

As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington mentioned, clause 55 gets to the heart of this approach. We are reflecting on the points made in the letter from the Office for Environmental Protection. I want to set out why we feel our approach is right, and that the necessary safeguards are built in. I will deal briefly with the amendments in turn, starting with 119.

Changing “are likely to” to “will” would require a greater deal of certainty from the Secretary of State before they would be able to make an environmental delivery plan. That does get to the heart of the difference in approach. In moving away from a site-by-site assessment to trying to improve outcomes for nature in the round, over a wider geographic area, we have to move away from a time period in which those conversations, or offsets, can be delivered on those sites specifically. By its very nature, the approach requires a degree of, if you like, gazing into an as-yet-unknown future. The test of “likely” makes that difficult to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The shadow Minister makes my case for me, because we want to allow Natural England to have that flexibility.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

If the hon. Lady will let me respond to this point, I will then address her point.

It is precisely that flexibility that we want to allow Natural England to use, because over that wider geographic area, it can look at which conservation measures, in the round, will have the most impact, rather than costly gold-plating, which happens now in certain circumstances— I will not repeat the individual cases, but we hear about them in the press a lot—and often leads to bad outcomes, and which flows from the site-by-site assessments that must take place.

What gets to the heart of the approach, and is the reason why some of these amendments are deeply problematic, is that, under this approach, we cannot be as unequivocal as we can currently on the basis of individual site-by-site assessments. There needs to be the opportunity to take a forward view as to what will have the likely effect of having an overall benefit for nature in the round across the EDP area.

[Ellie Chowns]

With respect, I do not think that the point made by the shadow Minister does make the Minister’s case for him, because it was about taking a site-by-site approach, which is not a good analogy here. We already have capacity under existing environmental law to take a district-wide approach—for example, district-level licensing for newts. I am not opposed to that at all; it is a very good idea. That is not the issue here; the issue is the degree of certainty.

If the Minister maintains his position that EDPs must only be subject to an “are likely to” test, how is that compatible with the absolute certainty on the front page of the Bill that it will not result in any decline in environmental protection? How can lots of “are likely tos” add up to the certainty that the Secretary of State sets out on the front page of the Bill? They simply do not.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We think the Bill provides that certainty, which is why the Secretary of State felt able to make that statement, but—this is really important— while the hon. Lady has clearly indicated that she, like us, is unhappy with the status quo, and while I think she recognises the limitations of the impact we can have in terms of beneficial nature outcomes using the current, individual site-by-site-assessment basis, her amendment 20 would, in practice, result in the continued need to assess development on a case-by-case basis and would require conservation measures to address the specific impacts of each development. It does not provide the necessary flexibility that will lead to better outcomes for nature, while at the same time unlocking development and allowing it to be accelerated.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Gideon Amos]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not sure how comparable they are. We are very mindful—this is something I was aware of before becoming a Minister, but it has certainly been brought home to me since—of the impact of specific wording in legislation. It is incredibly important.

In the interests of moving on, Dr Huq, I will probably finish here. I think we have had an extensive debate.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way to the hon. Lady one last time, then I will address the point made by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington.

[Ellie Chowns]

It is important: the whole point of Committee is to look at the detail and really get to grips with it.

Replacing “are likely to” with “will”, as my amendment seeks to do, would not make it necessary to conduct a site-by-site assessment. It relates to the wording that clause 55 applies to the EDP overall. It is about the degree of certainty that an EDP will deliver—that a habitat-wide approach to delivering environment improvements will deliver—as in subsection (5), in relation to

“the maximum amount of development to which the EDP may apply”.

With respect, the Minister said a few minutes ago that the amendment would effectively take us straight back to a site-by-site approach. That does not apply here.

The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim that this legislation will result in not just the maintenance of, but an improvement in, environmental protection while pursuing wording that explicitly and significantly weakens environmental protection. That is the point that the Office for Environmental Protection makes, it is the point that a number of nature protection non-governmental organisations have made, and it is contrary to the Minister’s stated intentions for the Bill, and contrary to what the public want. We can have development and nature protection together, but only if the legislation specifies that it must happen, not that it may possibly happen.

[Matthew Pennycook]

To be clear, in assessing that the amendment in question would result in the need for continued assessment on a site-by-site basis, I am referring to amendment 20. I am absolutely certain that that is what it implies. Amendment 119, which I think the hon. Lady has just spoken to—there is a slight risk of conflating the two—is problematic for other reasons. As I have said, it introduces an inappropriately high bar that will, in effect, make it incredibly difficult for the Secretary of State to meet the test.

There is, as I have said, a necessary degree of future gazing here, in terms of the change in approach. I certainly do not want to curtail debate, but I do want us to debate the other clauses in the Bill. I think I have firmly set out the Government’s position—why we think the Bill does achieve the very clearly stated intentions that we have set out—but I go back to the fact that we are very cognisant of the concerns in this area. We want to ensure that sectors have confidence in the operation of environmental delivery plans, and that is the reason— I am more than happy to debate it with the hon. Lady outside the Committee and at later stages of proceedings on the Bill—why we will reflect on the very specific points that the OEP has made on a number of clauses.

Amendment 97 agreed to.

Amendment proposed: 119, in clause 55, page 88, line 7, leave out “are likely to” and insert “will”.— (Ellie Chowns.)

This amendment would mean that an EDP would only pass the overall improvement test if it is certain that the proposed measures will outweigh any negative environmental effects caused by the development.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

It is with great excitement that we move on to another clause. I will speak briefly, but this is an important amendment. In the same way that protests from developers, in another part of the planning system, about viability end up affecting the outcomes of planning applications by, in particular, reducing social housing numbers, we are concerned that protests from developers could lead to calls to change EDPs. If EDPs are to be changed—this is a very simple point—that should not mean a reduction in the environmental protection therein.

Amendment 15, also tabled in my name, is in line with our amendments 14 and 11, to which I have already spoken, which were about strengthening the environmental tests. The Government have made it clear that they seek to achieve a win-win here, but in our opinion that will not happen without that additional wording and strengthening.

We have heard from the Minister that his point of reference, like ours, is to improve the status quo. At the moment, we are not convinced that the status quo will be improved. I am grateful to him for being extremely generous with his time on all the clauses by accepting numerous interventions, and for his assurances that he will reflect. I am sure that he will do so, but for such a, dare I say, common-sense amendment—that changes to an EDP should not mean a reduction in environmental protection—he might do even more than reflect: perhaps reflect positively on it. We feel that the amendment is entirely pragmatic, sensible and difficult to refute, although no doubt attempts will be made to do so.

[Ellie Chowns]

Will the Minister explicitly address the concerns expressed by the OEP, in its advice on clause 58, about the fact that there is no requirement to consult? The Secretary of State “may direct” Natural England to consult on an amendment, but does not have to. There is also no mandatory requirement to initiate a review or to update an EDP if there is evidence that it is failing to achieve its intended effects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

It will be for Natural England to determine what conservation measures are in place. There are reporting requirements on Natural England in terms of the overall body of EDPs. On the flexibility that is required—this speaks directly to the amendment from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington—it is unlikely that a Secretary of State would be able to reduce the number of conservation measures provided without reducing the development capacity of the plan, as that would not meet the overall development test. But there may be circumstances where the development capacity and the environmental conservation measures need to be reduced, and we need scope to be able to amend plans.

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire pressed me to refer to the concerns highlighted by the OEP about there being no requirement to consult on amended EDPs. As I have said, amendments to EDPs could be for a variety of reasons and could be extremely minor. In such cases, it would not be appropriate to require a consultation in every instance. Instead, there is provision for the Secretary of State to direct Natural England to consult on an amended EDP where expertise is required to inform its decision on the overall improvement test—for instance, if there is a material change to the development included or the conservation measures proposed. We think that that is a more proportionate and tailored approach to different EDPs.

[Ellie Chowns]

Where in clause 58 does it specify that consultation should or should not happen? I cannot see it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will happily write to the hon. Lady on where that is set out but, as per previous debates, I will not pre-empt our reflections on the OEP- specific points.

I again make the general point that, through regulations and guidance, further detail on many aspects of the Bill will be brought forward. However, the central point is that we do not think that it is proportionate or effective to require consultation on every amendment to an EDP, which in some cases could be very minor.

The central safeguard here is the overall improvement test that an EDP is required to pass. That means that when amending an EDP, the Secretary of State would not be able to reduce the amount of conservation measures without amending the scale of development that can rely on the EDP in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I am just trying to be helpful. Clause 58(4) clearly sets out the process where a Secretary of State directs Natural England to consult, and the detailed consultation procedure is set out in clause 54. We have had a big debate on consultation procedures, which are not necessarily what we would like in other clauses of the Bill, but consultation is clearly set out in clause 58(4).

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is the Chair’s job to say so, but I do not think the hon. Lady can intervene on an intervention. I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. It would not be the best use of our time if I were to flick through the Bill while on my feet and attempt to find the relevant subsection. I will happily write to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to set out how the requirements in clause 58 operate.

In designing the legislation, we have sought to avoid situations where the Secretary of State would be forced to revoke an environmental delivery plan where it would still meet the test of securing better outcomes for nature. A practical example of where it would be right to allow such amendment is where an EDP has proposed conservation measures to cover more development than is subsequently expected to come forward. There may be instances where the level of development is reduced, and then it may be appropriate to amend the EDP. In such circumstances, it would be right to amend and to reflect the reduction in the scale of development covered and the corresponding conservation measures. Amendment 11 would prevent that and would force the Secretary of State to revoke the environmental delivery plan or to keep the inaccurate plan in place.

In the event of a substantive change to the environmental delivery plan, both a public consultation and approval by the Secretary of State would be required. That would give the opportunity for environmental groups and local stakeholders to have their voices heard, and for Natural England to present evidence that provides assurance that the overall improvement test would continue to be met. With that explanation, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Clause 59 establishes the process for revoking an environmental delivery plan, and the circumstances under which the power will be used. When the Secretary of State approves and makes an environmental delivery plan, they are taking a decision at a specific point in time. However, we recognise the need to retain the ability to revisit this decision if necessary and ultimately to revoke an environmental delivery plan if the overall improvement test is no longer met.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I heard that we made good progress this morning. That is positive encouragement that we will get through the agenda at pace.

Clause 61

Commitment to pay the nature restoration levy

[Ellie Chowns]

I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 61, page 93, line 2, at end insert—

“(2A) Natural England may only accept a request if Natural England is satisfied that the developer has taken reasonable steps to appropriately apply the mitigation hierarchy, including by seeking to avoid harm to any protected feature.

(2B) For the purposes of this section, the ‘mitigation hierarchy’ means the following principles to be applied by local planning authorities when determining planning applications—

(a) that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

(b) that development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted, with the only exception being where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;

(c) that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and

(d) that development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported, while opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around developments should be integrated as part of their design, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity or enhance public access to nature where this is appropriate.”

This amendment outlines the occasions when Natural England may accept a developer’s request to pay the development levy rather than the developer having to go through existing processes under the Habitats Regulations.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Schedule 4.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mrs Hobhouse.

The amendment relates to the mitigation hierarchy. As previously, I refer to the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection, which called particular attention to the weakening of the mitigation hierarchy in the wording of the Bill. The OEP advice to Government mentioned that specifically in relation to clause 50. My amendment relates to clause 61, but it refers to precisely the same issue.

The mitigation hierarchy is a tool that delivers for nature and for development. It has done so for many years. The omission of the hierarchy from environmental delivery plans will therefore undermine their effectiveness as a means of delivering nature recovery and smooth development progression. The Minister has been at pains to reiterate his view that nature protection and development can happen hand in hand. I completely agree, but if the mitigation hierarchy is removed entirely—as, in essence, it is by the wording of the Bill—unfortunately that will not happen.

To be specific, the mitigation hierarchy directs development plans to prioritise actions to avoid harm to nature first, then to minimise harms and, as a last resort, to compensate for the impacts of development on biodiversity. The hierarchy is avoid, minimise and mitigate, and compensate or offset.

The “seeking to avoid damage first” principle is enormously important for nature. Natural habitats and species populations take a really long time to build up; some damage can take decades to be replaced or repaired by mitigatory action. I have already spoken about irreparable habitat damage. Such damage to what is known as irreplaceable habitat, and the species that rely on it, cannot be repaired.

For example, ancient oaks grow over hundreds of years to create complex ecosystems with species that have evolved alongside the oaks and need those ecosystems to thrive. Research suggests that 326 species in the UK can only survive on established and ancient oak trees, so the destruction of an ancient oak, such as the one tragically felled in Whitewebbs Park in Enfield a few weeks ago, or—even worse—of a whole swathe of ancient woodland, means the destruction of the only home possible for reliant species in that area, in effect signing their death notice. Any replacement woodland would take centuries to become an ancient woodland ecosystem, even if the conditions were perfect. That delay is so long that species cannot survive it, making the replacement effectively redundant.

Without the mitigation hierarchy, there is no decision-making framework to prioritise avoidance of such fatal damage to irreplaceable habitats such as ancient oak woodlands or to other habitats, and of threats to the future of reliant species. That gap in the framework causes problems for development as well as for nature. The famous bat tunnel, mentioned previously, in part stemmed from a High Speed 2 failure to apply the mitigation hierarchy properly at the start of the process, at the point of design. Had that hierarchy been applied early and in full, avoidance to damage to an ancient woodland, home to a large number of threatened species, including the extremely rare Bechstein’s bat, would have been prioritised—avoidance would have been prioritised—preventing the need for clumsy attempts at mitigation measures such as the tunnel.

Swift and effective use of the mitigation hierarchy at the start of a proposal can nip development problems in the bud. Given the effectiveness of the mitigation hierarchy as a development planning tool, therefore, it is deeply concerning that clause 61(3) will, in effect, disapply the mitigation hierarchy from environmental delivery plans. That was confirmed in a recent answer by the Housing Minister to a parliamentary question, where subsection (3) was described as enabling a “flexibility to diverge” from the mitigation hierarchy.

Departure from the mitigation hierarchy risks environmental delivery plans, permitting the destruction of irreplaceable habitats and causing damage to other habitats and reliant species. It also threatens bumps in the road for EDPs as a development progression mechanism and, if EDPs permit measures that would destroy irreplaceable habitats, they will lose the confidence of nature stakeholders and local communities and be more open to challenge, potentially to the extent of a replacement being required and development delayed across whole areas.

My amendment would head off those risks by applying the mitigation hierarchy to EDPs, just as it applies to other planning decisions under paragraph 33 of the national planning policy framework. It would instruct Natural England to accept an application to pay a nature restoration levy for a development only if the developer has first taken reasonable steps to apply the mitigation hierarchy.

The requirement to demonstrate consideration of the mitigation hierarchy created by my amendment would not be a heavy one. Compliance with the requirement could be demonstrated by the developer explaining how development proposals have been informed by efforts to prioritise the avoidance of harm to environmental features.

As part of the explanation, the developer could, for example, propose planning conditions being used to secure onsite measures to reduce harm, such as including green infrastructure; many developers will already be looking to integrate these features anyway because they recognise the wider health and wellbeing benefits that green infrastructure in developments can deliver. The use of the words “reasonable steps” in my amendment would also help to ensure that developers’ consideration of how to apply the mitigation hierarchy would not be onerous. The amendment has been drafted in an effort to reinforce commitment to the mitigation hierarchy without creating unreasonable expectations.

The consideration of the mitigation hierarchy would be a matter of factoring in environmental considerations and efforts to avoid irreparable damage into early development plans and demonstrating to Natural England that that has been done, rather than any lengthy assessment process. Much of the work should already have been considered and recorded as part of the initial process of identifying development sites, designing a development and assessing biodiversity net gain requirements.

The amendment also provides an extra degree of protection for the most precious sites and irreplaceable habitats, about which I have already spoken in this Committee, by allowing levy payment requests to be accepted for developments that would damage these rare sites and habitats only when there is an overriding public interest for the development to proceed. That would apply to only a very small number of developments, as the most precious sites and irreplaceable habitats are sadly small in number and, as I have emphasised, irreplaceable. There is a reason why the mitigation hierarchy has been used since the 1980s—almost my entire life—as a decision-making framework in UK planning and why it still has a central place in the revised NPPF: it works for nature and development alike.

The amendment would ensure that EDPs benefited from the mitigation hierarchy as other parts of planning do. It would ensure that they were able to catch and delay costly development mistakes before they happened and prevent EDPs from becoming a rubber stamp for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats. I call the attention of the Committee and the Minister to page 5 of the annexe to the Office for Environmental Protection’s advice to us. It emphasises that

“Mitigation hierarchies are an important component of existing environmental law”

and calls attention to its concern that the effect of the current drafting of the Bill could allow a protected site to be harmed in a way contrary to existing environmental law and the stated purpose of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will warmly consider my amendment.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a privilege to continue to serve the Committee with you back in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. The mitigation hierarchy is incredibly important. In fact, the Liberal Democrats were aiming to put down an amendment very similar to this one, but the hon. Member for North Herefordshire beat us to it—congratulations to her on that.

Clearly, the mitigation hierarchy is an important feature of the playing system, which has endured for a long time. One of the principal concerns with EDPs is that they will not ensure that oversight measures are taken first and foremost. The principle of “first do no harm” must guide everything we do in protecting the environment and in dealing with development that may affect the environment. We will support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I would make this challenge to the hon. Lady: she is either content with the status quo and how it operates or she supports an attempt to take a more strategic approach. If she supports the attempt to take a more strategic approach, she cannot attempt by amendment to provide for site-by-site assessments, as amendment 54 would require, before a levy payment could be accepted—that is contrary to how the fund can operate and will limit it. In some of these clauses, she is essentially arguing for the application and continuation of the status quo.

[Ellie Chowns]

I have two points. The Minister has claimed that the Bill maintains the mitigation hierarchy. Can he point to where that is stated in the Bill? I cannot see it; I have just checked back on clause 53, which deals with the preparation of EDPs, but it is not specified. Where is it specified in the Bill that it maintains the mitigation hierarchy?

Secondly, with respect, there are not only two options here—either to support the Bill exactly as it is written or to support the status quo. I am trying to table constructive amendments to the Bill, recognising what the Government seek to do and their stated aims of ensuring that development and nature protection go hand in hand, and that nature protection is enhanced at the same time as enabling development. I am not necessarily opposed, in principle, to area-wide and strategic approaches—I have already given credit to district-level licensing for newts and similar things that are already happening.

However, my concern is that nowhere in the Bill does it say that the mitigation hierarchy is preserved—nowhere in either clause 61 or clause 53, or anywhere else, is it preserved. It is not just me who says that; the OEP and many nature protection organisations are deeply concerned about the issue. I am proposing a constructive mid-point in my amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me make a couple of points in response. I did not state that a particular clause in the Bill, “effectively maintains the mitigation hierarchy”; I said that that was the Government’s belief as to the effect of the Bill, and it is also the view of the chief executive of Natural England.

We have been very clear that our approach requires flexibility to diverge, and this is where I would gently challenge the hon. Lady. It is all well and good for her to say, “I agree with the objective of a win-win for nature and development.” We can all agree with that. I am challenging her as to where she agrees with the fundamental requirements of how our strategic approach will operate. On this particular amendment, I would make the point that in reinstating as it does—

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not give way again; I will make some progress. In reinstating as it does the requirement for site-by-site assessments before a levy could be accepted, the amendment is contrary to that strategic approach and would hamper it. In proposing a strategic approach, as I have said before, we have been careful to ensure that this is taken forward only where there is a clear case that the benefits of the conservation measures under an environmental delivery plan outweigh the negative effect of development.

That is precisely why clause 50 requires Natural England to set out the negative effect of the development to which the environmental delivery plan applies, alongside the conservation measures that Natural England will take to address the environmental impact and contribute to an overall environmental improvement. Only when it is satisfied that the conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development can the Secretary of State agree to make an environmental delivery plan.

In establishing an alternative to the existing system, as I have said, the Bill intentionally allows for a more strategic approach to be taken to environmental assessment and flexibility to diverge from a restrictive application of the mitigation hierarchy. Without that flexibility, it will not operate as intended.

[Ellie Chowns]

And my amendment is sensible.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not going to give way, but the hon. Lady can make a further contribution. However, this will be only where Natural England consider it appropriate and would deliver better outcomes for nature of over the course of a delivery plan. The hon. Lady’s amendment would remove that flexibility and undermine the purpose of these reforms, which is to maximise the impact of measures at a strategic scale. We are confident that this more strategic approach to the assessment of negative effects and delivery of conservation measures strikes the right balance and will result in better outcomes. As I said, and am more than happy to continue to repeat, I understand the importance of ensuring that this flexibility is used only where it needs to be, and that everyone can be confident that harm is being avoided wherever possible. I am giving further thought to ways to underpin that confidence.

Clause 61 establishes the framework that will allow developers to pay the nature restoration levy, setting out the process by which developers can make a request to Natural England to pay the nature restoration levy in respect of their proposed development. If accepted by Natural England, the developer will then be committed to make the relevant payment, as set out in the charging schedule that will be published as part of the environmental delivery plan.

The clause then sets out how the making of that payment affects the developer’s environmental obligations. For example, the legislation makes clear that the commitment by a developer to pay the nature restoration levy in respect of an environmental delivery plan addressing nutrient pollution removes the need for the developer to consider the impact of the development on an environmental feature in respect of nutrient pollution. Where payment of the levy is made mandatory by an environmental delivery plan, the clause removes the ability of a developer to discharge the relevant environmental obligation in any way other than through the payment of the nature restoration levy.

In those circumstances, Natural England must set out the reasons why it considers it necessary to mandate the payment of the levy under the EDP. That will form part of the consultation on the draft EDP, and has been included to address situations where the environmental outcome can only be achieved with payments from all relevant developments, or where failing to capture payments from all relevant developments would render the EDP economically unviable. The nature restoration levy is central to our new strategic approach, ensuring that Natural England can secure funds to deliver conservation measures and to provide certainty to developers that the making of the payment discharges the relevant environmental obligation.

I will come back to the shadow Ministers, the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, as I have given a commitment in relation to previous clauses on their points about the interactions between the provisions in this Bill and those in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. That is a very complex matter, and we will set out more detail where we have it.

In general terms—I say this with the proviso that regulations will bring forward further detail on how the levy will operate—the request and the payments are intended, essentially, to meet the scale and type of development that the EDP relates to. They cannot just be made on the basis of the discretion of what Natural England decides it wants. They have to relate to the conservation measures being put in place. We do, however, want to get the balance right between levy rates that ensure that development is economically viable—otherwise the EDP will not come forward in some instances—and not setting a rate that allows for gold-plating of projects, where that is not required. We will discuss that in more detail on future clauses.

I turn to schedule 4. In establishing the nature restoration fund, there is a need to provide legal certainty on how the new approach interacts with existing environmental requirements. Critically, there is a need to establish that where developers make a payment to the nature restoration fund, that relieves the decision maker of any obligation to consider the impact on the environmental features that the EDP addresses, as those obligations will now be discharged on a strategic scale by Natural England.

Schedule 4 achieves that by making clear that for each environmental feature identified in an EDP, be it a protected feature of a protected site or a protected species, the paying of the nature restoration levy removes many of the requirements for the developer under existing legislation. For example, where an EDP covers the impact of nutrient pollution on a protected site, and a developer pays the nature restoration levy, they will no longer be required to consider that environmental impact through wider environmental assessments. Similarly, where a protected species is identified as an environmental feature under an EDP, the making of a levy payment will mean that the developer will benefit from a deemed licence based on terms set in the EDP, which removes certain associated requirements for the developer under existing legislation.

Crucially, the legislation is clear that the making of a payment will only be capable of addressing the environmental impact on the protected features covered by an EDP. Although we expect coverage to build up over time, it is only right that the discharge of environmental obligations is limited to the matters addressed in the environmental delivery plan. Therefore, if the development has other environmental impacts that are not covered by the EDP, they will continue to be assessed in the usual way.

It is important to stress that the removal of the need for the developer to meet those environmental obligations will apply only when Natural England has sufficient evidence to draft an EDP, the Secretary of State has concluded that the EDP is sufficient to outweigh the impact of development, and the developer has committed to making the necessary nature restoration levy payment. Given the targeted nature of the changes to the regulations and Acts, and the need to provide legal certainty for the nature restoration fund to operate, I commend clause 61 and schedule 4 to the Committee.

[Ellie Chowns]

The Minister asserts that the Bill maintains the mitigation hierarchy, but that is not set out anywhere in the text. The words “mitigation hierarchy” appear nowhere in the Bill. The word “mitigation” appears four times, always in relation to climate change. The word “avoid” appears only once, in relation to unavoidable delays to nationally significant infrastructure projects, and the word “harm” appears only once, in relation to commercial interests. If the Bill does not say anything about the mitigation hierarchy, mitigation or avoiding harm in relation to nature, how can the Minister claim that it upholds the mitigation hierarchy?

Amendment 54 specifies that a developer needs to demonstrate taking

“reasonable steps to appropriately apply the mitigation hierarchy”.

The Minister emphasised his desire for the legislation to have flexibility. My amendment offers that flexibility; his Bill offers no support for the mitigation hierarchy. For that reason, I will not withdraw the amendment, because it is fundamentally important. I would like to press it to a vote.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Briefly, it is worth my putting on the record the following so that the Committee is clear about the Government’s position. The mitigation hierarchy is still a requirement of the national planning policy framework. It is established through that, and it continues to operate. But we think—I have been very honest about this—that the new approach in the Bill requires flexibility, where appropriate—

[Ellie Chowns]

The Bill overrides that.

[Matthew Pennycook]

No—the amendment is entirely at odds with the purpose and intent of clause 61, which is to disapply the requirement for assessment of environmental impact of a feature covered by an EDP once the development has committed to pay the nature restoration levy. In our view, therefore, the amendment would fundamentally undermine the operation of our approach, and for that reason we cannot accept it.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. I think we have heard both sides very well, loudly and clearly. We need to push on because we have been discussing this one amendment for nearly half an hour. It is important that we now come to a decision.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

In that case, I call Ellie Chowns to move amendment 92.

[Ellie Chowns]

I beg to move amendment 92, Clause 62, page 93, line 42, leave out from “features” to the end of line 2 on page 94 and insert—

“are funded by the developer.

This amendment would define the purpose of the nature restoration levy as being that costs incurred in maintaining and improving the conservation status of environmental features should be met by developers.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clause 70 stand part.

[Ellie Chowns]

I will try to speak briefly. Amendment 92 is particularly important considering the conversation that we have just had about my previous amendment. Effectively, the nature restoration fund offers the opportunity for developers to buy the right to pollute in one location if that money is used to create habitats or support remedial action in another location. But clause 62, as it is currently drafted, makes the payment into the NRF subject to a viability test, which undermines the polluter pays principle, which is one of the fundamental environmental principles to which the Government are supposed to be sticking.

The amendment reinforces the polluter pays principle. It is a well-established environmental policy doctrine endorsed by international agreements, numerous national frameworks, and the Government’s own environmental principles. It asserts that those who cause environmental degradation should bear the costs associated with its mitigation and restoration.

Removing the economic viability constraints means that, in principle, a developer could make their own assessment of whether paying into the NRF would undermine their capacity to pursue a development. Therefore, the viability caveat undermines the environmental goals. It dilutes the effectiveness of the nature restoration levy by tethering it to this ambiguous economic viability standard. It is a subjective and, frankly, developer-biased filter that might lead to inconsistent applications of the levy or weakened environmental commitments in the face of commercial pressures, and in so doing, could prioritise short-term developmental gains over long-term ecological resilience.

Allowing economic viability to act as a limiting factor to the NRF creates a dangerous precedent, because it implies that environmental restoration is, in effect, a negotiable, secondary or optional cost that could be trimmed if profit margins are tight. Again, that would surely not be compatible with the Government’s stated aims for establishing this policy approach. Frankly, in the context of a rapidly escalating biodiversity crisis, the approach is both irresponsible and unsustainable. I warmly encourage the Minister, yet again, to consider my helpful amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Lady for speaking to amendment 92, which, as she set out, seeks to remove the duty on the Secretary of State to consider economic viability when making regulations in respect of the nature restoration levy. We believe that it is important to consider viability in the setting of that levy, because excessive costs will mean either that developers will not want to pay into the nature restoration fund, or if they are forced to, that less development will come forward. This will be a particular issue for small and medium-sized housebuilders. Without developers paying into an EDP, the conservation measures that it sets out will not be delivered.

The hon. Lady’s amendment also includes the aim of establishing a requirement that all conservation costs are funded entirely by the developer. Introducing requirements that all funding for conservation measures come from developers will also undermine Government’s ability to step in and provide funding should conservation measures not deliver the necessary effect. That is likely to lead to an increased cost for developers, or to force them to avoid using an EDP and to rely on existing systems that do not provide the same benefits for the environment as the nature restoration fund. For that reason, we cannot accept the hon. Lady’s amendment.

Clause 62 is essential to the operation of this new strategic approach. It will empower the Secretary of State to make regulations in respect of the nature restoration levy. I therefore commend it as currently drafted to the Committee.

As hon. Members will be aware, clause 70 will allow the Government to provide guidance to Natural England on the operation of the levy. It enables the Secretary of State to give guidance in relation to any matter connected with the nature restoration levy, and provides that Natural England, or any other public body to which such guidance is given, must have regard to it. Such guidance will provide clarity as to the operation of the nature restoration levy and speed up implementation. For those reasons, I commend these clauses to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

The Minister’s response indicates that he believes it is reasonable to expect the Government, and therefore essentially taxpayers, to bear the costs of environmental damage caused by developers. That is surely not reasonable. How will the structure set out in the Bill work, be viable, protect nature or indeed improve it—the Minister has said he seeks to achieve that—if it does not specify that developers must bear the costs of remediating the damage that development does? Under his proposals, the taxpayer would be left on the hook for the costs of that. Under my proposal, the polluter pays principle, that well-established principle in international and domestic law, would be maintained, so I would like to push the amendment, my last on the clause, to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I will be reasonably brief—the Committee will be pleased to know that I have been striking sections out of my speaking notes as the Committee days wear on. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Louder!

Amendment 9 would ensure that funding was available up front from the nature restoration levy and to provide mitigation on development sites. It is important, in terms of the effectiveness of any mitigation provided, that it happens up front, and not later on or after works have happened.

In terms of nature and biodiversity, the UK is one of the most depleted countries in the world. One in six species is threatened with extinction. In partnership with our pump-prime funding amendment—amendment 6 to clause 67—the amendment seeks to ensure that the levy, upon receipt by Natural England, is used as soon as possible, in order that the nature recovery fund can go some way towards ensuring that overall species abundance is increasing, rather than decreasing, by 2030. It would not be legitimate for money to sit unused in Natural England’s coffers when there is an ongoing crisis and action urgently needs to be taken.

Amendment 10 is consequential on new clause 18. It would ensure that nature restoration levy money is reserved for future expenditure—it “may” be reserved, but again that is very uncertain. That funding needs to be there and it needs to be protected. In line with our amendment to ensure that the nature restoration fund levy is not unreasonably delayed, amendment 10 would ensure that the money is put to use as soon as is reasonably practicable and is reserved for planned future expenditure.

[Ellie Chowns]

I fully support this.

[Paul Holmes]

We will not press amendments 130 to 132, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley, to a vote. On clause 66 more generally, we accept that it sets out how funding collected by Natural England through the nature restoration levy must be used. In broad terms, it is to be spent on relevant conservation measures, as well as on the administrative costs that arise. However, there is an absence of clarity that could lead to potential concerns about the transparency and accountability of fund distribution. Without clear guidelines, there is a risk that administrative costs could disproportionately consume the funds meant for conservation, thereby undermining the levy’s effectiveness in achieving its environmental objectives.

Furthermore, we have a concern that the clause provides no safeguards to ensure that the funds are spent efficiently or effectively, and nor does it establish any oversight mechanisms to monitor the use of the funds. We would argue that a more detailed breakdown of how the funds will be managed, with clear priority given to conservation over administration, would help build trust in the system and ensure that the nature restoration levy delivers the intended environmental benefits.

Additionally, and lastly, there should be a requirement for periodic reporting on how the funds are used, which would provide necessary transparency and reassurance to stakeholders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

At the insistence of the general noise coming mostly from Government Members, I will plough on. The serious point behind what I was saying is that the Conservatives, alongside the Liberal Democrats, do have some concerns about the regulations and the responsibilities of Natural England.

On clause 68, we welcome the ability to make payments in instalments or in forms other than money. That provides some adaptable and accessible elements for developers. However, we worry about the overburdening of other public bodies that might be asked to pay into this fund. We would argue that some of the process is not clearly defined. On enforcement, the clause lacks specifics regarding the consequences for late or failed payments. Additionally, it does not address how flexibility will be built into the enforcement process for developers. We think that developers deserve clarity about that.

Although we had a brief moment of levity earlier, there is a serious point about the responsibilities. We hope the Minister will be able to respond to our concerns.

[Ellie Chowns]

I will be brief. I strongly support amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. Accepting the amendment would go a long way towards addressing the concerns about enforcement, late payment and so on. Let us adopt it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington argued, amendment 6 is designed to ensure that developers pay the nature restoration levy before a development can progress.

The timeline of payment has been carefully considered by the Government, and the payment and timing of the levy will be agreed as part of the wider process of planning consent, and before development can progress. However, in developing the legislation, we recognise that EDPs will cover a broad range of circumstances, so there is a need to allow the payment of the nature restoration levy to be tailored to reflect the type and scale of development in each instance. For example, this would allow large, multi-phased developments to pay in line with development milestones, as opposed to there being a requirement for the total levy to be paid up front. That will ensure that the environmental delivery plan is a viable option for developers, which in turn will ensure that we are able to deliver the improved environmental outcomes through the nature restoration fund.

Clause 67 already allows regulations to be created regarding the imposition of planning conditions to require payment of the levy—for example, allowing a condition that development cannot commence until the levy has been paid. If we took an overly prescriptive approach to the payment of the levy, we would risk reducing the overall impact of the new approach and driving more developers into using the existing process, which delivers less for nature, as we have argued previously. Having given that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will consider withdrawing his amendment.

Clause 67 establishes a requirement for nature restoration levy regulation to include provision relating to the collection of the levy. It also stipulates further provisions, including matters such as when and how the levy is to be paid. The regulation-making powers in the clause are vital to ensure that the levy can accommodate different scenarios, such as enabling other public authorities to collect the nature restoration levy on behalf of Natural England, and to provide for refunds in case of overpayment.

Importantly, and as I have just set out, the regulations also allow for the imposition of planning conditions to require payment of the levy—for example, a condition that development cannot commence until the levy has been paid. We believe that that is the most appropriate mechanism to secure collection of the levy and for that reason I commend the clause to the Committee.

I turn finally to clause 68, which continues to build the system of regulations that will govern the operation of the nature restoration levy and ensure that effective enforcement procedures are put in place. Ensuring that levy payments are properly captured is vital to ensuring that Natural England is able to deliver the conservation measures required under the EDP, in order to secure the necessary positive environmental outcomes.

As the levy is the way in which the EDP is funded, it is vital that mechanisms are available to Natural England to enforce payment when a developer has breached their commitment to pay the levy. Although we expect the vast majority of developers to engage with the new process in good faith, non-payment of the levy could result in insufficient funding being available to address the environmental impact of development, which is unacceptable. That is why clause 68 sets out that regulations must include provision relating to enforcement of the levy, with consequences for late or failed payment. It also sets out that regulations may include provisions around penalties and charges, granting enforcement powers such as powers of entry, information collection and prosecution, and provisions regarding replications of existing tax enforcement measures and appeals.

It is important that there is effective enforcement of the nature restoration levy. I have taken up the challenge put by the shadow Minister. I hope that he comes forward with further detail. As a former shadow Minister who has sat in the hon. Gentleman’s place while considering many pieces of legislation, I would argue that these regulation-making powers are sufficiently detailed. I count 13 subsections under clause 68, for example, with further detail in regulations to come. On that basis, I commend these clauses to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I can see Members looking for the reference to the killing of badgers. It is in schedule 6 on page 157.

[Ellie Chowns]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 121, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I will not repeat all the arguments that he made so powerfully in favour of it. It is clear that the amendment would mete out unnecessarily hostile treatment to badgers, as the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner pointed out. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say to explain why the provision is needed, because it seems clear from the arguments that have already been made that it is not required.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I did address this in some detail—the intention behind these clauses has obviously passed hon. Members by—but I would just like to make very clear, for the Guardian article that will no doubt appear tomorrow, that I have no particular animus against badgers in whatever form. However, we need these amendments to the Protection of Badgers Act to ensure operability under the nature restoration fund. They bring badger licences granted as part of an EDP in line with licences granted under the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act. In essence, all we are trying to do is to ensure that the licensing approach is relevant across all relevant species. I am happy to write to Members with more detail. I really do think, and I say this with all sincerity, that their concerns in this area are unfounded. I am happy to set out more detail in respect of badgers specifically.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is important to make one point about the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, and then to reiterate the purpose and effect of the clause. The temporary possession powers in the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 still need to be commenced. Before commencing those provisions, the Government must consult on regulations relating to the reinstatement of land, subject to a period of temporary possession.

The commencement of the 2017 Act temporary possession powers is an important reform, to which the Government are committed. However, scoping of the work required to prepare the necessary consultation and draft regulations is still under consideration. The clause is an important tidying-up measure, although I will reflect on whether we can do more through guidance to ensure that the process is as clear as possible for those participating in it. In certain cases, the 2017 Act will—inadvertently, to be fair to the previous Government—prevent the powers from being used to enable major infrastructure regimes.

We want those infrastructure regimes to continue under the current legal provisions granted to them for the taking of temporary possession of land, so we think it necessary to amend the temporary possession powers introduced through the 2017 Act: to disapply them for the consenting regimes I set out, to ensure that, when commenced, the 2017 provisions operate as intended and that this does not frustrate major infrastructure coming through the other consenting regimes. I do not think I can be clearer than that. The clause is fairly straightforward and simple, but I am more than happy to take away the shadow Minister’s points about guidance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 90 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 91

Amendments relating to section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 91, page 131, line 17, at end insert—

“(za) after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) Subsection (2) also applies if an acquiring authority submits a compulsory purchase order in relation to furthering the purposes of delivering housing targets set out in a local plan.’”

This amendment would provide that, where a compulsory purchase order is applied for to acquire land or property for the purpose of delivering housing targets set out in local plans, the prospect of planning permission being granted can be disregarded when calculating compensation (also known as “hope value”).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 86, clause 91, page 131, line 17, at end insert—

“(za) in subsection (2), at end insert “unless the acquiring authority states that the whole of the land is being acquired for the purpose (or for the main purpose) of provision of sporting or recreational facilities in which case subsection (5) shall not apply.”

This amendment would enable hope value to be disregarded in calculating the compulsory purchase value of land, where it is being purchased for recreational facilities.

Amendment 87, clause 91, page 131, line 18, at end insert—

“(ab) in subsection (5), at end insert “unless the acquiring authority states that the whole of the land is being acquired for the purpose (or for the main purpose) of provision of sporting or recreational facilities in which case this provision shall not apply.”

This amendment is linked to Amendment 86.

Clause stand part.

New clause 108—Repeal of section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961—

“In the Land Compensation Act 1961, omit section 14A.”

[Ellie Chowns]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak to amendment 2. Before I do, I would like to welcome the tone in which the Minister has presented the clauses in this part of the Bill. I recognise and understand the intention to clarify the CPO process and enable it to work better, and I particularly welcome our discussions on clause 88—the determination to ensure a fairer distribution between tenants and owners, for example.

Amendment 2 is intended to be fully in that spirit. It recognises the reality of our dysfunctional land and housing markets in the UK, that hope value plays a part in that, and that reforming hope value could unlock significant resources for the delivery of social and affordable housing. I understand that the calculation is that reforming hope value could free up £4.5 billion a year, which could enable us to build a third more social rented homes than had previously been intended. That would be very valuable.

Under the Land Compensation Act 1961, land owners can potentially claim the value of planning permissions that have not even been thought of, let alone applied for. I understand that land with planning permission is on average worth 275 times more than land without—really quite an extraordinary step change in land value. Reforms to address the issue are very much needed.

Under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, changes were made; the previous Government recognised that there was a problem. The 2023 Act allows hope value to be removed when a development is deemed to be in pursuit of public benefit, particularly affordable housing, health and education. It is a step in the right direction, but still requires the local authority to apply to the Secretary of State for permission on a case-by-case basis. Amendment 2 would simply clarify the situation and specify that when a local authority is compulsorily purchasing land to provide affordable housing, hope value can be disregarded. It is entirely in the spirit of previous reforms to the legislation. It clarifies the situation, and it avoids the potential for councils to be subject to challenge from developers on a case-by-case basis. It does that by clarifying that when the public benefit is being served—something that the Minister has repeatedly referred to—it is clear that hope value can be disregarded, because the public benefit from providing affordable housing is, in those cases, overriding. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak to amendments 86 and 87 on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). In tackling the issue of hope value, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill misses an opportunity when it comes to playing fields. The amendments seek to include recreational facilities such as playing fields by ensuring that when an acquiring authority uses a compulsory purchase order to acquire land for use as a sports or recreational facility, hope value would not be applied, thus making the cost more affordable.

The amendments would enable hard-pressed local authorities to acquire playing fields for their local communities’ use at playing-field value, instead of at an overinflated hope value, to boost additional grassroots sports provision. Such a change would allow sites such as Udney Park playing fields in Teddington, in my hon. Friend’s constituency—they have lain derelict for more than a decade under private ownership—to be acquired for public use. There is a dire need for additional playing space in the area.

The Liberal Democrats believe that everyone should have access to high-quality sports and recreation facilities in their local community. Indeed, Sport England says that those spaces are key to physical and mental health, and to community links. According to a 2023 College of Policing report, such facilities can help to reduce reoffending, particularly among young people. Up and down the country, too many communities lack the necessary land and space to support young people and families, as well as the wider community, to enjoy sport and improve their physical and mental health. I hope the Minister will consider the amendments in the spirit in which they are intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92

New powers to appoint an inspector

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 92 amends the process for the confirmation of CPOs made under the New Towns Act 1981. Decisions to confirm CPOs made under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, such as housing and planning CPOs, can be made by inspectors on the Secretary of State’s behalf, but currently, confirmation decisions on CPOs made under the New Towns Act must be taken by the relevant Secretary of State. Clause 92 introduces a power for confirmation decisions on CPOs made under the New Towns Act to be delegated to inspectors, although the Secretary of State will retain the ability to recover decisions for their determination. This change will ensure the decision-making process for CPOs facilitating new towns is streamlined and consistent with the confirmation of other CPOs.

Clause 92 also amends the decision-making process for directions for the payment of additional compensation under schedule 2A to the Land Compensation Act 1961 where an acquiring authority has not fulfilled the commitments it relied on when it obtained a direction allowing it to acquire the land without hope value. The clause introduces a power for the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors to take decisions on applications for additional compensation. This will ensure that the process for considering applications for additional compensation is more efficient and consistent with the approach set out in clause 91, which allows for the delegation of decisions on CPOs. The clause will make the authorisation process more efficient, resulting in quicker decisions.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 15—Requirement to undertake planned affordable housing construction—

“(1) Where an application to develop affordable housing has been granted, no amendment to the amount of affordable housing to be developed may be made if the reasons for the amendment include—

(a) the affordability to the applicant; or

(b) that providing such affordable housing would make the development unprofitable for the applicant.

(2) This section applies where the provision of affordable housing forms the whole of or a part of the proposed development.

(3) For the purposes of this section “develop” has the meaning given by section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.”

This amendment would mean that, where a developer has committed in their initial application to providing a certain number of affordable homes, they would be prohibited from lowering that provision based on affordability or profitability.

New clause 25—Requirement to undertake planned affordable housing construction (No. 2)—

“Where an application proposes—

(a) to develop more than 10 houses, and

(b) that at least 20% of the houses to be developed will be social housing,

no amendment to the amount of social housing to be developed may be made if the amendment would reduce the amount of social housing below 20% of the houses to be developed on the grounds of viability to the applicant.”

This new clause would prevent developers from seeking to reduce commitments to provide social housing on the grounds of viability.

New clause 55—Transfer of land to local authority following expiry of planning permission—

“In section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (general condition limiting duration of planning permission), after subsection (3) insert—

“(3ZZA) Subject to subsection (4), where a development includes the construction of 100 or more houses and has not begun within the applicable period, ownership of the land on which such development was permitted transfers to the relevant local authority on the expiration of the applicable period.””

This new clause would mean that, where permission for a development of 100 homes or more is not used within the applicable period, ownership of the land to which the permission applies passes to the relevant local authority.

New clause 60—Thresholds for affordable housing provision—

“Where an application proposes or is required to provide affordable housing, no amendment to the amount of affordable housing to be developed may be made if the amendment would result in the amount of affordable housing to be developed failing to exceed the higher of—

(a) the relevant authority’s affordable housing threshold, or

(b) twenty per cent of the total amount of housing provided in the development.”

This new clause would place lower limits on the amount of affordable housing developments which intend to provide such housing must provide.

New clause 61—Additional business rates for developers not completing approved development—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, hold a public consultation on providing local authorities who exercise the functions of local planning authorities with the power to levy additional business rates on—

(a) land owners, and

(b) developers

who fail to complete the development of projects for which permission has been granted within a reasonable period.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of the conclusion of the public consultation, lay before both Houses of Parliament—

(a) a report on the findings of the consultation, and

(b) a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to those findings.”

New clause 76—No planning permission to be granted in cases of intentional unauthorised development—

“(1) A local planning authority may not grant consent for development where there has been intentional unauthorised development in respect of the land or properties which are to be subject to that development.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “intentional unauthorised development”—

(a) includes any development of land undertaken in advance of obtaining planning permission;

(b) does not include any unintentional, minor or trivial works undertaken without having obtained the relevant permission.

(3) Where works under subsection (2)(b) are undertaken, the local planning authority may require relevant permissions to be obtained retrospectively.”

New clause 82—Duty to complete development of local infrastructure—

“(1) This section applies where—

(a) a Development Consent Order is made providing for, or

(b) a Strategic Development Scheme includes provision for,

the development of local infrastructure.

(2) Where subsection (1) applies, the developer must deliver the relevant local infrastructure in full.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “local infrastructure” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify, but must include—

(a) schools,

(b) nurseries, and

(c) General Practice clinics.

(4) A duty under this section may be disapplied [by whom] with the consent of the relevant local planning authority.”

This new clause aims to ensure that commitments to provide local infrastructure such as schools and GP clinics, approved as part of a development, are permanent and legally binding.

New clause 83—Development of land for the public benefit—

“(1) This section applies where—

(a) a developer has entered into an obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which requires the development of local community infrastructure; and

(b) such development—

(i) has not been completed, and it is not intended or anticipated that the development will be completed; or

(ii) has been subject to a change of circumstance which means that it will not or cannot be used for its intended purpose.

(2) Where this section applies—

(a) the relevant land remains under the ownership of the local planning authority;

(b) the local planning authority may only develop or permit the development of the land for the purposes of providing a community asset;

(c) the local planning authority must, when proposing to develop the land under subsection (2)(b), must consult the local community before commencing development or granting permission for any development.

(3) For the purposes of this section—

“local community infrastructure” means a development for the benefit of the local community, including schools, nurseries, and medical centres.

“community asset” means—

(a) a public park;

(b) a public leisure facility;

(c) social housing;

(d) such other assets as the local planning authority may specify, provided that their development is to meet the needs of the local community.”

This new clause provides that land designated development as community infrastructure under a S106 agreement will not be returned to a developer to use for other purposes in the event that the original purpose is not fulfilled. It provides instead that land would remain under the control of the local planning authority for development as a community asset.

[Ellie Chowns]

New clause 1 was tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), and I remind colleagues that I am the Member for North Herefordshire—always a cause for confusion. I will also speak to six other new clauses, three of which are intended to dissuade developers from engaging in land banking, and three to ensure that affordable housing targets are met.

New clause 1 would give the planning authority the power to decline future planning applications from a developer that had failed to use, or at least to make sufficient progress on, planning permission that they had already been given. This is designed to stop the practice whereby developers purchase land, get planning permission on it and do nothing with it. I think we all agree, on both sides of the Committee, that we need to expedite the building of affordable housing, so this is a proportionate and clear measure to support that. It relates to new clause 55, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. If such land is not built on, the land should transfer to the local authority, so that it can get on with doing the job instead.

New clause 61, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire, suggests extending business rates for developers that do not build. Each new clause is designed to prevent the practice of land banking, to encourage developers to get on and build when they have been given planning permission.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I completely understand why the new clause has been tabled, and we support the premise behind it, but can I ask the hon. Lady for clarification? She may not know, and that is perfectly acceptable. Say an application went in for a nursing home, but the business went bust before the initial build out was delivered. If the developer wanted to change the application to allow it to build a block of flats, how would the new clause prevent that from happening? It is a genuine question, and I do not know what the answer is.

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his genuine question. He highlights a case that arguably represents complexities that the Government employ lots of lawyers to fix. I do not think it would prevent a new clause such as this from progressing. The intention is to prevent land banking, and if lawyers need to tweak the language a little bit, so be it.

I will move on briefly to new clauses 15, 25 and 60, which are all about ensuring that affordable housing is actually built. New clause 60 would set a lower bound on the amount of affordable housing that was due to be constructed. New clauses 15 and 25 are intended to ensure that the affordable housing commitments that developers make in their initial applications are not subsequently chipped away at or eroded by arguments about viability.

Fundamentally, if there are issues around viability, the Government and local authorities should prioritise the building of affordable housing, not the safeguarding of developer profits. The new clauses are therefore intended to ensure that when developers commit during the planning process to building affordable houses, they stick to those commitments. I commend the new clauses to the Committee, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to say a few words about new clause 1, but I will principally speak about our new clause 55, which is a mechanism to incentivise the building of housing developments that have lain unbuilt and undeveloped for three years.

On new clause 1, I am very sympathetic to the proposal made by the hon. Members for North Herefordshire and for North East Hertfordshire—we are only missing Hampshire—but, frankly, we prefer our approach. There is a long-standing principle in planning law that the person of the applicant is not a relevant consideration, and by and large we wish to stand by that. There is scope for the new clause to be used to prejudice particular applicants.

There is also a practical consideration. Land changes hands very quickly and, whoever owns it, different applicants can make applications. I am reminded of the famous case in Oxford of university students applying for a nuclear power station on Christ Church meadow, because a person can apply for anything on any land, whether they own it or not. In fact, the Town and Country Planning Association applied for permission for an airport on Maplin Sands, even though it was probably not going to be able to build it. Those bizarre examples demonstrate that the person of the applicant is not a relevant consideration.

Under new clause 1, a different applicant with a different name or a different agent of the same landowner could immediately come forward, so I have practical concerns about it. Our approach is to introduce a “use it or lose it” principle into the planning system. Specifically, where a development of 100 homes or more has been granted permission but not started within the applicable period—usually three years—the land will transfer to the relevant local authority. We expect that in those circumstances, the usual provisions of the Land Compensation Acts and the principles of fairness in compulsory acquisition, which I referred to in a previous debate, would apply.

We accept the principle that developers and house builders need a pipeline—a plan for their land—but three years is a significant amount of time. The recent moves to encourage the build-out of homes that have not been built have not succeeded. We have had a reduction from five years to three years in the lifespan of planning permissions, but there has not been a significant change in the build-out rate, so we need significant measures if we are to make these major schemes happen.

This is not about penalising people; it is about dealing with an issue that is clearly undermining our ability to tackle the housing crisis. Across the country, there are permissions for 1.5 million new homes that have not been built—13,000 in my authority area of Somerset alone. Those homes could house thousands of families. Research from TerraQuest, which operates the planning portal—not a particularly radical or out-there organisation —shows that a third of all homes given planning permission since 2015 have not been built. Ten years on, that shows that unbuilt permissions are an enduring problem that needs to be tackled. If all those permissions had been built out, the Government would have hit their annual 300,000 homes target in eight out of the last 10 years, and yet the approach so far focuses almost entirely on allocating more and more permissions in the hope that that will result in more homes being built.

There is no lack of planning permissions; the problem is that developers are not building out the ones they already have, because the current system does not penalise delay. Two big things could be done to improve housing supply: funding social housing and funding infrastructure. If those things were funded in a range of areas around the country, there would be almost unlimited build-out rates on stalled sites.

Developers clearly, and I think reasonably and rationally, will only build out at a rate that sustains the price of their product and their viability. They have fiduciary duties to their shareholders, and they need to maintain the viability of their companies. So they will not build out at a rate significant enough to flood the local market with housing and depress the price. We cannot blame them for wanting to make a profit—that is what we expect them to do—but we need to fund social housing publicly, as it was funded in the past, to get out of that bind. That is why I believe we need a stronger lever than we currently have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

What I can commit to—I feel the glares from my officials on me now—is this. If we have the information, I am more than happy to have a conversation with the shadow Minister to give him a sense of, across the country, how local authorities are using their existing enforcement powers and the extent to which, although I think this will be difficult information for Government to track, local planning authorities and inspectors are relying on unauthorised development as a material consideration. I am thinking, for example, of inspectors allowing things on appeal that are unauthorised. If we have that information, I am more than happy to share it and to have that conversation with the hon. Gentleman.

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank all those who have contributed and the Minister for his very thoughtful responses. On new clause 1, I note the Minister’s assurances that existing mechanisms will be going some way, at least, to addressing the concerns I have raised about build-out, so I will not push it to a vote at this point. I will not push the new clauses on affordability to a vote at this point, either, because I will be speaking to new clause 3, which is specifically on this issue, but I will emphasise that when we are thinking about viability, we must remember that we have a huge crisis of a lack of affordable housing in this country. We do not have a crisis in developer profits—not at all.

I would like to cite to the Committee a paragraph from a report that I have just checked out:

“Since 2014, the largest housebuilders, and in particular the three largest housebuilders by volume (Taylor Wimpey, Barratt and Persimmon…) have consistently reported supernormal levels of profitability, with gross profit margins reaching 32% and never falling below 17%”.

That is the reality of the crisis of excess developer profits that we face in the current housing market, and it is from independent academics. In that context, I think that it is incumbent on the Government and everybody to do everything possible to ensure that viability tests are not used as an excuse by developers to wriggle out of commitments to providing affordable housing. I am genuinely concerned that the provisions in existing law and in this Bill will still leave a huge viability loophole for developers. If in the next 10 years we continue to have those levels of supernormal profits on the part of developers, this Government will have absolutely failed all those who are struggling in the face of the housing crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a good point. To wrap this debate up, I think it is right that the Government seek to take forward planning reform in the way we have, and to streamline the planning process in a way that drops costs on developers where it is appropriate. Equally, we must be robust with developers. We want to put this mechanism in place and ensure that local authorities can negotiate section 106 agreements robustly. Where those agreements are entered into, we expect them to be delivered and we expect sites to be built out. As I say, hon. Members will not have to wait too long to see some of the changes that are not in existing law, but that the Government are bringing forward. On that basis, I hope hon. Members might not press the new clauses.

[Ellie Chowns]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn. 

New Clause 2

Review of the setting of local plans under the National Planning Policy Framework

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, review the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to the setting of local plans.

(2) The review must consider in particular replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement for local planning authorities to identify sites within their areas which are necessary to meet—

(a) local housing targets, and

(b) the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals.” —(Ellie Chowns.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the setting of local plans with a view to replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement for local planning authorities to identify sites which meet housing targets and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Ellie Chowns]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am reflecting on the comments that the Minister just made on the broken speculative model of development that we are currently stuck with. The new clause actually fits with amendment 2 to clause 91, which I spoke to earlier. Essentially, the new clause is asking the Government to review the way that local plans are set under the national planning policy framework, and specifically, to consider replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement in which the onus is on local planning authorities to identify sites in their areas that are necessary to achieve local housing targets and sustainable development. Currently, under-resourced and underfunded councils are forced to accept whatever ill-suited sites are offered up by developers. The pressure of meeting local housing needs often means that there is pressure to accept the sites that are offered rather than no sites.

The new clause does not force the Government to do anything apart from a review that specifically looks at redressing the power to identify which sites housing should be built on, and putting it much more in the hands of local planning authorities. That way they can take a genuinely strategic approach, rather than being at the mercy of developers’ initiatives, which may not be in the interests of the public.

[Matthew Pennycook]

New clause 2, which the hon. Lady has just spoken to, was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire. The purpose of the planning system is clear: to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The UN’s sustainable development goals are important to that. It is because of their importance that they are already addressed via existing planning laws, planning policy, guidance and processes.

The objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development is being delivered by the existing requirement to prepare local plans under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The national planning policy framework already contains policy on sustainable development with the presumption in favour of sustainable development at its heart.

National policy includes how to plan for good design, sustainable modes of transport including walking and cycling, an integrated approach to the location of housing, economic uses and the community services and facilities needed. It recognises the importance to health, wellbeing and recreation that open space and green infrastructure provides, and is clear that local plans should seek to meet the identified need and seek opportunities for new provision. It also contains policies on how to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places, and sets out that the planning system should support the transition to a low-carbon future.

The NPPF is also clear that planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes. The framework must be given regard to in preparing the development plan, and is a material consideration in planning decisions. The “call for sites” process ensures early engagement with landowners and land promoters to understand the availability and achievability of land identified to deliver sustainable development. The current process ensures consideration of the economic, environmental and social impacts of proposed sites for development, and how those contribute to a more sustainable future.

The important part here is that the assessment does not in itself determine whether a site should be allocated for development. It is the role of the assessment to provide information on the range of sites that are available to meet the local authority’s requirements, but it is for the local development plan, taken through with consultation with the local community—we definitely want more consultation with communities upstream in the local plan development process—to determine which of the sites in a “call for sites” are the most suitable to meet the requirements.

While I recognise the intentions behind it, the new clause would ultimately undermine the Government priority for extensive coverage of local plans across England, which is the key mechanism that enables sustainable development and housing delivery to take place. Although I understand the spirit of the new clause, the Government oppose it, as these important matters are already being considered and addressed through existing laws, systems, national planning policy and associated guidance—which are obviously kept under review at all times. On that basis, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.

[Ellie Chowns]

I honestly do not entirely follow the Minister’s argument about this measure potentially replacing the work of local authorities in driving development plans, because that is specifically what the new clause is about. It is about putting more power in the hands of local authorities rather than in the hands of the developers. However, given that we have multiple other new clauses to get to, some of which I am especially keen on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Housing plans to include quotas for affordable and social housing

“(1) Any national or local plan or strategy which relates to the building or development of housing must include specific quotas for the provision of—

(a) affordable housing, and

(b) social housing.

(2) Where a national or local plan or strategy includes quotas for the provision of affordable and social housing, the plan or strategy must include justification for the quotas.”—(Ellie Chowns.)

This new clause would require national and local housing plans to include, and justify, quotas for the provision of both affordable and social housing.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Ellie Chowns]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 8—Local planning authority discretion over affordability of housing—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, provide guidance to local planning authorities on how to define or classify new or prospective developments as affordable housing.

(2) The guidance must make clear that a local planning authority may, while having regard to national or general guidelines, determine what is to be understood to be affordable housing in its area based on local needs and circumstances.”

This new clause would enable local planning authorities to use their discretion to determine whether certain housing is to be “affordable housing”.

New clause 26—Provision of Older Persons Housing and Later Living Homes—

“The Secretary of State must, within 1 year of the passing of this Act—

(a) require 10% of homes delivered through the Affordable Homes Programme to be Older Persons Housing or Later Living Homes, and

(b) provide grant funding to support the capital costs of developing Older Persons Housing and Later Living Homes.”

This new clause would support the capital costs of developing affordable and inclusive housing for older people and support the provision of adequate supply.

New clause 37—Local planning authority powers relating to new towns—

“(1) A local planning authority whose area includes the whole or any part of a new town may—

(a) include any of the area of the new town as land to be developed in any local plan which covers a period between the designation of the new town and the completion of development,

(b) include in the local planning authority’s housing target any houses expected to be provided by or in the new town during the period covered by the local planning authority’s local plan, and

(c) include any housing expected to be provided by or in the new town in any consideration of the local planning authority’s 5 year housing land supply.

(2) A local planning authority whose area includes the whole or more than 2,500 houses of a new town ma—

(a) disregard National Planning Policy Framework guidance relating to the duty on local planning authorities and county councils to cooperate on strategic matters crossing administrative boundaries, and

(b) extend the area designated for the new town through its local plan process.

(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘new town’ means a town developed by a corporation under section 1 of the New Towns Act 1981.”

This new clause would provide local planning authorities with the ability to include new towns in local plans and housing targets, and give planning authorities certain powers with regard to new towns.

New clause 48—Review of method for assessing local housing need—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, review the standard method for assessing local housing need.

(2) A review under this section must consider—

(a) how the method for assessing local housing need should consider different types of property;

(b) basing calculations on price per square metre rather than price per unit.

(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) local councils; and

(b) any other parties the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) Upon completion of the review, the Secretary of State must—

(a) lay before Parliament a report which summarises the evidence considered in the review and the review’s final conclusions or recommendations;

(b) provide guidance to local planning authorities and other relevant bodies on how they should calculate and consider local housing need.”

New clause 49—New towns to contribute towards housing targets—

“In any national or local plan or strategy which sets targets for the building of new houses, houses built as part of new towns may contribute to the meeting of such targets.”

New clause 50—Local Housing Plans—

“(1) A local planning authority must develop a Local Housing Plan for its area for the purposes of informing its local plan.

(2) A Local Housing Plan must outline the number and type of homes—

(a) required, and

(b) proposed to be built,

in the authority’s area.”

New clause 75—Requirement for 20% of housing to be on small sites—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue or update guidance for local planning authorities regarding the identification of sites for housing development.

(2) The guidance must outline a requirement for at least 20% of an authority’s housing requirement to be accommodated on sites no larger than one hectare.”

New clause 92—Housing needs of ageing population—

“Any plan or strategy produced by a local planning authority which proposes the development of housing must include an assessment of the housing needs of an ageing population.”

[Ellie Chowns]

It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The new clause was tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire, and I give the Minister notice that I am particularly keen on it. It would require any national or local housing plan to include and justify quotas for the provision of affordable and social housing.

To me, the new clause seems like a no-brainer, and a measure that we should already have, given that we have such a huge housing crisis, have had no coherent Government housing strategy over the last decade or more, and have no serious goal to end homelessness or deal with the social housing waiting list or affordability issues. I recognise that the Government are making some efforts in the legislation they are introducing. I am particularly excited by the Minister’s promise of disruptive measures to tackle some of the remaining problems in the housing market.

We absolutely have to build more homes for social rent. In the 10 years between 2014-15 and 2023-24, England built 2.2 million homes. Would anybody like to guess what percentage of them were for social rent? Only 3% of them were for social rent, which is the only tenure that is genuinely affordable to those on the lowest incomes. I recently saw stats about the changes in planning permissions in the last six months: 6% of the permissions granted in that time have been for social rented homes. It is nowhere near enough. We desperately need more homes for social rent.

[Paul Holmes]

I understand and agree that we need to build more social rented homes, but does the hon. Lady not agree that the figures she gave could be perceived as being slightly simplistic, because they do not take into account the regional variations in where housing lists and social homes are most needed? I accept that social rent made up 3% of the total, and permissions recently increased to 6%, but in areas such as Southampton, London, Basingstoke or big urban centres, the proportion will be dramatically higher.

[Ellie Chowns]

I would be more than happy to go through spreadsheets with the hon. Member, because I like a nice spreadsheet. Although the figures might be slightly higher in London, I do not think anybody would argue that there is therefore sufficient affordable housing in London, or anywhere close to sufficient.

[Paul Holmes]

I agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

I am delighted that the hon. Member agrees. We can all agree that there is a crisis in affordable and social housing. Unless we set targets to tackle that at every level of housing planning, we will be guaranteed to fail to create the affordable and social housing we need.

[Nesil Caliskan]

Does the hon. Member recognise that targets were in place for a number of years, and that in most cases local authorities failed to meet them, not because of a lack of trying, but because market circumstances meant that viability did not work and planning permissions could not get through, and for a variety of other reasons? Targets do not, in and of themselves, drive delivery in the numbers we need in this country.

[Ellie Chowns]

I recognise that multiple factors drive the delivery of social and affordable housing—and, indeed, the achievement of any targets so to do—but what the hon. Member said is a bit inconsistent, because the Government have just introduced huge new housing targets based on an argument that we have to have targets for particular numbers in particular locations, no matter how well suited or otherwise they might be to the circumstances of the local planning authorities. Members cannot argue that housing targets are really useful at the level of overall numbers but not useful in relation to affordable and social housing, which is the point of crisis.

The Minister said, in his response to a previous new clause that I spoke to, that we need to recognise that building any sort of housing is helpful. I kind of get his point; I think he is trying to make a sort of “trickle up” point—that people can trickle up out of the most affordable housing and into more expensive housing, and that vacates the cheaper housing—but the fundamental problem is that we have nowhere close to enough genuinely affordable housing, by which I mean social rented housing, being built.

This is therefore a very reasonable amendment, simply asking that, at every level of housing plan—local and national—targets are set. It does not say what those targets should be; it just says that each plan should set a target for affordable housing and social housing.

[Lewis Cocking]

Does the hon. Member not agree that, in most local plans—if not all local plans that come forward; I took one through for Broxbourne when I was leader of the council—we do have targets for affordable and social homes? The reason lots of those do not get built out is because of the issues that we discussed earlier around viability. Just having a target does not necessarily deliver what she and I want to deliver: more social homes. We can have that target, but it is about the viability and the costs that developers try to get out of. That is why they do not get built.

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the hon. Member for his point, which is actually exactly the same point that the hon. Member for Barking made, essentially—

[Nesil Caliskan]

It was a very good point!

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

Yes—both singing from the same hymn sheet on this. I refer the hon. Member for Broxbourne to the answer that I gave two minutes ago to those comments: I am not saying that just setting a target for social and affordable housing will magic it up, and I am not denying that multiple factors impact on the delivery. In fact, I think the hon. Gentleman might be so gracious as to recognise that, in many of the previous measures—and ones coming up—that I have tabled to the Bill, I have been trying to address some of those issues, for example, in relation to hope value, restrictions on local authorities, and so forth.

I am not saying that the new clause is a magic bullet, and I welcome the fact that many local plans contain targets for affordable and social housing. I certainly do not think that just having the targets will ensure that they are achieved, but if the Government are to be consistent in their own rhetoric, that setting targets is important because it gives people something to aim for, then I very much hope that they will support the setting of targets for affordable homes, and particularly social rented homes, because that is where the crisis is in our housing supply. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Olly Glover]

I rise to speak to new clauses 8, 26 and 92, just to introduce briefly what they do. New clause 8 is about coming up with a more sophisticated definition of what “affordable housing” is, taking into account local needs and circumstances, while new clauses 92 and 26 are about quotas, funding and the assessment of the housing needs of an ageing and older population.

I shall keep my remarks on new clause 8 concise, because the hon. Member for North Herefordshire has made many of the points that I would otherwise have made. I agree with her that there seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance going on when those on the Government Benches express scepticism about the ability of targets for affordable and social housing to deliver progress, yet are adamant that targets for housing overall will do that. Perhaps the Minister will address that point in his remarks.

The key issue in terms of new clauses 26 and 92 is that the current definition of “affordable housing” is not considered affordable by many organisations. That particularly applies to people of an older age on a low income, who are still subject to many aspects of housing costs. It is not just me who thinks that the current definition of “affordable” is nothing of the sort. Shelter agrees, calling it

“unaffordable for those on average incomes”.

Similarly, Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have argued for affordability to be linked to local incomes, not market rates, and the Town and Country Planning Association also recommends local flexibility, stating in its housing guides that the 80% rule does not work in areas of high market distortion. Even the Labour-run Greater London Authority operates its own model, with the Mayor, Sadiq Khan, introducing a new category of “genuinely affordable” rent, which includes social rent, London living rent and shared-ownership schemes, as a way of creating a better benchmark.

As mentioned previously in this Bill Committee, house prices in constituencies such as mine still reflect a distorted market in which housing remains inordinately expensive despite enormous housing growth. Residents would certainly benefit from local authorities’ having the power to set what is meant by affordable housing, taking into account local circumstances on issues such as wages.

We also need to be more detailed and thoughtful about how we go about the issue of our ageing population. This is not just about the older old in care homes and similar facilities; it is also about people becoming old. For example, 40% of homeowners and 60% of renters aged 70 will have moved into their homes since the age of 50. Those homes may suit them when they move in, but they may not suit them as they age and will need to be adaptable. That is something that local authorities and all of us need to consider a lot more.

Equally, 50% of renters aged between 45 and 64 have no savings, and many will struggle to afford their rent in retirement. The Pensions Policy Institute estimates that if current trends continue, the cost of housing benefit for older renters will increase by 40%, or an additional £2 billion per annum.

Thinking more carefully about how we provide for an ageing population, as these new clauses propose, would benefit not just those who are affected by the cost of housing, but the public finances, given the ever-increasing housing benefit bill that we will face if we do not take serious action and change our approach. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman does not have a quote, but his intervention is still misguided. He fails to realise that under the past 14 years of the Conservative Government, 800,000 people bought their first home through schemes such as Help to Buy and the stamp duty relief, and 2 million homes for first-time buyers were built. This Government have not even shown that they have the aspiration to match that, because they have cut a lot of the products that turbocharged first-time buyers’ getting on to the housing ladder.

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that if he wants to, he can come for an appointment. By the way, we are under new leadership, and we are constantly reviewing our policies. We will be making announcements on the new products we will be bringing to people to fill the void that this Government have simply left for the first-time buyer.

[Ellie Chowns]

The hon. Member has issued a paean to Help to Buy, which at the time it was introduced was identified as a policy that would likely drive up housing prices and do nothing to address the real problems in the housing market. As I have repeatedly emphasised in this Committee, those problems relate particularly to affordable and social rent housing.

I have a quote for the hon. Member. A report published by the House of Lords Built Environment Committee in 2022 concluded that the

“Help to Buy scheme…inflates prices by more than its subsidy value”

and does

“not provide good value for money, which would be better spent on increasing housing supply.”

It pointed out that it cost the taxpayer £29 billion—more than £29 billion—over a decade, and that cash should have been used, as I have said, to replenish England’s falling stock of social housing.

The London School of Economics has found that Help to Buy boosted house prices in London by 8%—just that policy boosted house prices in London by 8%— and it boosted developers’ revenues by 57%. Does the hon. Member recognise that it is not a panacea for the problems in the housing market that we face, and that investing in social rent housing should be our priority?

[The Chair]

Order. Before we go on, could we keep to these new clauses, please, because we are getting a little off-track?

[Paul Holmes]

I will heed your advice, Ms Jardine, and bring this back to new clause 50.

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire said there should be more social homes, but that comes under the remit of local authorities to set in their housing plan. In response to what she said about Help to Buy versus social homes being a panacea, I gently say to her that I never at any stage said that Help to Buy was a panacea. I said it was part of the mix in which we could help people, if they so wished, to get on to the housing ladder for the first time.

[Ellie Chowns]

At the cost of social housing.

[Paul Holmes]

I have not finished my point, if the hon. Lady would let me do so. I feel like the Minister last week.

I am saying that Help to Buy was part of a wider mix. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to focus on building more social housing, but I have a fundamental political disagreement with her, which is that social housing is not a panacea either. There are people who want to buy and there are people who want to be helped to buy, and that is why I say that, under this Government, the incentivisation for first-time buyers in the context of that argument has been abandoned, and that happened when we left office.

[Ellie Chowns]

My point is brief: given that the Government have a limited amount of money available, should it not be spent on the things that are most effective in tackling the reality of the housing crisis? It is clear that Help to Buy was not that.

[Paul Holmes]

I agree with the hon. Lady that the Government should be focusing on social housing. However, to be fair to them, they have announced a huge amount of money for it, as we discussed in the Westminster Hall debate six or seven weeks ago. I cannot remember the figure, but it was a great figure for building social housing. They have gone further than the last Government did on social housing, and I said in that Westminster Hall debate that I welcomed the Minister’s and the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment to building that affordable and social housing, but we need a housing mix that also allows for first-time buyers. That is the argument I originally made, and I do not think many people in the House or out there would disagree that we need such a mix.

Briefly, new clause 75 relates to small site allocations in local plans. Currently, local planning authorities are expected to allocate 10% to small sites in local plans, unless they can provide a strong explanation why that is not possible. The Government have recognised the strength of feeling that small site policy generally is not working for both planning authorities and small and medium-sized developers, and they are strengthening the wording in the Bill. However, this new clause is designed to reverse that, and to up the percentage of small sites that should be accessible to SME developers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner outlined in his intervention. I think the Minister should be able to agree to it.

We discussed this morning how SME developers could be enabled to build more homes. There would be a requirement for 20% of housing to be on small sites, and:

“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue or update guidance for local planning authorities regarding the identification of sites for housing development…The guidance must outline a requirement for at least 20% of an authority’s housing requirement to be accommodated on sites no larger than one hectare.”

I hope that also shows many Members across the House that we believe in a solid and varied housing mix, built by a solid and varied housing sector. A number of these measures will help deliver just that. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is worth referring to the NPPF consultation in the summer and the Government response. We think that there was good reason not to make the 10% allocation mandatory. Local authorities, in particular, told us that they had concerns in that regard. There are many other things we could do. Without using this as a defence, in fairly short order the shadow Minister will see some of the measures that we want to introduce to support SME house builders. Access to land is a concern, and access to finance is another issue, as is the cumulative burden of regulation on SME house builders, which, for obvious reasons, are less able to cope with that than large-volume house builders. All of that is part of the answer, but I am sure we will have further debates on the matter once the Government have brought forth new measures in that area.

I turn to new clauses 92 and 26. I share the commitment of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to enhancing provision and choice for older people in the housing market. I agree that the need to provide sufficient housing to meet older people’s specific needs is critical. We must ensure that the housing market is moving with demographic change. I also recognise that well-designed, suitable housing can improve the quality of life, health and wellbeing of older people, as well as supporting wider Government objectives.

That is why the revised national planning policy framework already makes it clear that local authorities producing a local plan should, as I have said before, assess the size, types and tenure of housing for different groups in their communities, including older people, and reflect that in their planning policies. Supporting guidance also makes it clear that an understanding of how the ageing population affects housing needs should be considered from the early stages of plan making through to decision making.

Furthermore, clause 47 contains provision for spatial development strategies to take account of that factor. It provides that SDSs

“may specify or describe…an amount or distribution of affordable housing or any other kind of housing”

if the provision of that housing is considered

“to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.”

One can well imagine how, in particular sub-regions of the country with high proportions of older people, SDSs may want to take particular account of that factor.

We will of course consider how we can continue to make progress on delivering sufficient housing for older people, as we develop our long-term housing strategy, which we will publish later this year. I recognise that that will have benefits not only in meeting housing need for older people, but further down the housing chain, by unlocking homes that are inappropriate for older people. Those people may wish to move if they have a better offer and if challenges such as those mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, such as the excessive service charges on some older people’s residential housing, are dealt with.

On new clause 26, I do not believe that introducing legislation to impose targets and capital funding for the affordable homes programme is the best way to incentivise the market to increase the supply of older people’s housing and later living homes. The Government’s view is that local housing authorities are best placed to bring forward the right amount of new housing for older persons and later living homes in their areas through the planning and care systems, and based on local need. The Government will obviously support them to do that when they set out the full details of a new grant funding programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme at the spending review on 11 June. Alongside wider investment across this Parliament, the new programme will help to deliver our commitment to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. For that reason, I respectfully ask that none of the new clauses in this very large group are pressed to a vote.

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the Minister for his comments. I will briefly pick up on a couple of the issues he mentioned. On housing for older people, and new clause 92, I welcome the Government’s recognition that this is a serious issue, and that there are real benefits to enabling greater provision of housing for older members of the community—not least that it would also unlock housing for others. I look forward very much to the measures with which he is tantalising us coming forward. Likewise, as support for SME house builders is an issue close to the hearts of those in my constituency of North Herefordshire, I am on tenterhooks waiting for his forthcoming announcements.

However, I do intend to push new clause 3 to a vote. The Minister has not explained why he thinks that mandatory housing targets are essential, but targets for affordable and social housing are apparently unacceptable.

[Matthew Pennycook]

In part, I would like to correct the hon. Lady, because at no point did I say that such targets are unacceptable; I said that we have not, to date, set one. I will give her an idea of some of the reasons. The hon. Member for Broxbourne will remember discussion of this in my evidence to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee: there are factors that bear on the delivery of social and affordable housing that sit outside the control of a local authority area.

For example, while a lot of social and affordable housing comes through section 106 agreements, large amounts come through grant funding from Government, and we cannot impose an arbitrary target without other measures, which the Government are bringing forward, being in place. We have not set a target for now; we think it is right that local authorities lead on assessing that need and ensuring that it is reflected in local plans. However, at no point did I say that it is unacceptable—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will continue; I believe the hon. Member for North Herefordshire was speaking.

[Ellie Chowns]

I was not speaking at the moment of the point of order—the Minister was. I confess have been slightly thrown by the intervention from the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, but I think that at the time of the point of order, the Minister was intervening on my summing-up speech, which was about pushing new clause 3 to a vote. I take the Minister’s point that he did not say that such targets were unacceptable; however, if he fails to support the new clause, he is effectively indicating that it is fine for the Government to specify where houses must be built, but not to say that local authorities should specify that certain types of housing must be built, as they see fit.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I would genuinely like to understand the hon. Lady’s thinking in this area. Does she think that it is the role of Government to prescribe, for every local planning authority in England, the precise mixes of tenure and affordable housing, and, for example, the number of older people’s homes they bring forward? It would be helpful to have clarity on where the line is drawn.

[Ellie Chowns]

I am pleased to clarify that no, that is not my proposal, nor is it what the new clause says. It simply states:

“Any national or local plan or strategy which relates to the building or development of housing must include specific quotas for the provision of—

(a) affordable housing, and

(b) social housing.”

The elaboration of those national and local plans remains in the hands of those who are responsible for producing them under existing legislation. There is nothing in the new clause that says that it has to be at a specific level.

If the Government take the provision of affordable and social housing seriously, and recognise that the existing level of social rented housing—whether it is 3% or 6%—is nowhere near sufficient, then why not have the Bill specify that a quota for affordable and social housing should be set by the authorities that write the local plans? The new clause is moderate, reasonable and proportionate, and is entirely in line with the Government’s commitment to setting targets for housing overall.

The net effect of not accepting the new clause may well be that the housing market continues to be just as distorted as it currently is, so I warmly encourage the Minister to consider supporting it. I think that others will find it difficult to understand why a Labour Government would not support targets for affordable and social housing—not specifying the numbers, but requiring that such targets are a necessary part of achieving what the Government say they want to achieve in improving access to housing.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

It is a privilege to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine.

New clause 5 would require building regulations to be made that require new homes to meet the zero carbon standard and to include renewable energy. Back in 2006, the then Labour Government rightly set out plans to achieve zero carbon in new housing. The same Government made a commitment in the carbon plan that there would be a regulatory requirement for zero carbon homes from 2016, which was the key date. That 2016 commitment was renewed by the coalition Government in 2011 and was included in the 2014 Infrastructure Bill. However, all the commitments to on-site efficiency standards and allowable solutions—the extra bit to make new homes zero carbon—were cancelled by the incoming Conservative Government in 2015, in a shocking retrograde step in addressing carbon emissions.

We came so close to achieving the zero carbon homes standard back then. A cross-sector ministerial taskforce had been in place from around 2008. Two preparatory upgrades to building regulations had already been made—by the Labour Government in 2010, and by the coalition Government in 2013—and regulations were drafted for the 2016 upgrade that would have delivered zero carbon homes.

Labour housing and planning Ministers who are now in the Cabinet—I will not name them in case they do not want to be named—chaired the ministerial taskforce and took the programme forward. Under the coalition Government, a predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), Andrew Stunell—to whom I pay tribute, and who introduced his first Bill on this subject back in 2004—continued the zero carbon homes programme as a Minister until 2015.

We then had the complete cancellation of the programme in 2015. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has estimated that, had the zero carbon standard been reached, residents would have paid £5 billion less in energy bills since 2016 as a result of living in better insulated and more energy-efficient homes.

My noble Friend Baroness Parminter tabled a zero carbon homes amendment to the 2015-16 Housing and Planning Bill on Report, but the then Government did not support it. The Minister at the time in the Lords said that the Government would

“introduce nearly zero energy building standards”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 April 2016; Vol. 771, c. 925.]

Of course, that falls well short. Undeterred, the Lords voted in favour again; the then Government ultimately tabled their own amendment that committed to reviewing energy performance requirements under building regulations, but they never did so—and, again, that fell a long way short.

Almost 20 years on, we still do not have a zero carbon standard for new homes. It was, and still should be, a cross-party and cross-sector issue. There is a legal commitment to reduce carbon emissions in this country, and mandating zero carbon new homes would ensure that we do not make the task even harder for ourselves than it already is. Zero carbon homes insulate households not just in terms of energy but from fluctuations in energy prices. They reduce demand for electricity from the national grid and obviously reduce carbon footprint.

Much more recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) tried again to acquire a degree of solar generation on new homes with a private Member’s Bill—his sunshine Bill. When the Minister responded to that debate back in January, he said that

“the Government already intend to amend building regulations later this year...that will set more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emissions requirements for new homes.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 652.]

I am not sure why I am quoting the Minister to himself, but he will no doubt recall saying that rooftop solar deployment will increase significantly as a result.

We look forward to a response on the new clause, which moves us towards and helps to deliver zero carbon homes. It would give the Government six months to set out regulations, and it merely seeks to hold the Minister to his word on the topic. The Minister ought to emulate once more the forward-looking approach of the Labour Government back in 2006, who committed this country to a trajectory of zero carbon homes. Almost 20 years on, we and many others want the certainty of a legislative provision to secure a zero carbon future for British housing and bring the benefits of solar generation to all residents.

After all, we could have avoided building an entire new power station had this standard been introduced in 2016, as was proposed through cross-party agreement at the time. It is now almost a decade since the first zero carbon homes plan would have been introduced. This will be a lost opportunity if Parliament does not commit, finally, to taking that last step to make all new homes zero carbon.

[Ellie Chowns]

I warmly welcome the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I refer colleagues to the fact that I have proposed a private Member’s Bill on exactly this topic—the Carbon Emissions from Buildings (Net Zero) Bill—and my very first Westminster Hall debate was on environmental building standards, so I am fully behind the new clause.

It is essential that we build new housing to the best possible standards, and that we build new homes that are fully fit for the future. We know that doing so has social, environmental and economic benefits. It has social benefits, because it reduces people’s fuel bills and tackles issues such as mould in homes. It has environmental benefits, because, of course, there are huge energy efficiency advantages. It has economic benefits, not least because it is much more economically efficient in the long run to build houses effectively at the start so that we do not have to retrofit them years down the line. We already have a huge retrofit challenge in the coming years, so the very least we can do is to ensure that all new houses are built to zero carbon standards.

The new clause refers specifically to solar power generation on roofs. I warmly welcome the Government’s announcement—I believe it was on local election day—that they are moving in that direction. However, in zero carbon design, other factors are much more important, including building orientation, design around transport and fabric first. I would like to discuss another factor, namely embodied carbon. I have tabled new clause 91 on the subject, but I am not sure that we will get there. When we talk about zero carbon, we need to recognise both the operational carbon, which is the carbon produced by a building during its lifespan—over the next, say, 80 years—and the embodied carbon in buildings, which is becoming a larger factor in the construction industry. We will soon be at the point where embodied carbon is half of the carbon associated with a building during its lifetime.

[Rachel Taylor]

I thank the hon. Member for her lengthy and detailed explanation of zero carbon standards. Does she think it is appropriate to constrain the Minister to bringing forward building regulations within the short period of six months? Would that take longer? Not all of us have the same detailed and intricate knowledge of the standards that would be required, although I understand a great deal about building regulations.

[Ellie Chowns]

In fairness, I did not draft the new clause. I recognise that it says six months, but as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington spoke about so eloquently, we had proposals for net zero carbon building standards on the table 10 years ago. This has been in development for 20 years. The sector itself is way ahead of Government on this. A huge amount of work has been done by the Low Energy Transformation Initiative, the Royal Institute of British Architects and all sorts of organisations to develop zero carbon building standards.

Although bringing regulations forward within six months is arguably ambitious, it is not that the work is not available. The missing thing is political will, and political will can be found, as we have seen—we have passed a bill in less than 24 hours in this House within the last few weeks. Where there is political will, things can be done quickly. This is not an unreasonable proposal in this legislation. All the technical work is there; it is political will that is missing to bring forward a zero carbon standard for new homes. I could not more warmly welcome this new clause.

[Olly Glover]

I wish to add some concise thoughts to support the new clause, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington, which requires new homes to be built to a net zero carbon building standard and include provision for generation of solar power. My comments relate to the current political context in our country, which is—regrettably, in my view—more and more cynicism about net zero and the feeling that climate change mitigation is a negative, a drag on our lives and something that will cost us loads of money.

These proposals on zero carbon homes and solar panels are the exact opposite of all that. They are a good example of how taking action on climate change and striving for net zero brings economic opportunity by stimulating supply chains and the labour force and helping people to reduce their bills, creating more money for them to spend on the wider economy. Of course, it helps our planet as well. We need to be far more radical on policies like these, and there needs to be far less delay. We really need to get on with it, because they benefit people, planet and economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I commend the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on tabling the new clause. It is very similar to new clause 34, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). My hon. Friend’s goes slightly further, in that it would ensure

“minimum expected standards for ongoing maintenance”,

but we welcome the sentiment, and we understand why the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Democrats have tabled the new clause.

This is an issue that many of us have faced. The hon. Gentleman and I both attended a Westminster Hall debate about problems with drainage in new developments. I said then that in our constituencies, several of us could point to new developments in which planning officers and constituents had no confidence, even though the planning authority had acted entirely appropriately within the guidelines. I think particularly of Botley parish council in my constituency and Boorley Green, where development is going on along the River Hamble and further up into Winchester Street. Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was supposed to help with the expected standards.

With many new developments, a lot of the water companies are not sufficiently accountable to the people they serve. Local authorities are slightly constrained by the planning system from making the changes that they could make to help the long-standing flooding problems, if schedule 3 was brought in.

I welcome the new clause, and it will have our support. We will work with the hon. Gentleman on Report to strengthen the new clause. I do not mean that there is anything wrong with it, but I would like it to be combined with new clause 33 and the standards on ongoing maintenance. I hope the hon. Gentleman takes that as a helpful suggestion, and we look forward to supporting his new clause.

[Ellie Chowns]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 7. I have spoken about flooding in the main Chamber at least five times. Constituents have come to see me in my surgeries to tell me that they have been flooded out of their new homes only six months after they were built, because of a lack of appropriate drainage. As climate change brings us greater extremes and severity of weather, we know that frequent flooding will become even more of a problem, so it is imperative that any new building is flood resilient.

I draw the Committee’s attention to my new clauses 85 and 86, which I will move if we have time tomorrow or on Thursday. They are also designed to prevent building on flood plains, and to ensure that flood resilience measures are in place for all new buildings. It is quite extraordinary that 15 years after SuDS were provided for in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, they have still not been brought in. I add my voice to those of my Lib Dem and Conservative colleagues urging the Government to support the new clause, and to ensure that all new building is genuinely flood resilient and does not contribute to further problems downstream for other areas, housing or infrastructure.

[Olly Glover]

I rise to speak to new clause 89, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). It would support what other hon. Members have been seeking with their amendments by requiring developers to review the drainage performance of a development five years after being built and by clarifying that it is very much for the developer to take remedial action when such drainage performance is found to be inadequate.

My hon. Friend tabled the amendment for a range of reasons, not least because the new house building in his constituency, and indeed in mine, has included a number of areas where drainage installation has not been done adequately. There have subsequently been lots of issues with the local authority not being willing to adopt because of that; then there has been all the usual argy-bargy that many of us are familiar with between developer and local authority.

The amendment also speaks to a concern of many residents that the scale of house building and the drainage facilities put in place contribute to local flood risk and flooding incidents. A couple of examples from my constituency: the Anderson Place estate in East Hanney and the Childrey Park estate of East Challow have had both flooding issues and those arguments between local authority and developer. For those reasons, we have tabled new clause 89 to put greater onus on developers to ensure that they are installing drainage to the required standard, and that assessment takes place subsequently within five years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

New clause 9 concerns healthy homes, and would ensure that national and local government plans are designed with a clear and explicit aim of improving the physical, mental and social health and wellbeing of people in those homes.

We cannot afford to keep building homes that make people ill. It is instructive to recall that the original planning system and the original planning Act emerged from the garden city movement, the public health movement and the desire to enable people to escape from slums. The first planning Act was the Housing, Town Planning, etc. Act 1909, which was mainly concerned with public health. We need to re-establish the link between planning and health if we are going to improve our health outcomes, prevent health inequalities and address the sicknesses in our society.

Right now, 3.5 million homes, which are lived in by around 15% of households, fail to meet the decent homes standard. That is not just a housing issue; it is a public health issue. According to the Resolution Foundation, poor-quality housing doubles the likelihood of someone experiencing poor general health. It costs the NHS £1.4 billion a year to treat to treat and costs society an estimated £18.5 billion, because it damages productivity, education outcomes and life chances. If we are serious about levelling up and addressing health inequalities, we must start with the homes that people live in.

We know that deregulation has not worked. The extension of permitted developments under the last Government allowed the conversion of offices and shops into substandard housing, flats without windows, and rooms too small for someone to stretch their arms out without touching the walls. Those were “homes” in name only. If the Government enact any further changes to permitted development rights, they should at least adopt this new clause to ensure that those homes are healthy, regardless of how they are built.

Even the revised national planning policy framework, while nodding towards health inequalities, includes no effective levers to address them or to force those making development decisions to consider health outcomes. A vague instruction to have regard to local health inequalities is simply not enough.

Similarly, while the decent homes standard refers to health outcomes, it deals only with fixing the dangers in the existing rental stock. We need to consider health outcomes during the development stage to prevent dangers, rather than considering them only when they have already become a problem. This new clause would do that. It is about designing out risks from the start and embedding health into the DNA of planning once again, and into development policy.

This new clause is backed by the Town and Country Planning Association, which says it will establish clarity on housing standards and wider development quality, setting a level playing field for industry. That is fundamental for promoting positive health outcomes across all new homes and communities.

Surely, it is time that we moved from building homes quickly and at any cost to building them well and making them healthy for the people who live in them. I urge the Committee to support new clause 9.

[Ellie Chowns]

I rise to speak to new clauses 14 and 41, which have been grouped with new clause 9 and address the same question of what the purpose of planning should be. To be clear, new clause 14 has the support of the Town and Country Planning Association, and new clause 41 has the support of the Royal Town Planning Institute. Indeed, there is a widely held view in the planning sector that it is necessary to have a clear statutory purpose for planning, both to guide planning decisions and to make it more publicly understandable what planning does and what it is for.

The suggestion in these new clauses is that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill should take the opportunity to set out a clear purpose for planning, based on the UN’s sustainable development principles, to which, of course, the UK Government are a signatory and make fairly frequent reference. That would offer an opportunity to build consensus around the purpose of planning in all its diverse glory—not just in plan making, but in decision making.

What we have seen with the Government’s emphasis on reframing national planning policy in the NPPF as being all about economic growth is not just bad for the environment but risks missing out on the opportunity to ensure that all planning policy and decisions are good for people, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington just explained.

Creating a statutory purpose for planning would give a clear foundation for national planning policy and would help to prevent the sudden shifts in national policy direction that have been a feature of the system since 2010. As it currently stands, planning law has only an exceptionally weak duty:

“to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development”.

That duty is limited only to plan making and does not extend to decision making. That existing duty contains no definition of sustainable development and makes no reference to the internationally recognised framework of the sustainable development goals.

I feel that in framing a vision for our future development, as outlined in new clause 14, a specific requirement should be placed on the Secretary of State to have special regard for the wellbeing of present and future generations in planning. Planning decisions are, by definition, long term. The world we inhabit today is shaped by planning decisions made decades in the past, so it can only be right that we explicitly recognise the needs of children and young people in both plan making and decision making.

Although new clauses 14 and 41 have slightly different wording, their intention is effectively the same, which is to ask the Secretary of State to use the Bill as an opportunity to set out a statutory purpose for planning that specifically frames all planning decisions around the broad concept of sustainable development, as very clearly articulated in the SDGs and elsewhere.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We can all agree that the design and use of the built and natural environment are major determinants of health and wellbeing. That is why this important matter is addressed in the planning system through both policy and guidance such as the NPPF and PPG, which includes the national design guide and the national model design code.

The hon. Lady said that the Government have made the NPPF all about economic growth. No, we are very clear that we made changes to ensure that the NPPF is pro-growth, but the NPPF makes it clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, with a fundamental part of this being to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities.

[Ellie Chowns]

Will the Minister set out his definition of sustainable development?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will do better than that and direct the hon. Lady to the appropriate paragraphs in the NPPF, which set out a clear explanation of what is meant by the purpose and the presumption that runs through it.

The framework further sets out that planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places that promote social interaction. This includes opportunities for meetings between people who might not otherwise come into contact with each other, and that enable and support healthy lives—both by promoting good health and preventing ill health, especially where this addresses identified local health and wellbeing needs and seeks to reduce health inequalities.

The framework also recognises that access to a network of high-quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for health and wellbeing and it is clear that local plans should seek to meet the identified need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and should seek opportunities for new provision.

It is a legal requirement to have regard to national policies and guidance issued by the Secretary of State, such as the NPPF and the national design guide, when preparing a local or strategic plan. Such policies and guidance are also material considerations in planning decisions, where relevant. Therefore, while I understand the intent behind this amendment, we are clear that these important matters are best recognised and addressed through national planning policy and guidance, all of which must be considered in the preparation of local plans and, where relevant, in planning decisions.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for tabling new clauses 14 and 41. They are right that planning should serve a clear purpose, which is why its purpose is front and centre of our NPPF to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of homes, commercial development and supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. What that should mean in practice is set out through the policies in the framework, and through the policies in the development plan for each area. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan in question, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is one of those material considerations and must also be taken into account in preparing the development plan.

Furthermore, there are already well established mechanisms in place to enable communities to engage with planning processes and shape the development that takes place in their area. This includes through statutory consultation, which local planning authorities are required to undertake, as the hon. Lady will be aware, for both plan making and when determining planning applications.

[Ellie Chowns]

Would the Minister care to explain why the TCPA and the RTPI feel that the existing framework is not adequate?