Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 42—Alignment of basic and occupier’s loss payments—

“(1) The Land Compensation Act 1973 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 33B (occupier’s loss payment: agricultural land), in subsection (2)(a) omit ‘2.5%’ and insert ‘7.5%’.

(3) In section 33C (occupier’s loss payment: other land), in subsection (2)(a) omit ‘2.5%’ and insert ‘7.5%’.”

This new clause, being an amendment of the Land Compensation Act 1973, would align the occupier’s loss payments with the basic loss payments at 7.5% of the value of the party’s interest.

New clause 85—Compensation payments—

“(1) The Land Compensation Act 1973 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 30 (amount of home loss payment in England and Wales)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) omit ‘10 per cent of’;

(ii) omit ‘subject to a maximum of £15,000 and a minimum of £1,500.’

(b) omit subsections (3) and (4).

(3) In section 33A(2) (basic loss payment), omit from ‘payment of’ to the end of subsection (2) and insert ‘the market value of his interest in the dwelling’.

(4) In section 33B (occupier’s loss payment: agricultural land)—

(a) in subsection (2), omit from ‘payment of’ to the end of subsection (3) and insert ‘the market value of his interest in the dwelling’;

(b) omit subsection (3).”

New clause 107—Disposal of land held by public bodies—

“(1) Section 209 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Power to direct bodies to dispose of land) is amended as set out in subsection (2).

(2) In subsection (2), at end insert—

‘(C1) Steps taken in response to a direction under subsection (A1) must—

(a) include a duty to consider disposal of land for the public good, and

(b) provide that the difference between the unrestricted value of the land to be disposed of and the consideration for the disposal does not exceed £3,000,000 or 40% of unrestricted market value, whichever is greater.’

(3) Section 209 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(4) The Local Government Act 1972 is amended in accordance with subsections (5) and (6).

(5) In section 123 (disposal of land by principal councils), after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2ZA) But the Secretary of State must give consent if the disposal is in accordance with subsection (7) of section [Disposal of land held by public bodies] of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025.’

(6) In section 127(3) (disposal of land held by parishes and communities), after ‘(2A)’ insert ‘, (2ZA)’.

(7) Subject to subsection (9), a disposal of land under is in accordance with this section if it is in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 published in Department for Communities and Local Government Circular 06/03, as amended by subsection (8).

(8) Those amendments to the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 are—

(a) in paragraph 2(a)(iii), leave out ‘and’ and insert, at end—

‘(iv) the development and availability of affordable housing, and’

(b) in paragraph 2(b), for ‘£2,000,000 (two million pounds)’ substitute ‘£3,000,000 (three million pounds) or 40% of the unrestricted market value, whichever is greater’;

(c) after paragraph 3(1)(xii) insert—

‘(xiii) a combined authority;

(xiv) a mayoral combined authority;

(xv) the Greater London Authority;

(xvi) any successor body established by or under an Act of Parliament to any body listed in this subparagraph.’

(9) The Secretary of State may, to reflect inflation, further amend the cash value that the difference between the unrestricted value of the land to be disposed of and the consideration for the disposal must not exceed.”

New clause 114—Development corporations to provide green spaces—

“A development corporation must provide or facilitate the provision of—

(a) green spaces, including private gardens, balconies, and community gardens;

(b) the care and maintenance of the green spaces provided for under this section.”

This new clause would ensure development corporations include provision for green spaces in new developments.

New clause 127—Repeal of section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961—

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

New clause 128—Community benefit scheme for compulsory purchase—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a scheme for the purposes of providing members of a local community with certain benefits when a compulsory purchase order has been granted within the relevant area.

(2) Regulations under this section must—

(a) require that, where a compulsory purchase has taken place, the equivalent of 20% of the amount for which the compulsory purchase was made must be paid into a community benefit fund;

(b) describe the—

(i) governance of, and

(ii) purposes for which sums may be payable from the fund;

(c) specify the meaning of—

(i) ‘local community’, and

(ii) ‘relevant area’

for the purposes of a scheme established under this section;

(d) specify the circumstances of compulsory purchase to which the scheme should apply; and

(e) specify the proportion of the sum to be payable into the fund by each party to the relevant compulsory purchase.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a community benefit scheme in relation to compulsory purchase. The scheme would require the equivalent of 20% of the sum for which a compulsory purchase is made to be paid into a community benefit fund by parties to the compulsory purchase.

Amendment 151, in clause 93, page 122, line 2, at end insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is practicable after a period of twelve months from the passing of this Act has elapsed, publish a report assessing the impact of this clause on—

(a) the achievement of sustainable development, and

(b) the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.”

This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State must publish a report into the success of development corporations in achieving their duty to have regard for sustainable development and climate change.

Amendment 153, page 145, line 10, leave out clause 104.

Amendment 68, in clause 104, page 145, line 22, at end insert—

“(za) after subsection (1) insert—

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

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

Amendment 88, page 145, line 22, at end insert—

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

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

Amendment 89, line 23, at end insert—

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

This amendment is linked to Amendment 88 above.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to new clause 22. Active travel—cycling, walking and wheeling—is hugely beneficial for health and happiness, and I know there is wide agreement on that point in this House. I welcome the investments being made by this Government in active travel through increases to the budget for Active Travel England, but even when there is willingness and funding to progress a scheme, it can be hard to get a plan off the ground, because landowners can refuse to co-operate. Compulsory purchase orders are regularly used for road transport projects, but when it comes to active travel, local authorities are reticent.

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), for responding to my written parliamentary questions on this matter. On 15 May, he informed me:

“The Department for Transport has not made an assessment of the effectiveness of compulsory purchase order powers in progressing active travel schemes”.

That is somewhat surprising given the scope of this Bill, which aims to speed up infrastructure project delivery, but he did reassure me that local authorities can use CPOs for active travel. However, there is a difference between what is theoretically possible and the reality.

In Committee, this issue was raised by my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), who is a powerful advocate for cycling. We were informed then by the Minister for Housing and Planning that updated guidance was published in October last year, and that it will be updated following the passage of the Bill. I have been through that guidance, and I can tell the House that nothing in it refers to active travel; it is covered only in so far as it falls under the umbrella term “highway”. The problem is that those rules work fine for roads, but are insufficiently adapted for the challenges of an active travel project. Furthermore, this guidance is non-statutory and is an interpretation of current law.

The Minister also signposted me to upcoming guidance from Active Travel England. This will support local authorities in the design and delivery of active travel routes, but it does not include consideration of CPOs. Again and again when the Minister states that there is already guidance, we see that it is insufficient and does not cover CPOs.

It is welcome news that, in response to another of my written questions, the Government have shared that future Active Travel England guidance will include case studies of the use of compulsory purchase orders for active travel routes. However, this is not enough. Active Travel England does good work, but it is not the Government and will never carry the same weight as statutory guidance. That is why new clause 22, which specifically requires such guidance to be published by Ministers, should be part of the Bill. All other options have been exhausted.

Before going further, let me make it clear that I do not believe that CPOs should be wielded lightly. It is far better to have a constructive relationships with landowners. CPOs should be a last resort, but without the threat of one in the back pocket, we are sending local authorities into negotiations with both hands tied behind their backs.

My county of Oxfordshire is hugely ambitious in its desire to reduce car journeys and roll out a county-wide strategic active travel network linking towns and villages together. In my own corner of the county, there is a clear case for the Thame to Haddenham greenway, which would link the town of Thame with the train station in Haddenham, and allow villagers in Haddenham to get safely to Thame and enjoy the town. There is widespread cross-party support for it, and I am pleased that Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire are working closely together to progress the project. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), another of my constituency neighbours, for his support.

When I was a councillor, residents of the beautiful small town of Watlington told me just how valuable a cycleway between Watlington and the village of Lewknor would be. Lewknor sits just off junction 6 of the M40, and it enjoys good bus connections to London and Oxford through the Oxford tube and airport buses. An informal park and ride works well enough, but would it not be so much better if there was a cycle route covering those 2.5 miles? Yet I learned early on that the landowner has no intention of co-operating, even though an old railway would be a perfect route, and the project was stopped dead in its tracks.

It may surprise Members that the issue this new clause seeks to address has already been considered closely by our colleagues in Wales. In 2019, the Welsh Assembly, as it was still called, looked in detail at the issue. The Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee made some observations within the context of the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 that I think are relevant to building the case for better guidance. The committee was cross-party and chaired by an AM for the Welsh Conservatives. It received evidence from Sustrans that:

“without effective support to ensure that land is made available, key sections of route which could make everyday journeys viable could take years to be delivered, or not be delivered at all.”

Sustrans suggested that the CPO process is a block on active travel routes, as objections to CPOs may be made on the grounds that there is one or more alternative—albeit lower-grade—route options, leaving local authorities vulnerable to challenge. As a result, local authorities are discouraged from beginning a lengthy and costly CPO process. The committee received further evidence from Sustrans that:

“Greater guidance and support is needed for local authorities”.

It concluded with a recommendation that the Welsh Government should work with local authorities and other stakeholders to find ways to “unblock” the process of using CPOs to develop cycle routes.

Perhaps recognising this problem, in response to another written question, the Minister yesterday pointed me in the direction of public path construction under the Highways Act 1980 for the creation of active travel routes. Although I am grateful for his response, it raises more questions than answers, and I am sure he will be pleased to hear that I will be submitting those questions through MemberHub. I have previously worked with local groups who wanted to get rights of way registered, and it is simply not possible for the highway authority to create public paths where none already exist. The application process requires statements from multiple people showing continuous use over at least 20 years, which does not work for a route that already cannot be used due to private ownership.

Before I wrap up, let me give another shout-out to the work of the Welsh Government, who have recognised that funding for active travel can be hard to find and is often assembled piecemeal. This gives rise to a chicken-and-egg situation: why seek a CPO if there is no funding, and why get funding if there is no viable route assembled? In Wales, guidance therefore requires a compelling public interest in acquisition, but not immediate financial readiness; in contrast, in England, guidance emphasises the importance of demonstrating financial readiness. Will the Minister therefore consider following in Wales’s footsteps? I ask the Government not to dismiss my concerns around the inadequacy of the current guidance or the good work of their colleagues in Wales. A Government serious about active travel would engage with these issues, as I am sure this Government will want to do following this debate.

Finally, I will spend a few moments on other new clauses and amendments, including those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). The Bill removes hope value to improve the use of CPOs for some projects, but there are further projects that would benefit from a similar policy. Amendments 88 and 89 would ensure that hope value is not added to the cost of recreational facilities such as playing fields when an authority purchases the land with the intention of keeping it as a playing field. Removing hope value is particularly important in an area like Oxfordshire, where any whiff of development massively increases costs. In fact, it is one reason that so many small and medium-sized farms will be caught by the Government’s changes to agricultural property relief. If this House accepts the principle of disregarding hope value, that should also apply to the value of land for the purposes of inheritance tax for farms that remain farms.

I also support new clause 107, which would create a duty for any public body to consider the public good when selling land or property. I am aware of local organisations and good causes in my constituency that are looking for space to support their activities where land is disposed of by local authorities. It is right that local organisations benefit when public bodies sell land or properties, such as the men’s sheds movement, which seeks to improve mental health by offering practical hobbies in a space where people can meet and share skills.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak to these new clauses and amendments. I humbly ask Members across the House to support new clause 22.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

It is fantastic to speak in the Chamber on a subject that has been part of my career for the better part of 20 years. I started working in the construction sector as a civil engineer and finished my time working on major programmes around the world.

Planning, and particularly planning in respect of national programmes and major infrastructure, has been a headache for me for a long time. The prolonged wasteful consultation that happens on major programmes, which stops the urgency and prevents an outcome-focused approach to delivering the major infrastructure that we need, is almost like death by a thousand cuts for a lot of communities. It is death by consultation and fatigue; it means that people do not engage in the process, and it drives a culture of nimbyism rather than a culture of wanting to deliver the homes and schools—the civil and social infrastructure—that we desperately need, and that everyone across this House calls out for in their constituencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Is the shadow Minister in favour of using CPOs for road projects? The new clause would simply equalise the opportunity to use CPOs to deliver active travel with their use for road projects.

[Paul Holmes]

I understand, and I say this with respect to the hon. Gentleman: I think the new clause is well intentioned, but roads are absolutely necessary. Sometimes, on the CPO powers currently allocated in existing legislation, even though we disagree with some of the overreach that the Minister wants to put forward, we believe fundamentally in the rights and responsibilities of local government to decide how they want to allocate routes in localities. We agree that in some cases, as in my constituency, which covers half of Fareham and half of Eastleigh, there needs to be better co-ordination between local authorities. However, we fundamentally disagree with the extension and provision of powers, which we do not believe should be allocated, in new clause 22.