Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

My hon. Friend raises a fair point, and one that I will take away.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I am sure that many of my constituents considering a UK break will look to Cambridgeshire, where the always fiscally sound Conservative mayor Paul Bristow has made it clear that now is not the time for such a tax. However, hospitality businesses across the rest of the country will be frightened by this measure—we already have two pubs closing a day, and businesses are struggling to get by under this Government’s tax burden. How low does tourism in this country have to dip, or how many businesses have to go bust, before the Treasury tells this Minister that this tourist levy must go?

[Jim McMahon]

In the spirit of devolution, if a mayor believes that not introducing a visitor levy is the right decision for their area, the Government will support that. To be clear, though, the last Conservative Government was not a good period for our pubs and hospitality businesses—pubs in our communities, town centres and city centres closed at a rate of knots. We are trying to say that that decline is not inevitable, and that Government working in partnership with our regions and councils can begin to turn that around.

Building Homes and Renewing Communities

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I often visit the West Yorkshire Mayor and her geographical area, and Shipley is a great place. It is a really good drive from my house in Manchester to Shipley—I would recommend it to anyone. I always jump at the chance to go to the area, and I congratulate the West Yorkshire Mayor, my hon. Friend and her local leaders on the work that they are doing to deliver the homes that people desperately need.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

How does the Secretary of State square what she said in the statement about wanting to

“put power in every postcode”

with the reality of what her Government are doing to Buckinghamshire? They have increased our housing target by 43%—while letting London off some of its target—but if we had power locally, we would categorically not choose to build. They have also been telling Buckinghamshire council that if it turns down too many planning applications and actually supports the residents of Buckinghamshire, it will have its planning powers taken away. That is not putting power into every postcode; that is central diktat, isn’t it?

[Angela Rayner]

I disagree with how the hon. Member has framed that question. Housing targets are based on housing stock and affordability, and local plans are mandatory—which his party removed—so we are actually strengthening this, and being more strategic and clear about where houses and the infrastructure that people need should go. I urge him to engage in that process, look at the key changes to the national planning policy framework and use them to benefit his constituents.

Fire and Rescue Services: Funding

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers]

Cross-border support and mutual aid is vital. It is important to understand the profile of those areas and where those demands take us when we invest in our fire services as we should.

Deprivation is linked to higher incident rates, greater vulnerabilities and an increased need for community safety interventions. Cleveland has long been associated with higher levels of deliberate fires; at times it has earned the label of UK arson capital. That places a disproportionate demand on prevention work as well as frontline response. It is among the busiest non-metropolitan fire brigades in the country and is getting busier. That unique mix means that the financial settlement is uniquely harmful to the safety of firefighters and the public in our community. It stretches them to breaking point.

Steve Wright, the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, has said that our fire services face a real-terms cut that puts lives at risk. When someone calls 999, they are in the panic of an emergency. It could be a fire in their home or community, a traffic incident or someone drowning. They deserve nothing less than a quick, fully staffed and fully equipped response. This settlement puts that at risk.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a superb speech. In Buckinghamshire, the Lib Dem-led fire authority has consulted on removing a third of Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes fire engines and closing two fire stations in my constituency, Stokenchurch and Great Missenden. At a time when risk is increasing and we are seeing more fires, not least from battery storage, now is not the time to reduce frontline firefighting capability.

[Matt Vickers]

I could not agree more. As the Fire Brigades Union puts it, these cuts are putting lives at risk. The inability to respond to the increasing number of fires and hazards has real consequences for real people out there in our communities.

Cleveland Fire Brigade is currently facing a significant deficit. Even if council taxpayers are hit with the highest possible increase in precept, Cleveland’s medium-term financial strategy shows a three-year deficit of £1.2 million.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I will come to how the Government are addressing the reform of the funding settlement for fire and rescue services shortly. It is an important point that all Members who have attended this afternoon need to understand for the context of our future fire and rescue services.

Cleveland Fire Authority, which serves Stockton West, will have access to £37.8 million in core spending power in 2026-27, which is an increase of 3.8%. That provides the authority with greater certainty about how it can best serve the communities of Stockton-on-Tees and the wider Cleveland area.

However, although the Government set the national funding framework, decisions about how resources are deployed locally must rightly remain with fire and rescue authorities and chief fire officers, who are best placed to understand local risk and demand through their community risk management plans, and to make operational decisions in consultation with the workforce and communities. That speaks to the wider point that Members have made about local decisions reflecting local needs.

[Greg Smith]

In Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes, there was a consultation. The public overwhelmingly said no to cuts that that fire authority was pushing, and firefighters very clearly said, “No, this is crazy. Don’t do it.” How can the Government ensure that fire authorities, which are making local decisions, reflect the important views not just of the public, but of firefighters themselves?

[Samantha Dixon]

Fire authorities, by and large, are locally elected representatives; they are accountable to their communities, they should serve their local communities, and they need to respond to what they hear from consultations. That is an important point for Members from Dorset and Wiltshire; they need to respond to what their local communities are doing in the way that the Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service has done in recent days.

Local Government Finance

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

First, I must pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on this. I might be putting the ball in the net today, but he was the midfielder who created the goal. It is his work to reconnect deprivation and council funding that we are delivering today, and I pay massive tribute to him. He asked whether we might go further to persuade our Treasury colleagues to invest in local government. I think that the best way to do that—I will welcome his support in this—is to show the results that councils get when they are properly invested in. We see that nowhere more than in his home city region of Greater Manchester and his council of Oldham, which show time and again that they provide value for money and they are growing our economy.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

The Minister said in her statement that she did not want to look the other way, but in reality this Government are looking the other way when it comes to rural communities. I listened carefully to the answers she gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), but the fact is that, with the exception of adult social care, rurality has been taken out of formula decisions. Can she come to the Dispatch Box and say how areas such as Buckinghamshire, which I am lucky enough to represent, are going to be properly funded, given our rural nature?

[Alison McGovern]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was listening when I gave my earlier answer on rurality. We have recognised where there are extra cost pressures, and I will happily discuss this in detail with him if he wishes. This is recognised in the statement and in the data that we have taken account of. The new deprivation statistics are much more fine-grained, and they can find poverty wherever it is, whether it is in a town, a city, a village, a rural area or wherever.

Planning Reform

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to clarify and provide a bit more detail, which will hopefully reassure the hon. Lady. Through the changes we have made in explicitly recognising chalk streams, we are now clear that local plans must identify and manage the impacts of development on these sensitive areas. That might include creating buffer zones or green corridors around them, as well as and alongside clearer expectations for developments, so that in decision making they are properly protected.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

If the Minister is serious about, in his words, “doubling down” on brownfield first, will he look again at the Campaign to Protect Rural England report, which was put together with academic rigour, which identified enough land in England alone for 1.4 million homes on brownfield sites? If he looks again at that seriously, he will find that it is right and will mandate to build on those sites first before a single farm, field or piece of green-belt land is built on.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid—I have been very open about saying it before—that I have never been convinced by that CPRE research. As to the general thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s question of whether we want to see more development on previously developed land, absolutely. I stress once again to hon. Members the radical nature of the proposals that we have brought forward today with regard to brownfield land. We are proposing development support in principle within settlements as a whole, with a permanent presumption in favour of development on brownfield land. Opposition Members keep challenging us to go further on brownfield. There is no further. This is dialling up brownfield to the extreme and it will ensure that we get brownfield applications in, as well as green-belt land release and designation where necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

It does not surprise me that the Conservatives do not understand consultation, but it does surprise me that it is also difficult for the Liberal Democrats. We are engaging with the councils that will be affected. There is precedence for this where elections would result in only a very short term in office. Our intention, and my preference, is for the elections to go ahead. We want to cut the cost of politics, simplify decision making for local people, and deliver stronger economic growth and better public services in every part of the country.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the level of his Department’s funding for Buckinghamshire council.

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

The Government are changing the way we fund local authorities, reconnecting funding with deprivation after 14 years of Tory Governments cutting councils in the poorest places. The vast majority of upper-tier councils will see their income increase in real terms over the next three years. For 2025-26, the local government finance settlement made available up to £577 million for Buckinghamshire council—a 5.7% cash-terms increase in core spending power on the year before.

[Greg Smith]

That is a curious answer, because modelling by the County Councils Network indicates that, assuming there is a punishing 5% annual council tax increase, core spending for Buckinghamshire council will go up by only a below-inflation 2.2%—a real-terms cut. What assurance can the Minister give Buckinghamshire council that it will not find itself with a real-terms cut in spending power as it delivers essential services to my constituents?

[Alison McGovern]

As I said in an earlier answer, we made a policy statement on the fair funding review consultation last week. In addition, as I have said, the vast majority of upper-tier councils will see their incomes increase in real terms over the next three years. More details will come as we finalise funding arrangements. The Department will work closely with Buckinghamshire and all other councils to ensure that their finances are stabilised after 14 rocky years.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Greg Smith Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is conflating two entirely separate issues. We are committed to introducing a new suite of national policies for development management. We will consult on those before the end of the year. The Secretary of State provided a bit more detail at the Select Committee the other day. This particular amendment—Lords amendment 33—refers to the powers in the Bill to bring forward a national scheme of delegation, and I am making it clear that the sufficient consultation already built into the system does not require it to be taken forward via the affirmative procedure. I hope that reassures her.

Lords amendment 37 would exempt assets of community value from the permitted development right for demolition under part 11 of the general permitted development order. I have reflected on this amendment and agree with the intention of further protecting these important assets. We are already strengthening the protection given to them through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and we think there are justifiable arguments for removing demolition of ACVs from permitted development rights. However, PDRs are established via secondary legislation, and it would not be appropriate to use this Bill to change particular development rights without consultation. As such, while we cannot support this exact amendment, I am happy to make a commitment today that we will consult on this change to the permitted development right for demolition at the first available opportunity. We hope that with this assurance, and a view to future opportunity for consultation on the matter, the House will reject Lords amendment 37.

Lords amendment 38 would require a spatial development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm, and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments. While I appreciate fully the positive intent of the amendment and reiterate the Government’s firm commitment to restoring and improving the nation’s chalk streams, I do not believe that it is a necessary or advisable means of protecting those vital ecosystems.

While strategic planning authorities will be expected to work closely with arm’s length bodies like the Environment Agency, they themselves will not have responsibility for regulatory systems governing water abstraction or pollution in catchment areas. The SDSs that they will be required to produce will be high-level frameworks for housing growth and infrastructure investment; they will not allocate specific sites. Importantly, as locally-led spatial exercises, local nature recovery strategies, drawing on river basin management plans, will be able to map out chalk streams and identify measures to enhance and improve them, and SDSs will already be required to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to the strategy area. SDSs will also obviously be tested by an independent examiner against those requirements.

It remains the Government’s view that the protection and enhancement of chalk streams through the planning system is best achieved through the proper application of national planning policy. As I made clear on Report in the Commons, the measures in the Bill will not weaken existing protections enjoyed by those precious habitats, which are already recognised by decision makers in the planning system as valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity value that should be identified and safeguarded through local plans.

That said, we have been giving this matter careful consideration given the strength of feeling expressed by the Commons on Report, and in the context of ongoing reforms to national planning policy. I am happy to make it clear to the House that I am minded to include explicit recognition of chalk streams in the new suite of national policies for decision making, which I referred to in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi)—and, as I said, we intend to consult on those before the end of this year. On the basis of that assurance, I urge hon. Members to reject Lords amendment 38.

Lords amendment 39 seeks to prioritise development on brownfield land, increase urban densities and minimise travel distances. The Government have a brownfield-first approach to development. Through the revisions made to the NPPF on 12 December 2024, we broadened the definition of brownfield land, set a strengthened expectation that applications on brownfield land will be approved, and made it clear that plans should promote an uplift in density in urban areas.

In September last year, the Government published a brownfield passport working paper, inviting views on how we might further prioritise and fast-track building on previously used urban land. Again, we intend to take forward those proposals in the new suite of national policies for decision making that I referred to a moment ago.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

The Minister is addressing the brownfield-first approach inherent to the amendment. He opened his remarks by mentioning the Government’s target of building 1.5 million homes. The Campaign to Protect Rural England, a very respected independent charity, has identified enough brownfield land in England alone for 1.4 million homes, so why do the Government persist in rejecting their Lordships’ amendments on this matter, against the advice of the CPRE?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will come to why we cannot accept Lords amendment 39. I respectfully disagree with the CPRE on this matter—and on a number of others, as it happens. There is not enough land on brownfield registers—certainly not enough that is in the right location or viable to meet housing need across England. That is why we have a brownfield-first, not brownfield-only, approach to development.

Brownfield land is diverse and may not always be suitable. That is why consideration of brownfield land is more appropriately dealt with at the local level, through policy, where a balance of considerations can be weighed up. A legislative requirement for increasing densities does not allow for the consideration of local issues or circumstances, and would risk opening up the possibility of legal challenges to any or every spatial development strategy, which I am sure was not their noble Lords’ intent. On that basis, I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 39.

Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this debate, which is incredibly important to our whole country, and certainly to my constituency.

Neighbourhood plans are a vital component of a fair, balanced and genuinely democratic planning system. They are a testament to the principle that local people should not simply be told how their community will look by central Government, but be empowered to shape the future of the places they call home. Neighbourhood plans should guarantee that development happens with the consent of those who live there, and is not forced on them by speculative developers or bureaucrats in Whitehall, who too often view our villages and market towns as blank canvases.

In Buckinghamshire, a clear framework is taking shape. The new Buckinghamshire plan is being developed right now to set out how many homes we need in the county and, broadly, where they should go, building on the local plans of the legacy councils before we went unitary in 2021. However, it is our neighbourhood plans that give meaning to that strategy on the ground. They provide certainty to my constituents in Mid Buckinghamshire. They reflect the unique character, constraints and aspirations of each parish, village and town. They tell developers, planners and councillors alike where development is acceptable and, just as importantly, where it is not acceptable.

In Mid Buckinghamshire, I have seen how the plans work when they are respected and, sadly, what happens when they are not. In Marsh Gibbon, for example, the parish’s neighbourhood plan, backed by a local referendum, capped the number of new homes in that small village at 25 until 2031, yet we now face an attempt by a speculative developer to push through 90 homes, all on farmland—nearly four times what the community had previously agreed to. Such proposals do not simply test the robustness of local policy; they erode trust in the entire planning system if they succeed.

We see similar disregard for local issues elsewhere. In Waddesdon, a proposal has come forward for more than 500 homes and a solar installation—far beyond what local people had planned for. In Stoke Mandeville, a 650-home scheme threatens to overwhelm local roads, schools, drainage and other infrastructure. In Longwick, the parish council produced a neighbourhood plan with the clear backing of the local community, yet despite that plan, and despite the village having nearly doubled in size already, Longwick continues to receive speculative applications for yet more housing. Sometimes we simply have to say enough is enough.

Labour’s stated aim to build, build, build, no matter the consequences or cumulative impact of development on our rural communities, in reality means destroy, destroy, destroy. Consent from constituents is crucial to protect the rural identity of communities throughout Mid Buckinghamshire and right across the country. Under the last Government, we rightly strengthened neighbourhood planning powers, because we recognised that development must be rooted in local consent. We wanted to see homes built where they were genuinely needed and wanted, while protecting the green fields, rural lanes and historic character that make our villages so special. We knew that communities are more likely to support plans when they have real control over scale and location, not when that is dictated from Westminster.

I am proud that in my constituency so many parish councils and volunteers in the villages I have mentioned—Marsh Gibbon, Waddesdon, Stoke Mandeville, Longwick and beyond—have done the hard graft of surveys, consultations and draft policies. They have balanced the need for new homes with the reality of local infrastructure and the natural environment and beauty. They have played their part in delivering homes, but on terms that respect the countryside and the unique Buckinghamshire character that makes these places attractive and worth living in.

Neighbourhood plans are not optional extras. They are not tick-box exercises. They carry legal weight and must be defended robustly by planning authorities, inspectors and Ministers, even if this Government have never quite grasped that concept or shown any interest in doing so. If we truly want to build the right homes in the right places, we must stand with our constituents, communities, hamlets, villages and towns. We must back local people, who have done the hard work of saying, “Yes, here, but not there.” If we do not, we risk not just bad development but a total breakdown in trust between residents and the system that is meant to serve them. That is what we in this place are meant to uphold.

Although the current Labour Government, particularly with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, want to ravage natural landscapes across our country, I will remain staunch in seeking to protect our neighbourhoods and my hamlets, villages and towns from this reckless agenda. I very much hope the Minister is able to give the Government’s commitment to neighbourhood plans and, as others have said, ensure that the funding can remain to produce them.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Greg Smith Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

Under this Bill, the rights of that community are being removed or harmed further. We have tried to put that right through our amendments, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) will speak to in his role as shadow Minister for farming. He has done an admirable job in this role of raising the plight of our farming community across the whole of the United Kingdom in the face of what I would say are detrimental impacts from this Bill and other actions of Government.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that where CPO powers already exist, there is a massive lack of trust between landowners and the acquiring authority? All too often a proposal will be put on the table, and an agreement will be reached, but then the legal agreement that actually comes along is totally different. Does he agree that there needs to be a CPO code of practice that gives landowners much greater protection?

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is right. I would also say that there needs to be a code of practice for our tenant farmers. Two of our amendments, which I will speak to shortly, seek to meet the challenges that our farming and agricultural communities face with CPO. I will elaborate on that later, and my hon. Friend is welcome to intervene on me then if he does not find my explanation satisfactory.

--- Later in debate ---

Under new clause 107, basic and occupiers’ loss payments, which are made to recognise inconvenience, would be increased to the market value of the property, with the result that landowners would be paid the market value twice over for their property, under provisions intended only to recompense inconvenience. We cannot support the new clause because it would result in a reduction in the number of new social homes that it would be possible to provide, as hard-pressed councils, including town and parish councils, would have to pay so much money for these over-the-odds compulsory purchases, and taxpayers would effectively be clobbered to make sky-high extra payments to those with landed interests.

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman just said that CPO powers are, to the landlord, an inconvenience. I would say that having a home, farm or business taken is absolute devastation, not an inconvenience.

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman knows he is talking absolute rubbish because those are not the words I said at all. What I said was that the occupiers’ loss payments “are made to recognise inconvenience”. He may have misheard me. I did not say that farmers were an inconvenience or anything of the kind, and Hansard will reflect that. As the proposed payments would clobber the taxpayer by making them pay double the land’s value, we cannot support the new clause.

On the contrary, we say that people are fed up with money going to private developers, leaving local people with little to show for the sacrifices that they are making for new construction projects. There are further areas where the maximum commercial value of land should not have to be paid by public and community bodies. Under amendments 88 and 89, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), hope value would not have to be paid in CPO cases where land is being acquired for sport or recreation. Her new clause 107, relating to disposals of land by public bodies, would ensure that top dollar did not have to be paid where the Secretary of State certified that the disposal was for “public good”; in those cases, a discounted price could be paid.

As we have heard, another Liberal Democrat amendment, new clause 22 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), would provide a “compelling case” justification for compulsorily purchasing land for new footpaths and cycle paths. Knowing the location of Haddenham and Thame parkway station as I do, I congratulate him on this key proposal, which would really help his constituents.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Greg Smith Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention—he knows I have great affection for him. He tempts me into a debate that does not directly relate to the Bill, but I can tell him the following: the Government’s position is brownfield-first when it comes to development. He knows that we strengthened the national planning policy framework to give greater weight to brownfield release. We have consulted on a brownfield passport to ensure that bringing forward previously developed land becomes the default and that people get a yes in those circumstances. When it comes to agricultural land, very strong protections already exist. They remain in force in terms of what is in the NPPF.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way briefly, and then I will make some progress.

[Greg Smith]

When the Minister says that agricultural protections are very strong, that simply is not true, is it? In the new NPPF that the Government brought in after being elected, they removed the important clause that explicitly protected land used in food production.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I slightly take issue with the hon. Member’s interpretation. We made targeted changes, but the strong protections that apply to agricultural land exist. He knows that, and I have spoken to him before about the fact that, in particular parts of the country, we see high numbers of applications for things like solar farms. But as I have said to him before, even under the most optimistic scenarios, less than 1% of agricultural land will be brought forward for solar farm applications, and those protections remain in place, so we are confident that that is robust.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendment 91, on allotments and community gardens, and to new clause 60, on landfill sites, both of which stand in my name.

The UK currently has a shortage of allotments, with nearly 160,000 people on English local authority waiting lists. We need more space to grow. For the 8 million people in the UK who have no garden at home, shared spaces such as community gardens are a vital lifeline to nature. I am proud that my amendment 91 is supported by the Royal Horticultural Society, the Horticultural Trades Association, members of the National Network for Community Gardening and the National Allotment Society, as well as by Members across the House.

Without being overly prescriptive, my amendment aims to tackle the erratic provision of allotments and community gardens across the country, making them an essential part of all spatial development strategies. In her correspondence with me, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), said that because there was “nothing preventing” local authorities from including those green spaces in their strategies, amendments such as mine were not needed. I would like to refute that—that is precisely the problem. A person’s space to grow should not be dependent on their postcode or the whims of their council. That is especially the case given that the loss of allotment land over the past 75 years—60%—has been eight times greater in deprived communities such as mine.

In his 2024 annual report, Sir Chris Whitty said:

“Making…access to green space easier and more equitable, would go a long way toward removing barriers to improving physical activity levels and could significantly improve the health of England’s increasingly urban population.”

These small but mighty green spaces are about more than just vegetables; they are essential to supporting health, nature recovery and food security. They also supercharge biodiversity, because the quality of soil on allotments creates a unique environment in which life can thrive. In the midst of a nature crisis, gardeners and amateur horticulturists are our secret weapon. What is more, allotments create space for education and social projects. With so many on waiting lists or blocked from turning an unloved patch of land into a community garden, and with a desperate need for nature recovery, my campaign represents a win-win for the Government.

I now turn to my new clause 60, which comes in direct response to a gross injustice for my own constituents. Droppingwell tip in Rotherham was closed in the 1990s following a determined campaign by local residents. It was subsequently capped and returned to a natural state. Two decades later, in 2016, a permit variation was granted by the Environment Agency, allowing landfill operations to resume without any notice to residents. While the Environment Agency had the power to conduct a public consultation, it chose not to do so. Its argument was that as planning permission had been granted in the 1950s, no further scrutiny was required. Vital issues such as traffic, noise, pollution, and the impact on neighbouring properties were given no consideration whatsoever.

It cannot be right that landfill operators can so easily evade public scrutiny simply by reopening long-dormant sites, nor can it be right that my constituents’ views have been totally ignored. While my new clause comes too late for Rotherham, it would prevent the rights of other communities from being trampled by ensuring that planning permission for landfill sites would automatically lapse after 10 years of dormancy. Any proposals to resume landfill operations would be required to be subjected to full scrutiny through the planning system. My amendments can make a real difference, and I hope Government Front Benchers will support them.

[Greg Smith]

I have always been very clear that my top priority is the protection of the Buckinghamshire countryside and all of our farmland for the production of food, not for development. It is through that lens that I rise to speak to a number of amendments that I think will make this horror show of a Bill that tiny bit better.

First, I will speak to new clause 44, which deals with sustainable drainage, and new clause 53, which would stop development on floodplains. I can think of so many examples in my constituency where development has either happened directly on the floodplain or caused horrendous flooding concerns in communities. In Ickford, the developer’s expert said that flooding would be a “once in 100 years” eventuality, in an area that flooded six times in six months. I stood with the water lapping at the top of my wellies before that development was built to try to make a point, and now those homes are built, guess what? On Worminghall Road in Ickford, the houses that were there before are regularly flooded. Likewise, the construction of HS2 has had an impact on flooding in Calvert Green. Calvert Green simply did not flood before HS2 poured concrete into the fields next door, and now, guess what? It does.

I also support new clause 45, which would stop planning permission in cases where illegal development took place. I can think of examples in my constituency, such as between the villages of Askett and Longwick, where illegal development took place, yet the planning inspector has perversely now rewarded that bad behaviour by giving planning permission. Bad behaviour should not be rewarded and that new clause would stop it.

Others have spoken about chalk streams, which are incredibly important in Buckinghamshire, and new clause 87, which would designate chalk streams as protected sites, is incredibly important.