Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns]

I do not at all dispute that there is potential to go further and faster within the framework of building regulations to address the risks that I am outlining. However, there is also potential within the planning framework to do it, which is exactly the point that I have made. The removal of “overheating” from the planning framework in 2022 meant that things have got worse. We have an opportunity in the Bill to ensure that we tackle overheating through the planning framework, as well as the building regulations framework. It really is not an either/or. There is scope and need within both those frameworks to address the risks that I am outlining.

New clause 80 would ensure that local plans must consider passive design in residential development, from cross-ventilation to thermal mass. These are well-established strategies that can drastically reduce indoor temperatures during extreme heat events without energy use.

Finally, new clause 81 would ensure that local authorities have access to up-to-date, localised overheating risk data. Evidence-based planning is possible only when planners are equipped with timely, spatially accurate information. Datasets such as these have already been pioneered in places like Bristol, with its Keep Bristol Cool map and local plan policies. Likewise, the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs has been developing national data on overheating, and that could form the basis of rolling out such support nationally.

We really must not miss this opportunity. Climate adaptation cannot be an afterthought; it needs to be embedded in our planning framework and how we plan our communities, protect our citizens and shape the homes of tomorrow. These five new clauses offer a clear, practical and urgently needed framework to ensure that our planning system is fit for a warmer world. I urge the Committee to support them.

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

It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for tabling the new clauses and raising the very real social and economic issue of overheating in our homes. I absolutely agree with her aims to ensure that homes being built do not give rise to the health and lifestyle risks that come with overheating.

In 2021, a new part of the building regulations—part O —was introduced, which was designed specifically to ensure that new homes are built to mitigate the risk of overheating. As the hon. Lady will know, compliance with building regulations is mandatory. Given the transitional arrangements that accompany new building regulations, it is only relatively recently that we have seen new homes built specifically to mitigate the risk of overheating, so we are seeing that effect come through the planning system. As part of the future homes and buildings standards consultation, which ran from December 2023 to March 2024, my Department ran a call for evidence on part O. This was to investigate how industry was finding part O, how it was being implemented and whether further improvements could be made. The Government response to that call for evidence, with details of next steps, will be issued later this year.

Different regulatory regimes exist for different purposes, and aspects of building construction concerned with heating and cooling are best addressed through these regulations. The planning system absolutely has a role in mitigating the risks of overheating, but in the Government’s view, that is more in the overall layout and form of development—matters that are covered in national planning policy. Notwithstanding the comments that the hon. Lady made about changes introduced by the coalition Government, paragraph 161 of the national planning policy framework sets out that concern must be given to

“taking into account the long-term implications”

of a range of matters, including overheating.

I reassure the hon. Lady that there is specific reference to overheating in the NPPF as it stands. As we have discussed several times, the framework was partially revised in December last year, but we have again committed to consult on clearer policies for development purposes, which is how decisions on applications are made. These will cover the full range of planning considerations, including how the planning system can address the risks posed by climate change. This is a really important topic, but we think that we are addressing it through our work to strengthen building regulations and planning policy in the future. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady is somewhat reassured and will withdraw the motion.

[Ellie Chowns]

I am somewhat reassured that the Minister recognises the severity of the problem. None the less, I maintain that there is need and scope to go further in ensuring that the planning system specifically enables us to address this issue. In the interests of gently encouraging the Minister further in the direction of tackling overheating, I will press this new clause to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

New clause 91 would require the submission of embodied carbon assessments for larger developments as part of the planning process. It is a practical, forward-looking measure that I think will make a significant difference. It has been called for widely by industry, and indeed by parliamentarians, for some years, and it relates to a critical and currently unregulated area of the UK’s built environment emissions. The new clause would require planning applications for development only over a certain size to include an embodied carbon assessment, and it would provide for the Secretary of State to approve a methodology, issue guidance on how the assessments should be carried out, and establish a centralised reporting platform. Crucially, it would require that local planning authorities consider these assessments as a material factor when reviewing an application.

Embodied carbon refers to the emissions associated with materials and construction processes throughout the whole life cycle of a building or of infrastructure. This is typically from any processes, materials or products used to construct, maintain, repair, refurbish or repurpose a building. The UK Green Building Council estimates that the UK releases around 60 million tonnes of embodied carbon per year. That is more than aviation and shipping combined, and it accounts for over 10% of UK emissions. This is really significant. As I mentioned on a previous day, as we become more efficient in the operational carbon in our buildings, the embodied carbon in them becomes an increasingly significant part of the carbon reduction challenge in the building sector.

Embodied carbon has not substantially reduced over the last 30 years, unlike operational carbon, despite initiatives to decarbonise material manufacturing. Unlike operational carbon, which can be regulated through building performance standards, embodied carbon remains unaddressed by policy. As a result, decisions with very significant long-term climate implications are being made every day without a consistent framework for assessing their carbon impact. It is a huge unregulated problem.

The new clause seeks to close that gap in a measured and industry-ready way. It would not impose a burden on small-scale development—only major schemes, where carbon savings from early design choices are both most impactful and most achievable. It would buils on existing tools and industry momentum, and industry actually really wants this. There are already widely used standards and guidance available, including the whole life carbon assessment guidance from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the UK net zero carbon buildings standard and the embodied carbon primer from the London Energy Transformation Initiative.

Many local authorities, such as the Greater London Authority, Bristol and Manchester, have begun requiring whole life carbon assessment as part of planning. Embedding this requirement in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would provide clarity and consistency, saving time and minimising potential legal challenge by ensuring that planning authorities are demonstrably committing to the fulfilment of statutory climate duties. It would empower local planning authorities to make more informed, balanced decisions that take account of our legally binding net zero commitments and provide a consistent policy environment in which developers can operate.

This next bit is really important: there is strong consensus from industry that there is a need for this requirement to be widespread. Over 140 organisations have signed up to Part Z, a proposal developed by industry that calls for embodied carbon regulation. The industry is ahead of the politicians on this, and they are calling for it. This new clause requires a central database and consistent measurement framework to streamline and simplify the current diversity of approaches. Standardisation of embodied carbon measurement is a major priority, with leading industry organisations—such as UKGBC, the Royal Institute of British Architects, CIBSE, the Institution of Structural Engineers and RICS—calling for a national framework to ensure consistency between planning authorities.

Importantly—this is my final paragraph—this new clause aligns with the Bill’s aim to accelerate the delivery of housing and infrastructure while ensuring that the system is fit for future needs. The decisions that we make today about what we build and how we build it will lock in emissions for decades. This new clause is not a barrier to development: it is a tool to build better, more responsibly, more efficiently and more sustainably. It enables early intervention, supports innovation and ensures that the carbon cost of our buildings is not ignored in the rush to meet targets. It is pragmatic, proportionate and backed by industry. If the Minister is not inclined to accept the new clause, I would very much welcome a meeting with him to discuss how we can ensure that embodied carbon is taken forward and we use Government policy to address this important issue.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Lady for tabling this new clause, and I very much recognise the challenge that she has outlined. The Government are committed to the 2050 net zero carbon emissions target, and we recognise that embodied carbon can account for a significant proportion of a building’s whole life carbon emissions. Climate change is obviously one of the greatest challenges facing the world today, and managing carbon emissions and carbon storage is vital to mitigating the speed and impact of climate change. The national planning policy framework is clear that the planning system should contribute to and support the transition to a low-carbon future. Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications, in line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008.

Our consultation in the summer of last year on changes to the NPPF deliberately sought views on whether carbon can be accurately measured and accounted for in plan-making and planning decisions to establish industry readiness and identify any challenges to widespread use of carbon assessments in planning. We received a wide range of views on this topic, and based on the responses received, we do not consider it appropriate to make carbon assessments a mandatory requirement using a standardised methodology at this stage. However, we consider that both local authorities and developers could benefit from clearer guidance on the use of appropriate tools to assist in reducing the use of embodied carbon and operational carbon in the built environment, and we have committed to updating the relevant planning policy guidance to support this.

Addressing embodied carbon is a challenge across the built environment and construction supply chains, not just in buildings. As other policies take effect, and industries that supply construction decarbonise, the embodied carbon emissions of buildings will fall in turn. I am happy to give the matter further thought, and I am more than happy to have the hon. Member for North Herefordshire take one of my Tea Room surgery appointment slots.

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the Minister, and look forward to discussing this with him further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 94

Considerations when deciding an application for development consent

“In section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (acceptance of applications), after subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) When deciding whether to accept an application, the Secretary of State must have regard to the extent to which consultation with affected communities has—

(a) identified and resolved issues at the earliest opportunity;

(b) enabled interested parties to understand and influence the proposed project, provided feedback on potential options, and encouraged the community to help shape the proposal to maximise local benefits and minimise any disbenefits;

(c) enabled applicants to obtain relevant information about the economic, social, community and environmental effects of the project; and

(d) enabled appropriate mitigation measures to be identified, considered and, if appropriate, embedded into the proposed application before the application was submitted.’”—(Gideon Amos.)

This amendment to the Planning Act 2008 would require the Secretary of State to consider the content and adequacy of consultation undertaken with affected communities when deciding an application for development consent.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. New clauses 12 and 13 relate to the introduction of a community right of appeal against planning applications that are approved contrary to the local development plan. That includes policy in local and neighbourhood plans.

New clause 12 reflects the wider need to rebuild public trust in a system that is perceived to be dominated by the power of private sector development interests. It has additional importance in the context of the provisions in the Bill to restrict democratic oversight of planning decisions by locally elected members, which would mean that planning officers and not councillors would decide on the final outcomes of major planning applications.

New clause 12 would address the unfairness in our planning system, whereby only applicants have a right to appeal planning decisions. It would create a strictly limited community right of appeal that applies only when decisions are approved contrary to local planning policy; it would balance things up by creating a reciprocal right of appeal, essentially. That reflects the minimal opportunities that are currently available to the public in the taking of development management decisions and the frustration caused when decisions are made that go against local and neighbourhood plans that have been agreed by communities. New clause 13 is an additional safeguard to give the Secretary of State powers to intervene if the community appeal is considered to be vexatious. Taken together, the new clauses are proportionate and limited measures that could begin to rebuild public trust in the planning system.

Creating such a qualified right was an important recommendation of the Raynsford review of planning in 2018, which was produced by the Town and Country Planning Association. I warmly commend the new clauses to the Committee.

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

It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine, and I thank the hon. Lady for speaking to the two new clauses, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff).

We have a long-established and much-valued right of appeal in the planning system. It recognises that the system acts as a control on how an individual may use their land. That existing right of appeal compensates for the removal of the individual’s right to develop.

The planning system already enables community involvement through the preparation of local development plans and neighbourhood plans, and through consultation on individual planning applications. Given that these opportunities already exist, the Government do not believe that it is either necessary or helpful to introduce a right of appeal for interested parties.

New clause 12 would serve only to discourage early involvement in the planning process or lead to repeated consideration of issues that have already been raised and addressed during the planning application process. In our view, adding a new appeal process to the planning system would create more delay, costs, complexity and unpredictability, undermining confidence in the system and ultimately delaying the delivery of new housing and economic development at a time when we need to get Britain building again, which we have been very clear about. For that reason, we will not be able to accept new clause 12.

I turn to new clause 13. We do not believe that we should extend appeal rights to third parties, which again would serve only to delay the planning process and hinder the development of new housing and economic development. Although I welcome the sentiment behind the new clause—namely, to deter appeals submitted for spurious or non-planning reasons—in our view there are already appropriate measures in place to respond to such appeals through the awards of cost regime. The appeal system in the awards of cost regime helps to stop unmeritorious appeals by making those who submit them pay costs, thereby discouraging vexatious or frivolous cases.

For those reasons, the Government will not be able to accept either new clause.

[Ellie Chowns]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 16

Refusal of planning permission for countryside development close to large electricity pylons

“(1) If an application is made for planning permission or permission in principle relating to large scale housing development in the countryside which—

(a) may lead to affordable housing being built within 100m of the centreline of any high voltage overhead electrical transmission system; or

(b) may lead to any new residential dwelling or new residential garden being within 50m of the centreline of any high voltage overhead electrical transmission system

the local planning authority must refuse the application.

(2) This section applies to any planning permission for large scale housing development in the countryside for which a decision notice has been issued by a local planning authority since 11 May 2022.

(3) If planning permission has been granted for development to which this section applies which contravenes subsection (1), that planning permission shall be revoked.

(4) The revocation of planning permission for the carrying out of building or other operations shall not affect so much of those operations as has been previously carried out.

(5) In this section—

‘large scale housing development’ means any development which includes more than 500 houses;

‘countryside’ includes any predominantly agricultural, rural or greenfield land;

‘may lead to’ includes plans for housing shown in any outline or illustrative masterplan;

‘high voltage overhead electrical transmission system’ means any overhead electrical transmission system at or over 275kV.”—(Gideon Amos.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will speak to new clauses 85 and 86, for which the hon. Lady has just made the case. The Government are committed to building the homes that the country needs while ensuring that they are safe from flooding. The national planning policy framework contains strong policies on flood risk, which, along with associated guidance, must be considered when local plans are made. They are also an important material consideration when planning applications are being determined.

The framework is clear that inappropriate development in areas of flood risk should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, including flood plains. That means that new housing and most other forms of development are not appropriate in a functional flood plain. Where the strict tests set out in national policy for flood risk are not met, it is clear that new development should not be allowed. I believe we share the same ambition to protect development from the risk of flooding. To that end, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, local planning authorities are already required to follow the sequential and exception tests through the NPPF, associated planning guidance and the underpinning legislation that requires them to be taken into account.

New clause 86 seeks to require the installation of flood resilience measures in new build homes in areas at risk of flooding through an amendment to approved documents to the building regulations. I assure hon. Members that I agree with the intent of the new clause. As I said, the Government are committed to building the homes the country needs while ensuring that they are safe from flooding. Building regulations set a minimum standard to protect people’s safety, health and welfare. They are supported by approved documents that provide guidance in common building situations towards meeting outcome-based standards. Specifically, approved document C promotes the use of flood resilient and resistant construction in flood-prone areas, while avoiding placing undue costs on any properties that do not require further flood resilience measures.

Those designing homes can choose to use the Construction Industry Research and Information Association’s code of practice if they so wish, while ensuring that the building is compliant with the building regulations. However, to establish that as a minimum standard for all new dwellings would be, in our view, disproportionate. The revised national planning policy framework, published in December 2024, is clear that development should be directed to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. Where no alternative sites are available, permission should be granted only where it can be demonstrated that it will be safe for the building’s lifetime, taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Where possible, it should reduce flood risk overall.

The use of property-level flood protections, as recommended through the proposed Construction Industry Research and Information Association’s code of practice, such as flood doors, flood barriers and automatic air bricks, should only be considered as part of a wider package of measures to ensure that the development would be safe for its lifetime. Where they are used, they must be in compliance with the requirements of the building regulations. In addition, there are well-established means for ensuring that developments are not approved where there is unacceptable flood risk, with the Environment Agency and local authority bodies overseeing the maintenance of existing mitigation methods.

The Environment Agency has also commissioned an independent review of property flood resilience, which is due to report in the autumn, and we would not like to pre-empt its recommendations with any action that might be contradictory. Although I agree with the intent of the new clause, introducing additional building-level requirements through the approved documents to the building regulations is not a proportionate measure in the context of our wider policy framework. On that basis, I hope the hon. Lady might withdraw it.

[Ellie Chowns]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 36

Internal Drainage Boards to be statutory consultees

“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- 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 ---

[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 ---

[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?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Matthew Pennycook

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”).

--- 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 (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Thursday 15th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

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 ---

[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 (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Matthew Pennycook

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.

[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—

--- 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 ---

[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 ---

[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 (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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 ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[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 (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Matthew Pennycook

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).”

--- 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.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Matthew Pennycook

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.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Matthew Pennycook

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Let me start by sincerely thanking the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for introducing the Bill, for the constructive spirit in which he has engaged with me on it, and for his laudable efforts outside the Chamber—including his efforts as a local councillor, before coming to this place—to promote the further growth of solar power. I know it is a cause that he cares about, and his passion and commitment were evident in his opening remarks. I also thank all the other Members who have spoken this morning for their thoughtful and well-informed contributions. It has been a wide-ranging debate and the quality has been high—although the same cannot be said, I am afraid, for many of the puns that have been made throughout.

The Government are extremely sympathetic to the intention behind the Bill, namely to significantly boost the deployment of rooftop solar. That aim is clearly shared widely across the House, and for good reason. Self-generation and consumption through solar PV panels not only decreases emissions and delivers bill savings for householders, but provides security from fluctuations in wholesale electricity prices. As solar technology becomes more efficient and affordable, installing panels during construction is increasingly more cost-effective than retrofitting, a point that many Members touched on. The Government are, therefore, in complete agreement with the hon. Gentleman that solar energy has an integral role to play in improving the energy efficiency and reducing the carbon emissions of new homes.

However, we cannot support the Bill today. That is because the Government already intend to amend building regulations later this year as part of the introduction of future standards that will set more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emissions requirements for new homes. The new standards will ensure that all new homes are future-proof, with low-carbon heating and very high-quality building fabric. Not only will they help us to deliver our commitment to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, but they will reduce bills, tackle fuel poverty, grow skills, foster diverse job markets and make Britain energy secure.

Let me make this absolutely clear to the House and to those watching our proceedings: solar energy will have an extremely important role to play in these standards. The Government’s reservations about the Bill are not related to its objective; rather, they stem from recognition that the regulatory landscape being dealt with is incredibly complex and that we must take great care to get the technical detail right. My officials and I are working to develop the technical detail of the solar standards we intend to implement, with a view to ensuring that they are both ambitious and achievable. Our concern is that passing primary legislation that does not strike that balance correctly could have adverse effects, including on housing supply, the construction industry and local authorities.

Although the Bill is not inherently flawed, we are not convinced that it is the most appropriate means of proceeding, for reasons I shall set out shortly. None the less, the hon. Member for Cheltenham has done the House a great service by providing hon. Members with a valuable opportunity to debate this important issue. In the time available to me, I will try to give the House a sense of some of the practical challenges we have been wrestling with as we develop and refine our emerging proposals, and how they speak to potential weaknesses in the Bill.

As hon. Members will be aware, in December 2023 the previous Government published the future homes and buildings standards consultation, setting out proposals on what new standards should entail. The consultation closed in March last year. Over 2,000 responses were received, and some of the most detailed feedback the Department received related to the options set out in respect of solar. The hon. Gentleman has, I know, amassed a not inconsiderable amount of technical expertise when it comes to rooftop solar systems, and he has consulted with industry stakeholders, so he will be acutely aware that setting environmental standards for new homes is not something that Government can do in isolation. To succeed, we must take industry with us, and crucially, we must also ensure that the standards we set are achievable on all sites across the country.

While it is certainly not dictatorial, the expert feedback to the consultation as well as our ongoing work with the industry-led future homes hub, where we have been considering matters such as design flexibility, has been invaluable in shaping the Government’s thinking on what future standards should look like and how they should be implemented. The feedback to the consultation we received drew attention in particular to a number of practical considerations, which we believe it is essential to take into account when determining the precise role of solar in the new standards. I shall touch briefly on three, to illustrate the sort of practical issue my officials and I have been weighing up as we develop the forthcoming new standards, and in so doing give the House a sense of why we feel the Bill may not be the right way to achieve the objective we all share.

The first consideration relates to the ground floor area requirement. As hon. Members know, the future homes and buildings standards consultation set out two options for new homes; both included very high-quality building fabric and a heat pump. The first option also included several additional elements, notably solar panels equating to 40% of the ground-floor area. While respondents were very supportive of the inclusion of solar panels, widespread concerns were raised about the proposed level of solar coverage, which many argued would be virtually impossible to achieve on certain types of home—for example, those with dormer windows.

Clause 1(2) of the Bill sets out a requirement for the same level of solar coverage as was proposed in the consultation. Having thoroughly explored the evidence submitted during the consultation process, the Government have concluded that this level of ground-floor area coverage, rather than just being challenging for a small proportion of new supply, is simply not feasible for many new homes. Importantly, our concern is that setting a requirement at this level in law would result in a significant number of homes needing to apply for an exemption to the standards, which in turn could cause unmanageable workloads in local authorities, lead to significant bottlenecks in housing supply, and ultimately reduce the speed at which rooftop solar on new homes is rolled out.

Determining exemptions is by no means a trivial task. Solar panel systems must be designed carefully for each individual house, taking into account features such as roof shape and pitch, roof lights and dormers. As such, determining the number of solar panels a roof can reasonably accept is a technical design exercise for which many local planning authorities are simply not resourced to carry out in large numbers. Furthermore, any regulation would need to have an enforcement mechanism to deal with instances where unscrupulous developers simply did not comply. The Bill does not address that point, and again, we fear it could end up being another burden that will fall on overstretched local planning authorities. Alive as we are to these unintended consequences, the Government are determined to take an approach that is both ambitious and technically feasible so that widespread exemptions are not necessary.

The second issue relates to the timeframe for introducing the changes. Clause 1(1) stipulates that solar PV will be mandatory on new build homes from 1 October 2026. While that may seem some way into the future, the design and specification of new housing developments is typically set some considerable time prior to construction. As a result, the Bill’s proposed commencement date could risk a significant increase in costs and delays to housing delivery, as developers are forced to rapidly redesign, including sites already in train.

It is important to bear in mind that those in the industry cannot properly prepare for the new requirement until they have access to the final regulations and accompanying statutory guidance. Preparing the regulations and said guidance is not an insignificant task. They need to be drafted and consulted upon, with the consultation open for at least 12 weeks to align with standard protocol and to permit industry sufficient time to respond to such significant proposals.

Following the consultation, the regulations and guidance will need to be finalised and passed using the affirmative resolution process. It is therefore unlikely that the full detail will be available to the construction sector until the end of this year at the earliest, giving the sector only a few months to redesign and get supply chains prepared. These issues are particularly pertinent for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are less equipped to respond quickly. By potentially compressing this period to meet the proposed deadline, housing sites that are already under way may become unviable, leading to wasted investment, a negative impact on housing supply and disruption to numerous local communities across the country—outcomes that I am sure Members will agree we must try to avoid.

The third and final issue relates to transitional arrangements. Government typically minimise the disruption associated with the introduction of new building regulations by setting out associated transitional arrangements. These arrangements determine the limited conditions under which a building can be built to the previous standards. That gives industry time to adapt to new standards and allows work that is already under way to be completed without major disruption. When the 2021 standards were introduced, a six-month period was allowed between laying the regulations and the standards coming into force, followed by a 12-month transitional period. That meant the regulations were laid on 15 December 2021, with the transitional period ending on 15 June 2023.

This Bill does make provision for the Secretary of State to put in place transitional arrangements. However, our reading of the Bill is that those arrangements cannot contradict or override its main premise that new homes built from 1 October 2026 must be fitted with solar panels. As a result, we are concerned that there may not be sufficient time for appropriate transitional arrangements to be set. We believe it is vital that they are set, given that the construction sector typically plans ahead by at least two, if not three or even more, years. Providing merely a matter of weeks between publishing such significant legislation and its taking effect would not be realistic or fair, in our view.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I have been listening carefully to what the Minister has said. Does he agree that a vote on Second Reading is a vote on the principle of the Bill, and the objections that he has been raising are micro, technical ones? Does he not agree that the urgency of the climate crisis and the immense benefits associated with solar PV mean that he should stop raining on the parade of this Bill and give us the opportunity to vote on photons?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Lady makes a fair challenge, but the Government do not intend to proceed on the basis of primary legislation. She might find that the primary legislation route is ultimately slower than the way in which we intend to introduce the future standards later this year. Speed is absolutely an issue we are grappling with, but I gently challenge the idea that this private Member’s Bill is the fastest way to proceed, even leaving aside the points I have raised, which I do not consider to be minor or technical.

In contrast, the future homes standards consultation sets out two options for transitional arrangements, which we believe are far more robust. The first option involves a six-month period between the laying date of the regulations and the regulations coming into force. The second option involves a period of up to 12 months. That approach to transition will ensure that as many homes as possible are required to meet the new standards in a way that is structured and achievable.

It is our responsibility to ensure that the standards we set for new homes are ambitious, but also technically feasible and deliverable, as I have said. For the reasons I have set out, and others that I have not covered today, we believe that forthcoming future standards, developed as a clear and coherent response to the 2023 consultation, are a more appropriate and arguably faster means of achieving the Bill’s aims, which we fully share with the hon. Member for Cheltenham.