New Towns

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for a really engaging speech about how it is the people who invest their lives in the community who make it what it is—a sentiment that I am sure we all share. I have learnt a great deal more about new towns from hon. Members across the House, and it has been a privilege to listen to the debate.

In our manifesto, the Liberal Democrats committed to 10 new garden cities, so we welcome this debate and the Government’s ambitions for new towns—depending on how they are implemented, of course. It is vital to have a new generation of major communities, given the terrible state of affordability that the housing sector got into under the Conservative Government. That is why we have a big ambition of 150,000 social homes per year, which is above the Government’s current target. However, new towns must not come at the expense of existing communities and towns. My hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches are engaging in a positive and constructive spirit with a range of new towns on their boundaries, alongside the Government and local communities.

New towns must deliver in social terms—the homes provided—but also environmentally and economically, as the mark 1, 2 and 3 new towns did so successfully. In our view, three critical principles need to be met: new towns must be environmentally ambitious, they must be successful in social terms—that means infrastructure— and there must be long-term financial investment. That investment must be sufficient to ensure that housing is genuinely affordable and will offer a decent home in a good environment, in all senses of that word, as hon. Members have expressed it in many different ways throughout the debate.

On environmental ambition, I regret to say that garden cities seem to have been airbrushed out of this programme —unintentionally, I hope—in ways that are out of keeping with the post-war new towns programme. What was originally called the town garden in Stevenage was a great reflection of how the garden city principle informed and provided the basis for the new towns. The Garden City Association campaigned for a new towns programme before the war. Now it is the Town and Country Planning Association—I should probably declare an interest as an honorary, voluntary vice-president of that organisation.

Garden cities are not just words; as we have heard, they were the basis of the new towns of Letchworth and Welwyn, and of many others. “Let the countryside invade the town” was one of Ebenezer Howard’s cries. I often wonder whether he wrote those words at the very desk that is in front of me, because his day job was as a parliamentary Clerk. In his spare time, he wrote a radical piece called “To-morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform”. It did not sell very well, so a year later he renamed it “Garden Cities of To-morrow”, and that book laid the foundation for the garden cities and new towns that were to be built throughout the country. He was surely right to espouse a vision of how people and nature, town and country, and society and the environment can thrive together. He was right then, and surely that vision is right now.

These new towns must set the highest standards for nature protection. They need well-insulated homes that are cheap to run, with solar panels on the roof, as promoted by the sunshine Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). They need district heating and cheap heat, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) pointed out—that is good for the planet, as is good public transport that does not pollute and jam up the roads.

Those ideas were pioneered by many of the garden cities. As the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) explained well, the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation endowed the environment with assets and resources so that it would continue to be protected into the future. For over 100 years, as he said, that trust has been able to fund and care for the environment and put money back into Letchworth as a community. That provided a great model. In another reflection of how garden cities provided the basis for new towns, Milton Keynes’ Parks Trust does exactly the same thing. Where such estates have not been sold off, as has been described in relation to other new towns, that is an incredibly successful model. As Members have said, it is vital to endow the public realm and the environment with the resources and investment needed to sustain them for 100 years.

Turning to social impacts and infrastructure, we Liberal Democrats would like to ask the Minister how councils and communities are going to make decisions about the impacts of the new towns. Any spatial development strategy is going to come after the event, as the new towns have already been designated. Parish councils such as Somerton in Oxfordshire, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) is working hard to advocate for, have pointed out a range of simultaneous proposals in Oxfordshire, including the Oxfordshire strategic rail freight interchange, 280,000 square metres of warehousing at Baynards Green—which, coincidentally, is being considered today by Cherwell district council—the Puy du Fou leisure park, and many other developments that will collectively generate 47 million additional trips per year. The Government are engaged in the ongoing strategic environmental assessment, which I welcome, and it may assess some of the impacts, but there is no plan that involves local authorities in resolving these decisions, in taking decisions about how the new towns, such as Heyford Park in Oxfordshire, will land in their midst, and in considering how such developments will affect the existing network and hierarchy of towns and communities. There is a missing link with strategic planning, and it needs to be put back. That would allow the community-led approach to these developments that we want to see and allow affected local authorities to have their say. After all, the location for Milton Keynes was negotiated between central and local government.

As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch said, it is vital to respect the identities of the places in which these new towns are located. Will the Minister commission a rapid sub-regional plan process for the councils in each of these locations so that they can resolve the issues? He has already indicated that he may, but will he visit in due course all these locations, so that he can engage with the local communities concerned? As other Members have asked, will he confirm—I think he said he said that he was thinking about it—that the planned housing numbers will indeed count towards local plan targets imposed by the Government’s standard method? It will be impossible for local leaders and local councils to develop these new towns at the same time as trying to deliver the impossible housing targets that many of them are facing. There is a 41% increase in local plan numbers in my Somerset council area alone, for example.

On social impacts within towns, the pre-war garden cities and post-war new towns were 90% social housing. In the Select Committee, the Minister indicated that the Government may be walking back from the 40% affordable housing target. What is the minimum that they will accept?

Infrastructure is needed by new and existing towns, particularly those affected by these plans. For example, Ardley station is needed to serve the Heyford Park new town and the existing community. Other forms of infrastructure also too often go missing, and that is true not just of new towns. For urban extensions, promised and needed GP surgeries have never come forward, including in Orchard Grove in my Taunton and Wellington constituency and in Bicester in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock. Will the Government ensure that existing communities will not lose out on GP surgeries as a result of new towns being given those facilities? These vital relationships with existing communities need to be resolved. Infrastructure for transport, water, energy, health and active travel must come first, and before the housing.

Let me turn to the financial support that these developments will need if they are to be successful. All these things cost money—we recognise that. We are therefore disappointed that the Minister, I think, said to the Select Committee that there is no pot for new town funding, and that poses a real risk that the £3.9 billion a year funding for the affordable housing programme will be used to fund the new towns programme, inevitably taking money away from other areas. Although the land value capture model that the Government are promoting is welcome and we support it, it will not be enough.

As many Government Members will know, the original post-war new towns had significant, 60-year Treasury loans. They were worth about £4.7 billion; that is about £140 billion today. Those loans were repaid—not just in full, but with a surplus coming back to the Treasury. The bulk of it was repaid in 1999. Since then, almost another £1 billion has been repaid from further land sales and receipts from that investment. It is a sound investment. No doubt the Treasury will say, “Don’t worry, the market can deal with this. We don’t need any public money.” But markets do not look 50, 60 or 100 years ahead. Markets do not know how to build communities with facilities for real people—the kind of people that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch spoke about. We need long-term financial investment from the Government so that these schemes will be successful. Without it, we risk repeating some of the failures of the past.

We stand ready to work with this Government in a constructive way on their new towns programme, but only if it provides the financial investment that is needed so that it is a success and, crucially, so that existing towns do not lose out. It must commit to long-term investment over and above land value capture, so that local councillors and mayors are not left out in the cold, trying to promote these projects with one arm tied behind their back. Finally, the programme must recognise that, in a society under threat from climate change, environmental ambition needs to be at the forefront, learning from the very best of the garden city ideals.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to close this debate for the Government. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) and thank her for securing the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the House an opportunity to debate this incredibly important matter. I was struck, in what was a strong opening speech by my hon. Friend, by her emphasis on people and the ability of “planning done properly” to change lives. That is a hugely important statement and a principle that guides the Government in all areas. I thank all hon. Members for contributing to the debate. We had a series of thoughtful, passionate and in many cases personal contributions, and I think the most references to concrete animals of any debate in my nearly 11 years in this place. It has been a thoughtful and important debate, rich with history.

The post-war new towns programme was the most ambitious town building effort ever undertaken in the UK. It transformed the lives of millions of working people by giving them affordable and well-designed homes in well-planned and beautiful surroundings. The 32 communities it created are now home to millions of people, including a number of hon. Members who made contributions this afternoon. I stress that the Government will continue to invest in the regeneration of our existing new towns. My hon. Friend made reference to some of the investment currently being made in hers. My hon. Friends the Members for Telford (Shaun Davies), for Rugby (John Slinger), for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) and for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) all made the case for what is happening, and what they want to see happen in the years ahead, to further revitalise the places they represent.

Alongside those efforts, we are determined to bring forward the next generation of new towns, as per our manifesto commitment. In so doing, we have taken inspiration from the proud legacy of the 1945 Labour Government who, through the New Towns Act 1946, initiated the first post-war wave of new town building, as well as the subsequent waves in the 1960s. But we have also sought to learn crucial lessons from those previous efforts, for example—this was a point made by several hon. Members—the fact that previous new town initiatives did not always embed long-term stewardship into their development and the detrimental consequences that has had for those locations.

As the House will know, to progress the next generation of new towns, the Government established an independent new towns taskforce within months of taking office. That taskforce, chaired by Sir Michael Lyons, with Dame Kate Barker as his deputy and eight other highly regarded expert members drawn from across the built environment sector—I pay huge tribute to all their work in producing their final report—was given a clear mandate: to make recommendations to Ministers on the location and delivery of new towns, with the objective of supporting and unlocking economic growth, as well as making a significant contribution to meeting housing demand in England.

The Government made it clear that the taskforce should consider not only large-scale stand-alone new communities of the type Tempsford might be, but urban extensions and urban regeneration schemes that would work with the grain of development in a given area. We specified that each of the new settlements should contain at least 10,000 homes, but made clear that we expected a number to be far larger in size. We also commissioned the taskforce to ensure that any proposals would deliver

“well-connected, well-designed, sustainable and attractive places where people want to live and have all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities.”

Let me be clear, and hon. Members are right to have raised this: success on those criteria will be integral to the success of the programme as a whole.

Last September, the Government published the final report of the taskforce, as well as their initial response to that report and immediate next steps. In that initial response, the Government warmly welcomed all 12 of the locations recommended by the taskforce on the basis that, prima facie, each has the clear potential to deliver on the Government’s objectives. We also made it clear that Tempsford, Crews Hill in Enfield and Leeds South Bank look particularly promising to us as sites that might make significant contributions to unlocking economic growth and accelerating housing delivery. We are determined to get spades in the ground on at least three new towns in this Parliament—I stress the words “at least three”, because three is not the limit of our ambition. I think the shadow Minister incorrectly assumed that it will be just the three locations we have cited as promising. We are determined to deliver at least three, but we are prepared to progress work on a far larger range of locations if that proves possible.

As the House will be aware, we are now in the process of conducting a strategic environmental assessment to better understand the environmental impacts of new town developments in the locations recommended by the taskforce, as well as refining the scope of the programme more generally. Again, I want to stress that no final decisions on locations will be made until the SEA concludes and that the prioritised locations could change as a result of that process.

To respond directly to the shadow Minister’s point, we intend to consult on the programme alongside the completed SEA report in the coming weeks. The feedback to that consultation will inform final decisions on the locations we intend to adopt, as well as other matters such as how we allocate funding between sites and how we define and support new town locations in planning policy. When we are at the point of making decisions, we will publish a comprehensive response to the taskforce’s final report.

Hon. Members have raised a number of specific points in today’s debate, which I will respond to as fully as I can within the constraints of the ongoing SEA and programme scoping process. The hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), raised the matter of local housing need and how housing targets interact with our new towns programme. We have been clear that our starting assumption was that new towns should deliver over and above the targets produced by the standard method, not least because we expect construction of the new towns that move forward as a result of this programme to begin in earnest only towards the end of the Parliament. However, I have been reflecting on this matter—not least in response to representations made by hon. Members—and I want to ensure that when we come forward with our final position on LHN, it is fair and consistent across the country and provides the necessary incentives for communities to want to see new towns come forward.

The Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), and other hon. Members raised the issue of affordable housing. I assure the House that we are not walking back or watering down our commitments on affordable housing. We have been very clear that new towns should have a range of housing types available, including adequate proportions of genuinely affordable homes.

It is worth stressing that the taskforce endorsed the Government’s commitment on affordable homes in its final report—it was a Government gold standard to aim for a target of 40% affordable housing. The taskforce was very clear in its final report that it endorsed that target and that it wanted to see 40% as a minimum, with half of those being social rented homes. We desperately need social rented homes, which is why that is such a priority for the Government.

The taskforce clearly said that where viability makes achieving that 40% target challenging, the Government should look to meet the requirement through grant funding, which is something the Government have to consider as we scope the programme, in particular in locations with low land values, where meeting that affordable number will be more challenging. Again, we will bring forward further detail on that and the other place-making principles in the taskforce’s final report after the environmental assessment and consultation, when we can provide hon. Members and the public more widely with more detail.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green also referred to delivery models. The Government agree with the taskforce that the preferred model for new towns should be the development corporation model. I think the House well understands the benefits that come with that. There are, of course, a range of development corporation types, including centrally led, mayoral and even locally led development corporations —it all depends on the location of the town, its devolution settlement and the capacity and capability of the delivering authorities. Again, we are assessing which delivery vehicle options are most appropriate to individual locations and will come forward with further information on that point in due course.

Several hon. Members raised the issue of funding, challenging me to make it clear why there has not been more detail on funding and why there is not a dedicated pot of funding for new towns. It is because the funding required for new towns in this spending review period will vary according to the needs of the places that the taskforce has recommended and that we ultimately adopt through the scoping process.

I want to make it clear to hon. Members, however, that the delivery of new towns will be backed by funding across the Government’s landmark housing programmes, such as the £39 billion social and affordable housing programme and the hundreds of millions of pounds of grants that are available through our national housing delivery fund for land and infrastructure investment; there is also the additional capital funding that will be managed by the new national housing bank, which will invest in house building across the country. Even though there was no specific new towns fund announced in the Budget, there are funding sources to draw upon.

[Gideon Amos]

The Minister is always very generous with his time. Can I press him a bit further on whether the Treasury has ruled out the long-term loans that were there for the post-war new towns programme?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will come on to talk about financing in more detail, in particular the options that we are considering, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will, again, have to wait for the publication of the SEA report and the programme that will go out to consultation. He and other hon. Members, as well as their communities and the neighbouring communities to the sites proposed for adoption, will then be able to feed into that process more widely. Long-term funding is available in this spending review period and going forward, because many of these propositions are for new, large-scale communities that will have to be built out over decades, in some cases.

I will touch on two or three other issues. Most importantly, several hon. Members raised the theme of public engagement. What the taskforce heard through its call for evidence and engagement with local leaders and local areas—the Government were kept up to date with that, as Sir Michael Lyons reported to me regularly on the taskforce’s work, as the House would expect—was that there is a huge appetite for new new towns to come forward. There are lots of parts of the country that would desperately welcome a new town.

I recognise, however, that in other areas, particularly in small villages such as Tempsford, there is trepidation about what may come and there are questions that residents want answered. In some cases—my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) has been forthright and honest about this—there is outright hostility and objection to the proposed locations. We have met and had several conversations about his particular case, and I assure him that I recognise the strength of feeling in his community. His residents can be in no doubt that he has conveyed the strength of feeling about that location very forcefully to me.

The taskforce’s report is clear that existing communities should be a key part of any new town development; community engagement is one of its core recommended place-making principles. The Government are working closely with local leaders as part of the scoping process of the programme and building our evidence base to understand the impacts of potential new town locations. As I have said, we will carry out the appropriate assessments and public consultations before any final decisions are made about locations. I must stress—we have been candid about this fact from the outset—that ultimately, decisions on new town locations will be made in the national interest.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Fully 5 million leaseholders were plunged into the dark before Christmas and thousands report feeling angry and abandoned. Why, then, are the Government choosing to delay their ending of the feudal leasehold system? Will they go further and follow the calls from Lib Dems and others to regulate property agents and to cap extortionate service charges?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will answer the hon. Gentleman directly: the unforeseen delays in question, which meant that we could not publish the draft Bill before Christmas, relate to nothing more than the fact that some elements of policy and drafting are still being finalised. As I have said, this is a large, incredibly complex and technical Bill. The House would support getting it right in the first instance, if that means a delay of a few weeks.

[Gideon Amos]

Leaseholders are being hit increasingly with flood risk and difficulty in getting insurance. Rockwell Green in my constituency has flooded twice in the last seven years. Why are the Government proposing to weaken the rules preventing development in areas of high flood risk, and how many homes will be affected in future by more flooding as a result?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have not weakened protections against flooding. The draft of the national planning policy framework that is out for consultation remains clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at the highest risk. The consultation currently under way into the statutory consultee system retains the requirement for local authorities to notify the Secretary of State before approving developments that the Environment Agency has objected to. We are not weakening the protections in the way the hon. Member claims.

Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate. It is a truth universally acknowledged that an MP in possession of a majority, however big, must be in want of a debate, so I am full of admiration for the right hon. Gentleman staying tomorrow to debate Jane Austen in Westminster Hall. As for myself, I am hoping to get away before that, so this will be my last appearance before Christmas. I therefore take the opportunity to wish hon. Members, the House staff who look after us so amazingly well, the officials, yourself, Mr Twigg, and even the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) a very merry Christmas, although I know he would prefer that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) were here instead of me.

I say with some hesitation that I am hoping to go home before that, because it has been something of a week for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I am not quite sure how the Minister is still standing—he is sitting down now, but must need a break. Knowing the Minister’s prodigious amount of activity this week, perhaps tomorrow we will have three Bills and two White Papers coming out and I will be brought back here, but hopefully not. Yesterday, we were debating quarrying and planning—it was a blast. I did not know that I would be getting up and sitting down so many times on MCHLG business this week, but one could say that the Chairman of Ways and Means shapes our destinies, rough-hew them as we may.

I will move on to the more serious points of the debate about the cumulative impact of housing development. I fear that it is worse than the right hon. Member for East Hampshire surmises, because although I remember from my A-level economics that, in a perfect market, increasing supply should reduce price, we need to remember that in any locality in the country, we do not have a perfect market in house building. We have usually one supplier, maybe two, controlling the supply of homes to the market, drip-feeding them to sustain their prices. Any private house builder that went into business to reduce prices would rightly be punished by their shareholders. Putting private house builders in charge of reducing house prices is a bit like putting Herod in charge of childcare. As another seasonal reference, I am forced to consider what would be the cumulative impact of stables being used under permitted development for change of use to emergency temporary accommodation for young mothers.

The point that I think the right hon. Gentleman is really getting to with cumulative impact is the prolific number of permissions that are coming about outside the plan-led process. The plan-led process is so important because it is where cumulative impacts can be properly gauged and established. Any development that is not in the local plan, unless it has an environmental impact assessment, is not going to carry out a cumulative impact assessment. That is why we are so concerned that the Government’s recent announcements will undermine that plan-led process, with so many loopholes. To take one example, there is the abolition of the town centre-first approach for retail development, but there are many others that will undermine that plan-led process.

There is a particular need to look at the cumulative impact when it comes to flooding. The Environmental Audit Committee has recommended that the Government revise the guidance on the cumulative impact for flooding for this very reason. Many of the developments being discussed will not carry out cumulative impact assessments because they are outside the local plan or are sub-EIA development. I ask the Minister whether and to what extent the Government will carry out that review. Flooding is a massive issue for Rockwell Green and Hilly Head in my Taunton and Wellington constituency, which has been flooded twice in the last five to 10 years. We need to see a proper cumulative impact assessment of flood impact and flood risk.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

The cumulative impact of development in Tewkesbury is nothing less than a threat to the continuing viability of Tewkesbury as a permanent settlement. The Environmental Audit Committee recently produced a report on flood resilience in England. Would my hon. Friend join me in asking the Government if they will implement recommendation 89 to make water bodies statutory consultees on development?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend makes a massively important point—absolutely, they should be statutory consultees. He gives me the opportunity to raise an even more serious concern. From careful reading of the Government’s snappily titled consultation on statutory consultees, alongside the ministerial statement of 10 March this year, it appears—I hope the Minister can put me right—that they are considering cancelling and withdrawing the direction that prevents councils from granting planning permission, against the advice of the Environment Agency, in flood risk areas. They are certainly consulting on that basis, so I hope the Minister will clarify whether that is the intended approach and how many homes in flood risk areas he expects will be permitted, against the advice of the Environment Agency, if they go ahead with that change. It is a very serious matter and could affect areas across the country—not only Rockwell Green in my constituency, but places far further afield.

My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) made excellent points about the need for cumulative impact to be properly considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) felt that plan-led development in his constituency was in jeopardy. I agree: after yesterday’s announcement, I feel that plan-led development is in jeopardy everywhere. The Saunders Lane development in Woking is a classic example of where proper consideration of cumulative impact is required.

The Liberal Democrats would pursue a different approach. Cognisant of the market conditions that exist in relation to private house building, we would focus on public investment in a programme of 150,000 social and council rent homes. In fact, we have never met the housing figure of 300,000 per year, except when we have had a big programme of council and social housing. With that element missing, private house building has bubbled along at more or less similar levels; third sector housing has increased somewhat. The big missing element has been council and publicly funded social homes.

For the reasons that I have set out, without a massive injection of such homes, we cannot rely on private house builders to increase supply in any meaningful way, however many permissions above and beyond the 1.4 million homes that have planning permission already, but are not being built, are given out. That figure, as my hon. Friends have explained, so clearly and starkly demonstrates why the challenge is not the issuing of planning permissions, but how to get those permissions built out. We urge the Minister to use much stronger “use it or lose it” measures to tackle unbuilt permissions. I welcomed the statement that he made in the summer about taking forward such measures, but we have yet to see anything really happen in that regard.

We need to remember those who cannot afford homes, and that however many private house builders provide more private homes, 99% of them will be out of reach of people who cannot afford a first home. That is why we need there to be social homes, but we also need a new generation of rent-to-own homes, so that people can get on the home ownership ladder at an early stage in life.

With that, Mr Twigg, I once again wish you a merry Christmas.

Planning Reform

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Although I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement, I fear that it represents an unprecedented removal of power from local people and local government by a Government who appear to have given up on sustainable development as a driving force behind decision making. The cost-benefit statement reads like it was written in the Treasury. It sees only the benefits of development, and none of the costs to communities or nature.

Under the new framework, sustainable development is no longer the pre-eminent principle. The framework means widespread development in the greenbelt. The presumption has so many holes in it that buildings put up for any purpose, including under permitted development, will now be green-lighted for development across the open countryside. Lorry parks in green fields will be green-lighted. The framework rewrites and overrides the policies in local plans. For many authorities, the value and purpose of all the expense that they went to in writing a local plan will be called into question.

I have only one minute, which is simply not enough time to debate the most significant rolling back of planning controls for decades, so will the Minister hold a debate on the framework in Government time, so that all hon. Members have the chance to debate it? The framework will have much more impact than the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which recently went through Parliament. Will the Government upgrade the framework’s wishy-washy mention of chalk streams, and recognise them fully as irreplaceable habitats? Will the Minister reverse the abolition of BNG for 0.2 hectare sites, and go with the 0.1 hectare limit that environmental non-governmental organisations call for? Will the Government increase their target for social and council-rent homes from 18,000 per year to the 150,000 per year that we Liberal Democrats wish to see, or at least to the 90,000 per year that Shelter wishes to see? Finally, will the Government go further and ensure that the 1.5 million permissions for homes are subject to real “use it or lose it” powers before new homes are created?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, but again, I think he misrepresents what is in this new framework, with regard to local involvement and local engagement. He seeks to give the impression that there are no safeguards on development in the new framework, and that is not true. The new permanent presumption provides significant backing for development—absolutely. We want to introduce clear, rules-based policies, both for plans and for decision making, but development still has to comply with the wider policies in the NPPF, and decisions on individual applications still have to be taken.

The hon. Gentleman raised a point about local standards. Our proposals support our overall aim of making policy more rules-based to streamline the content of development plans. The framework still allows some local standards, where it makes sense to set them locally—for example, on design, parking and open space—but where we have national standards in building regulations, including in the forthcoming future homes and future building standards, which raise our ambition in this area, it does not make sense to allow duplication and variation across local areas.

Lastly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned chalk streams, and again I want to push back. We have included explicit recognition of chalk streams as a feature of high environmental value, as I committed to doing during consideration of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Local plans will, as a result, have to identify and manage the impacts of development on these sensitive areas, such as by creating buffer zones or green corridors. We have set clearer expectations that development proposals will assess and mitigate adverse impacts on water quality, including in relation to chalk streams.

Quarries: Planning Policy

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on securing this important debate, which is of real concern to not only his constituents but those of Members around the country. As a child growing up in Somerset, I well remember the occasional roar of the neighbouring Dulcote quarry, which is now worked out. I no longer live near a quarry, so I do not experience the very genuine issues and concerns of those who do. In particular, significant concerns have been raised about respirable silica dust, especially when the particulate matter is PM₁₀ or smaller, which means that it is fewer than 10 micrometres across.

Studies by the Health and Safety Executive have shown that respirable silica dust, inhaled over prolonged exposure—for example, by workers who do not receive proper protection—is potentially carcinogenic. It can lead to silicosis and other respiratory diseases. Environmental impacts from the dust, which could affect local residents, are therefore a concern to those who spend time near quarries.

HSE studies of those environmental effects in 2002 and 2003 led it to conclude that no cases of silicosis have been documented among members of the general public in Great Britain, indicating that the levels of environmental exposure to silica dust are not sufficiently high to cause the occupational disease. Notwithstanding that finding, the impact of dust in residential environments is a genuine concern rightly held by many residents, and a potential hazard.

As we have heard, the new Environment Act targets would reduce PM_2.5 concentration levels to no more than 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2040. People also suffer wider immunity impacts from the dust, noise, vibration and flyrock that quarries emit. The fact that PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 pollutants can travel further than 250 metres and that IAQM guidance is under review emphasises those effects and immunity impacts.

We must also remember that quarries are vital to the building of homes and other needed infrastructure. According to the Mineral Products Association, UK quarries produce 177 million tonnes of aggregates and support thousands of valuable jobs. On housing, the Liberal Democrats differ from the Government in that our ambition is for 150,000 council and social rent homes per year—but, to the extent that new homes are needed, we agree that quarrying in the UK needs to continue apace rather than be curtailed.

None the less, health and wellbeing of the public is the main priority of the Liberal Democrats, and must be the main concern in this debate. We would therefore pass a new clean air Act to cover not just quarries, but all air pollution, based on World Health Organisation guidelines and enforced by a new air quality agency, including funding for local pollution centres and a new vehicle scrapping scheme for cleaner transport.

Clean air is important not just around quarries, but across all our communities. While life expectancy in Somerset and the south west is higher than in other regions of the UK, in my constituency it differs by 10 years from one side of my hometown, Taunton, to the other.

A report from Public Health England in 2018 attributed 250 deaths to black carbon—unburnt fuel from motor vehicles. As with quarries, there is little people can do about these sort of environmental health factors, but they still shorten people’s lives, sometimes by years. Therefore, as well as controlling quarries, we must do all we can to encourage people to replace their cars with zero emission vehicles at reasonable costs that they can afford. The Government must hold firm against the Conservatives and Reform, who seem no longer to care about that air pollution or the related deaths it causes. Flirting with climate deniers, the Conservatives want to reverse a position they once held, announcing that they will continue burning petrol in vehicles around people’s homes, schools and neighbourhoods.

While it is welcome that the Government have set out a delivery plan for nature’s recovery, we are waiting for a commitment to a new clean air Act and for them to get on with giving regulators the powers and resources they need. Instead, we are seeing unacceptable cuts to DEFRA—and therefore to the Environment Agency, which among other things regulates quarries—of 1.9% in real terms this year.

I turn now to the issue of buffer zones around quarries, which some hon. Members have raised. While imposing a buffer zone on an existing quarry—such as requiring a distance to residential properties to perhaps a kilometre—could detrimentally affect its operations, the imposition of some sort of environmental limit, as planning permissions already do, is an entirely reasonable proposition.

Some have argued that introducing a buffer zone could be devastating for the thousands of jobs in the sector. If that is the case, it would be equally devastating, not to mention reckless, to suggest no buffer zones or limits at all between quarries and residential properties. Presumably, even the most ardent quarrier is willing to stop when they reach someone’s garden wall or the threshold of their front door. Therefore, in a very real sense, the question is where to draw the line.

The Canadian example has much to commend it. For example, over the 600 metres under the Canadian rule, 100 dB from quarrying—a common level of noise from a building site—would degrade to around 40 dB. That is a typical level for background noise in residential areas—it is a little higher in cities. It has to be recognised, of course, that topography and other factors play a part in those calculations. Subject to assessment, Liberal Democrats would set in planning policy a buffer zone of 600 metres to 1 km for new quarrying consents. Local communities, through their elected councillors, should be empowered to impose such a zone and to make exceptions to it only in wholly exceptional circumstances. Sadly, the Government are going in entirely the wrong direction on the voices of local people being heard in planning.

[Dr Arthur]

In my experience of dealing with Ravelrig quarry in Edinburgh South West, a 600-metre line on a map is not always the best way to proceed, because the impact of blasting on properties varies considerably depending on the underlying geology and so on. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the policy needs a bit more rigour than a simple 600-metre line around a quarry?

[Gideon Amos]

I accept that further assessment is needed before the policy is finalised, but the experience in Canada shows that the distance is appropriate for reducing noise. At the moment, no buffer zone at all is set as standard, as I have pointed out. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not be the quarrier I described quarrying up to someone’s front door, but a buffer zone of some sort is needed.

Clear and understood safeguards, such as a buffer zone, or something similar to the 21-metre back-to-back standard for houses, give people more confidence in the planning system and enable them successfully to live side by side with development, but under the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Secretary of State will remove decisions from local councillors and the people who elect them. A new direction will force councillors to report to the Secretary of State and get his permission before they can refuse anything more than 150 homes, and we are told that there is more centralisation, and more community and nature bashing, to come this week in forthcoming announcements on the planning system.

We need quarries and we need development, but unless the Government change direction, we will have forgotten the most important lesson: that we develop for our environment and for people, not in opposition to them. In a world where a staggering 73% of global wildlife has been lost in the last 50 years, we need to save the remnants of nature for everyone’s sake, and we need people’s voices, and the safeguards they desire, to be heard in the process.

National Plan to End Homelessness

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

We Liberal Democrats also welcome this statement and the additional funding, although I still have some questions. For Liberals from Beveridge to Stephen Ross, who introduced the first homelessness legislation into this Chamber, tackling homelessness and poor housing has been central to allowing people to lead the fulfilled and free lives that we want to see them lead. I pay tribute to the Shared Health Foundation for highlighting the tragic numbers, as the Minister mentioned, of children and babies who have died with temporary accommodation mentioned on their death certificate as a contributory factor. It is a truly tragic situation.

The 132,000 households in temporary accommodation, with 12,000 households on the waiting list in my Somerset council area, are far too many. Even one homeless house- hold is, of course, far too many. As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) raised last week, there has been a 22% increase in the number of people homeless after being discharged from public institutions, which, as the Minister said, is a massively important aspect of this.

Our Liberal Democrat manifesto called for an end to section 21 evictions and for a cross-Whitehall strategy on homelessness, and we welcome both of those things—it is excellent that they have happened. However, we urge the Government to go further, in particular by increasing the social housing target from 18,000 to 150,000 social homes per year, or at least to the 90,000 social homes per year that are required according to Shelter and the National Housing Federation.

In welcoming the statement, I have a few questions for the Minister. What is the timeline is for completing the repeal of the Vagrancy Act provisions? Will the Government uprate the local housing allowance to represent the bottom third of rents and index-link that allowance to those rents, and when will housing benefit be effectively unfrozen by reviewing that local housing allowance? Finally, will the Government consider exempting homeless people from the shared accommodation rate, which both reduces the quantity and diminishes the quality of housing available to homeless people?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the strategy and for joining the cross-party support for our objectives. It is important that we make it clear where we have agreement across the parties. I join him in welcoming the important work of the Shared Health Foundation.

On his final question, there are exemptions to the shared accommodation rate, and I would encourage him to have a look at that part of the strategy. On the local housing allowance, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee a moment ago, it is important that family incomes improve, which is why we took the steps we did in the child poverty strategy. I spoke about the Vagrancy Act in my response to the shadow Minister, but I will happily also send the hon. Gentleman the details about the steps that we are taking.

The hon. Gentleman also mentions the need to increase social housing, and I would recommend to him the detail on this published by the Minister for Housing, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). I do not think any of us should have a cap on our ambition for building social and affordable homes, and I encourage all parts of the country to get on with spending the investment the Chancellor has allocated so that we can put a roof over people’s heads.

Draft Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz.

The Liberal Democrats also support the establishment of the regulator under its own auspices as opposed to coming under the Health and Safety Executive. It is a welcome step in the right direction, but we agree that significant steps are needed to remedy the massive backlogs and delays that are holding up not just private housing but much-needed social housing in London and elsewhere. The 25 to 40-week wait for decisions is far in exceedance of the organisation’s 12-week target.

Furthermore, many buildings with defective cladding and construction are excluded from the remedies under the Building Safety Act 2022 because of the PAS 9980 definition of building safety. We believe it is important that the Building Safety Act definition of safety should be accepted, rather than the PAS 9980 definition, which excludes a whole range of buildings from remediation in terms of their height, the number of storeys and other factors. Thousands of tenants across the country find that they are not protected and are not getting the remediation they need for building safety issues.

We will support the move to the different structure, as set out in the statutory instrument, but too many people are waiting for the remediation of their properties, and the current system is not extensive enough. We recognise that addressing that would involve higher costs for the Government, but the building safety levy needs to be reformed to meet those costs, because thousands of people are currently excluded from the building safety regime.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I am not certain whether I or the Minister will be more relieved at the conclusion of debates on this legislation. I welcome the fact that the Minister has tabled an amendment to the remaining proposal from the other place; I support Government amendment (a), and welcome the additional parliamentary scrutiny it brings. Once again, this legislation is in a better place than it was the last time it came in front of us, and I welcome the fact that Ministers have committed to environmental delivery plans being initially focused on nutrient neutrality and that further EDPs will be preceded by a statement in this House presenting the evidence for them.

I want to reflect briefly on further evidence that has come before us since our last debate on the Bill. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has published an assessment of England’s biodiversity that found substantially more indicators of our nature in decline than going in the right direction. The Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sit, published its report on environmental sustainability and housing growth in which it called for an end to “lazy” narratives and scapegoating of nature. New polling has also found that more than two thirds of voters think politicians are out of touch with the public’s values on nature.

We are still a long way from a planning system that delivers genuinely affordable homes and social justice, values democracy and reverses the decline of England’s nature. I hope that, with the conclusion of this Bill, we can move forward to some more positive progress.

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

When the Bill was presented to the House, the Liberal Democrats outlined three main concerns: accountability to Parliament, accountability to communities and accountability for our environment. Lords amendment 33 would address—to an extent—accountability to local communities and the importance of their role in planning, but it does not go as far as we would like. We are disappointed with the thrust of the legislation, which takes powers away from planning committees and gives them to the Secretary of State. We continue to oppose that measure, but we welcome the Government’s compromise in the form of amendment (a), which gives Parliament some say over those regulations. We will not oppose it.

Planning committees are important to all the key aspects of planning, including national policy statements for the biggest projects in the country, and I recognise that the Minister has reached agreement with the Chairs of the Select Committees on how national policy statements will be drafted. Planning Committees are also important to nature. Local people know their natural and local environment best and are best placed to understand it and make decisions about it. Lords amendment 33 would therefore be particularly important.

The Liberal Democrats are bitterly disappointed that the Conservatives did not support our efforts and amendments to include in the Bill statutory protection for chalk streams. I urge the Minister to follow up on his commitment to ensure that chalk streams appear in the national planning policy framework, and in its glossary, as an irreplaceable habitat. It is really important that these vital habitats, which we must protect, are established as an irreplaceable habitat. The UK has 85% of the world’s unique chalk streams.

As I said, local communities know their environment best, and they are best placed to help deliver on the environmental delivery plans. We are concerned that the environmental delivery plans are being given to Natural England, which will act as a decision maker, fee taker, and judge, jury and executioner—without necessarily leaving a role for some small companies such as those in my constituency that have been delivering phosphate credits successfully and enabling development to go forward. I hope that the Minister and the Government will enable a continuing role for small and medium-sized enterprises in this field. It is vital that it is not just left to the monolith of Natural England to deal with that—in part because it is not very good at it. In 2022, it committed to releasing 40,000 homes with phosphate credits in the first year of its activity, but so far it has delivered only 4,000 homes under that programme. It is not necessarily most practical to assume that Natural England will dig us out of this crisis.

The Liberal Democrats want to work constructively with the Government. We want environmental delivery plans to succeed, and to deal robustly with nutrient neutrality and phosphate pollution. We want to see the pollution in the Somerset levels and moors special protection area dealt with successfully through an EDP, but that must involve local communities and local companies and businesses, which are already doing really strong work in this field.

This is not the Bill that we would have introduced. We believe that what is needed to build the homes the country needs is a massive council home and social home building programme. We propose 150,000 homes per year, with that being the focus of delivery, without watering down the planning process or the planning system, or removing the rights of communities as the Bill sadly does. However, we will work constructively with the Government on the Bill’s implementation. We are pleased to have won, through my noble Friend Baroness Parminter in the other place, an amendment to the Bill, via the Government, on the mitigation hierarchy so that nature is placed at the top of the tree in such decisions. We welcome the changes to the Bill so far and will not seek to divide the House on the motion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill takes smaller decisions away from councillors. Last week’s direction, announced in a ministerial statement, will take big decisions involving over 150 homes, such as the decision on Oldway Road in Wellington, out of the hands of local councillors. Do the Government no longer trust local people to shape communities and deliver the housing that we need?

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

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I think he misrepresents the proposal that has been announced. It is not an automatic removal for all planning applications relating to more than 150 homes; it is simply a referral process, which applies in other situations already, that allows the Secretary of State to call in individual applications.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes]

If I am proposing a new clause to limit the increases that mayors can bring forward, then yes, I am happy to look at that. That is why I have tabled new clause 2, and why I argue that the Government should look at it. I agree with the hon. Lady that council tax has for a very long time been used as a natural model to try to raise more money. I have been honest with her before in saying that Governments of different stripes have not put in a long-term, sustainable funding model that does not just rely on council tax increases, but I say to her gently—she does an excellent job as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—that the Government are making it worse. Allowing central mayors to have no limit on the amount by which they can increase council tax will just encourage them to put more of their responsibilities on to the balance sheet by increasing people’s taxes, and that is not a good thing. That is why we argue that this new clause is proportionate and principled, and offers the certainty that residents deserve.

New clause 4 seeks to ensure that ordinary householders who wish to extend their own homes for their own use are not unfairly burdened with the community infrastructure levy. The purpose of this new clause is clear and sensible. It would insert into the Planning Act 2008 a straightforward principle that CIL is not charged on householder extensions where the property remains the family’s own residence and the development is for personal use, not commercial gain. The Minister knows that we have brought this up before, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) has long been campaigning for it. Too many local authorities across the UK are taking people for granted in charging CIL if people are just creating extensions. The Government, to their credit, and the Minister, to her credit, have said that they would do something about this, but there is no reason why she cannot back this new clause to enable what she has said she wishes to come true. If she cannot back it, I look to her to say in her winding-up speech, for certainty for the people affected by this, when the Government will bring forward measures to tackle what this new clause would do.

I will be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the last two amendments. Amendment 25 seeks to place clear, sensible and strategic priorities at the heart of the framework for mayoral development orders. It would ensure a rational, evidence-based approach, and does so by ensuring that development under MDOs is focused where it delivers the greatest public benefit—in areas of higher density, stronger transport accessibility and previously developed land.

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

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way, especially as I missed the first few words of his speech—he can only imagine my disappointment. While promoting higher-density development near transport nodes makes a lot of sense, can he explain why subsection (3) of the proposed new section would require mayors to issue blanket planning permission for the development of all previously developed land, which includes all residential areas and, in some places, residential gardens? He has spent a lot of time talking about the rights of local councils, but this would take away their planning permission powers and mean issuing blanket planning permission by the mayor on all previously developed land.

[Paul Holmes]

Dare I say it, but I think the hon. Gentleman is probably being slightly naughty. We are trying to put into the legislation that we want to counter what this Government have been doing, which is to make it easier to build on rural areas where infrastructure is not deliverable, when we should be building first in town centres and high-density areas where most people in this country want to live, and that is why we will be supporting amendment 25.

Amendment 26 would place a simple, but vital restriction on mayoral development corporations: when they are designating land for development, they must not designate greenfield land unless there is no suitable previously developed land available. This principle has long commanded support across this House. Members on all sides, except for the Government, recognise that we must make the best possible use of brownfield land before contemplating the loss of undeveloped countryside.

Madam Deputy Speaker—