Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will come on to address that call, which I know is being made, but in general the Bill aims for, and I have always focused on, a win-win for development and the environment. We had extremely productive engagement with ENGOs in the development of the Bill, and we continue to have fruitful conversations with them, aside from the campaigns that I know are being fought out there in the country and in some of the national media.

While critics of this part of the Bill may be content to maintain the suboptimal status quo, in full knowledge of the fact that it is frustrating the building of new homes and failing to drive the restoration of nature, this Government are not. To those who believe this Government might buckle and scrap part 3 of the Bill entirely, I simply say, “You have underestimated the resolve of this Government and this Minister.” The case for moving to a more strategic approach that will allow us to use funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in driving the recovery of protected sites and species, is compelling.

That is why so many organisations indicated their in-principle support for the purpose and intent of part 3 when the Bill was first introduced.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will make some progress.

As Beccy Speight, the chief executive of RSPB, put it at the time:

“With bold leadership, collaboration, and smart planning through initiatives like the Nature Restoration Fund, we can build a future where nature, climate, people and the economy thrive together”.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We must make a distinction between irreplaceable habitats, where the model does not remove the strong protections that exist for them, such as ancient woodland in the national planning policy framework, and habitats where Natural England will be allowed to take a view as to whether conservation measures that apply to them meet the overall improvement test in the Bill, and any intervention in those circumstances will be driven by what is in the environmental best interests of the relevant feature. There are, therefore, protections in place that address my hon. Friend’s concerns.

In recent weeks, there has been a not inconsiderable amount of spurious commentary attempting to convey a false impression of what the nature restoration fund does.

[Ellie Chowns]

On that specific point, will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

If the hon. Lady will let me develop my argument a little, I am more than happy to give way to her in due course.

As such, I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. First, some have claimed that the nature restoration fund is driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment and that the Government are creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute—a “cash to trash” model, as some have dubbed it.

In reality, the nature restoration fund will do the precise opposite. I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not—and need not—come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest that the nature restoration fund would allow developers simply to pay Government and then wantonly harm nature. Instead, it takes payments from developers and hands them to Natural England, a public body with regulatory duties to conserve and enhance our natural environment, to develop environmental delivery plans, setting out how various conservation measures will not only address the impact of development, but go further to demonstrate how they will improve the conservation status of the environmental feature.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I know lots of Members wish to contribute to the debate but I will make some progress. If I may finish the argument I am trying develop about taking on those misconceptions, I will give way to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) very shortly.

We have been perfectly clear that the new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable, which is why the Bill gives Natural England the ability to request planning conditions to ensure that appropriate actions are taken by developers as part of using an EDP.

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the Minister warmly for giving way. He dismissed “spurious” criticism of part 3 of the Bill, but would he use that phrase to dismiss the very expert criticism of the Office for Environmental Protection? In complete contrast to the Secretary of the State’s claim that the Bill does not reduce environmental protections, in its independent expert advice, the OEP says that it does and that the Bill constitutes “a regression” in environmental protection?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The simple answer is no, I would not characterise the OEP’s advice as “spurious”, but I am characterising some of the arguments that have been made over recent days and weeks as such. The OEP is not saying that the Bill is a “cash to trash” model, but some people out there in the public discourse are making that claim.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not give way again. We have to make this argument to take on the critics of the Bill who are intentionally trying to malign the objectives—

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not. I have just been very clear that I am not going to give way again as I want to make some progress.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire is more than welcome to have another go at intervening in due course. I know that she will be putting forward her views later. The Government’s view is that the Bill is not “regressive”. As I have said, environmental delivery plans will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation. As the hon. Lady knows, because we had extensive debates in Committee, we are giving very serious consideration to the OEP’s technical advice on how the Bill might be strengthened in various areas.

Another claim that has been put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, that amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation. The very strong protections for important sites set out in national planning policy are untouched by the legislation. It is only when an EDP is in place, following consultation and approval by the Secretary of State, that developers can avail themselves of it to discharge the relevant obligation.

In the same way that developers can build only once they have met existing requirements, development supported by the nature restoration fund will only be able to come forward when there is a credible and robust EDP in place that will deliver better environmental outcomes. The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), has rightly flagged the importance of these plans relying on robust scientific evidence, which is why they will only ever be put in place where they can be shown to deliver better environmental outcomes.

Finally, there has been a suggestion by some that the new approach provided for by the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or for irrecoverable harm. Again, that is patently false. Not only do all existing protections for irreplaceable habitats remain in place, but the overall improvement test in clause 59 simply could not be met if an EDP proposed to allow irrecoverable harm. Natural England would not propose such measures, and the Secretary of State could not sign them off if it did. If any Secretary of State signed them off, they would be open to judicial review on the basis of that decision.

In short, the nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests: it will restore, not harm nature. It is smart planning reform, designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery, while improving the state of nature across the country. By shifting to a strategic approach, leveraging economies of scale and reducing the need for costly project-level assessments, it will deliver a win-win for development and the environment.

While the Government have no time for spurious and misleading attacks on the nature restoration fund, I am acutely conscious of the views expressed both within and beyond this House from those who are supportive of the purpose and intent of part 3 of the Bill—those who are not calling for it to be scrapped, but are not yet convinced that the safeguards within it are sufficiently robust or that there is the required certainty that it will deliver in practice the potential environmental benefits it offers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)]

The Bill before the House has the potential to be one of the most pro-growth pieces of legislation passed by this place for decades and to transform our country for the better, but the amendments proposed will blunt its impact and make us all worse off. We should reject them for the prosperity of our constituents and the future of our country.

Every day in this place has to be about our constituents and the lives they lead. In Chipping Barnet, time and again I see the impact of our failure to build homes. Take Maryam—a victim of domestic violence and mother of a seven-year-old, working a zero-hours contract. She found herself with nowhere suitable to live to the point that she was living in a car. Or take Hayley—a wheelchair user living in a property that is not accessible for her. Due to a lack of available housing that is appropriate for her, she is often housebound because she simply cannot leave her home without support.

These are the stories of Britain today, but it does not need to be like this. This Bill gives us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix many of the things holding our country back. For too long, we have not built enough in this country, and we are paying a huge price for that. Under-investment in our homes and infrastructure has made us all worse off, both financially and socially, living in homes that skewer the prospect of a good life. That is why I do not support the Opposition amendments.

I also do not support amendment 69 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which sadly misses the mark. Labour was elected on a manifesto that sought to prioritise growth and making people better off. The Bill demonstrates how that is possible, alongside improved protections for nature. The nature restoration fund is a genuine win-win, but its successful and timely implementation is put at risk by the amendment.

[Ellie Chowns]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will make a bit more progress.

Let us take the example of nutrient neutrality. It is estimated that no fewer than 160,000 homes across the country have been blocked by Natural England on that basis. That is because on-site mitigation on a site-by-site basis is often virtually impossible, and those homes remain stalled. The environmental delivery plans that Natural England will produce will mean that rather than homes being held up by those rules, the very issues causing nutrient neutrality challenges can be addressed in a strategic way—better for building, for nature and for people. EDPs take the challenge of nutrient neutrality seriously and mean that builders can get stalled sites built, providing much-needed new homes.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Ellie Chowns]

I will get straight to the point: there are two big problems with this Bill. First, there is no social housing target, which means that it does not do anything to secure delivery of the fit-for-the-future social rent housing that we so desperately need, as colleagues across the House have said tonight. Secondly, it rolls back vital nature protections, effectively giving developers carte blanche to bulldoze nature to build luxury homes that are accessible only to the richest.

Green MPs gave the Bill a chance on Second Reading—

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ellie Chowns]

I am sorry, I will not give way because there are so many colleagues who still want to speak and we are short of time.

Green MPs gave the Bill a chance on Second Reading, because a secure home is out of reach for too many people. Rents are spiralling, over 165,000 children are living in temporary accommodation and over 1 million people are stuck on housing waiting lists. It is scandalous that just 3% of the housing built in the last decade was for social rent, and there is now a wait of more than 100 years for a family-sized social home. I served on the Bill Committee for the past six-plus weeks and I worked hard to persuade the Government to fix the serious flaws in the Bill, but unfortunately those calls have so far been ignored.

I am profoundly concerned that, in the glaring absence of a social rent housing target, this Government are writing a charter for developers’ greed. That is why Green party MPs have tabled new clause 78, to push for safe, warm homes in the communities we love at a truly affordable price. It would require housing plans to set targets for building zero-carbon social rent housing based on local needs, because without an explicit social housing commitment, big developers will be able to line their pockets even further while ordinary people are still locked out of affording a decent home.

I am hugely concerned, as are so many people and the nature organisations that we all trust. By the way, the Bill rolls back nature protections. That is why I have proposed amendments 24 to 63, which would delete part 3 of the Bill entirely, because the Government repeatedly blocked cross-party efforts in Committee to amend part 3 to reduce its harmful impact on nature.

Part 3 is harmful for three key reasons. First, it weakens and undermines the requirement for nature protection to be achieved to a high level of scientific certainty. Secondly, it creates a “pay to pollute” system, allowing developers to skip straight to offsetting, trashing the long-established principle of the mitigation hierarchy—that is, that development should first seek to avoid harm. Thirdly, it upends the requirement for compensation to be delivered up front and creates wiggle room for developers to avoid paying the true cost of the harm they do.

The Government know the nature crisis in our country is severe, yet they repeatedly voted in Committee to reject a raft of constructive amendments to improve part 3 and ensure a win-win for housing and nature. I remind the House that the Labour party’s 2024 manifesto pointed out that

“the Conservatives have left Britain one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world,”

but part 3 will make that terrible situation worse. It is not just the nature organisations that tell us that; it is the independent expert advice of the Office for Environmental Protection, which says that the Bill constitutes a “regression” in environmental law, directly contradicting the assertion of the Secretary of State.

If Ministers insist on bulldozing ahead on part 3, I urge them at the very least to accept my new clause 26. With cross-party support and wide backing, it seeks to match the current degree of certainty for environmental protection. I also strongly support amendment 69, in the name of the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which would ensure that improvements are delivered before the damage they are compensating for.

We can and must both protect nature and build warm, affordable, zero-carbon social rent homes. The Government said it is what they want. Sadly, it is not what the Bill delivers. Without urgent change—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I call Alex Brewer.