Estate Regeneration

Luke Murphy Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered estate regeneration.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I want to use this debate to talk about the principles of estate regeneration, its real-life impacts and the process through which it should be handled. I will speak specifically about the current regeneration in Buckskin and South Ham in my constituency.

First, I want to cover what good regeneration looks like. When done right, good estate regeneration has the power to breathe new life into communities, restore civic pride and improve quality of life through better infrastructure such as schools, GP surgeries and green spaces. In all cases, there is a community that lives there, often close-knit and deeply rooted across generations. Those communities deserve not just respect but full and genuine engagement, shaping and driving the future of their own areas. That is at the heart of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s 2016 guidance on estate regeneration, although I will go on to say that that guidance needs to be refreshed and strengthened.

Buckskin and South Ham are proud, strongly knit communities where many have lived for decades and neighbours look out for each other. They were transformed when Basingstoke became a London overspill town post-war. By 1973, more than 3,250 homes had been built in South Ham alone. With new housing came new schools and the associations and religious groups that bind an area into a community, each with its own congregation, and that now run projects such as the community pantry in Buckskin or the street pastors.

The Westside Community Association, following the much-mourned closure of its premises, now runs the Ridgeway centre and the Russell Howard pavilion, hubs known across Basingstoke. They have hosted countless birthday parties, christenings and events, including my coffee afternoons, but they are so much more than a space for hire. They house nurseries and run clubs for the over-55s at risk of isolation. I have seen at first hand the work they do, such as the food bank at the Ridgeway centre, which supports people in Buckskin and South Ham when they struggle to make ends meet.

Today, both areas contain more than 4,600 households and 10,000 residents. A regeneration proposal was first identified for development in the 2016 local plan. In 2023, Basingstoke and Deane borough council and Sovereign Network Group signed a memorandum of understanding to take forward, in their words, “transformation plans, covering community engagement, master planning, working with Hampshire county council on transport and infrastructure, land assembly, partnerships and funding.” The housing association, Sovereign Network Group, then partnered with the Hill Group to form the Sovereign Hill Partnership to deliver the scheme.

There is no doubt that change is needed for parts of Buckskin and South Ham, and the flats in Pinkerton Road have been identified as a particular priority. I and many residents recognise that there are clearly homes and areas in need of investment; that is not in doubt. The Sovereign Hill Partnership says it has held 33 events, knocked on 1,200 doors and received 1,800 survey responses as part of the regeneration process. I know that staff at SNG and the SHP, many based locally, have tried hard to engage with residents; this is not about them. In my surgeries, at the SHP’s own drop-ins and on the doorstep, too many residents remain frustrated, uncertain and anxious about the future.

Issues raised with me focus on three key areas: accountability and transparency over finances; uncertainty; and trust linked to performance on repairs and maintenance. First, on accountability and transparency over finances, residents are frustrated with what they see as a lack of accountability in this project. The memorandum of understanding was updated in 2025, in the council’s own words, to “reflect updated ambitions, aims, objectives and working arrangements of the partners.” That means the council and Sovereign Network Group. I am not aware that any version has ever been made widely available, which itself raises questions over transparency.

That speaks to a broader issue that residents raise with me time and again. If the council agreed the memorandum of understanding with the Sovereign Network Group, and they are working in partnership together, but the Sovereign Hill Partnership, which is a partnership between the Sovereign Network Group and a private house builder, is delivering the regeneration, who exactly should residents hold to account? Many tell me that they feel left in the dark. Does the Minister agree that accountability for such schemes should be crystal clear? There needs to be clarity on which body is accountable, alongside greater democratic accountability.

In London, regeneration projects involving more than 150 dwellings or the demolition of any social homes that seek Greater London Authority funding require a resident ballot demonstrating support. In Basingstoke, even though direct funding is not involved, a partnership with the local authority still exists. The parties should look at measures to introduce greater democratic accountability, including the use of resident ballots, as increasingly is normal practice. I ask the Minister whether the Government would consider including resident ballots or similar mechanisms as standard in updated guidance for schemes with or without Government funding.

We must also consider the financial model for the regeneration. SNG is a not-for-profit with a social purpose, but it has formed a joint venture with private house builder the Hill Group to help deliver this regeneration. Many residents want greater clarity on how any surplus will be reinvested, and on the details of the financial model underpinning the regeneration. Given the scale of the proposals, it is essential that residents can understand whether the benefits will be retained locally, particularly for housing, affordable housing, infrastructure and community provision. Does the Minister agree that transparency over the financial model is crucial for resident confidence, and will the Department consider updating the national guidance to that effect for all regeneration schemes?

My next point is about the significant uncertainty caused to both social and private tenants, as well as to homeowners, by the regeneration proposals. Following nearly two and a half years of consultation, the Sovereign Hill Partnership confirmed in February what it calls the priority areas for redevelopment and refurbishment, as well as areas of limited change, the latter covering around a third of homes—roughly 1,500—in Buckskin and South Ham.

That clarity is welcome for those residents, but it leaves nearly 3,000 households in areas of further study with no certainty at all. Residents have told me that they are unclear as to why and how these boundaries were determined—another example of a lack of clarity and transparency over decision making. Does the Minister agree that it is good practice to explain such decisions in an accessible way?

On the point about uncertainty, the Sovereign Hill Partnership has acknowledged that wide-scale regeneration would take multiple decades. In the meantime, thousands of my constituents have no idea whether they will be asked to move next year, the year after, in 10 years or not at all. I have spoken to residents unsure whether to redecorate, lay patios, redo gardens and kitchens, or make other home improvements. They do not know whether they will see any return on improvements already made, including significant accessibility works for disabled residents. Those considering selling have also raised concerns about their ability to get a fair price.

In short, too many people are having to put big life decisions on hold. Three years on, do residents not deserve clarity and a clear timeline as soon as possible? I urge the SHP to give that clarity quickly. Updated national guidance should set out what a realistic timeline for such schemes looks like, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s view. Perhaps most prominently, many residents are deeply fearful about the potential use of compulsory purchase orders. I do not believe that the widespread use of CPOs is justified, and their potential use only strengthens the case for resident ballots.

The third area of concern revolves around a lack of trust, driven in large part by Sovereign Network Group’s performance on housing repairs. Put simply, that is the largest single source of casework in my office. I am afraid that we hear the story all too regularly: complaints ignored, wait times running into months or years, missed appointments, and wrong jobs or poor repairs that mean starting the whole process all over again.

Recently, an elderly constituent had scaffolding on their SNG property from November 2025 until this month for a roof repair that never took place. They were unable to open their windows for eight months, including during the recent heatwave. The work has now been cancelled, the scaffolding has been removed, and the problem has been left unsolved.

Likewise, a constituent whose depression and anxiety leaves them almost entirely housebound reported a roof leak last November. It remained unresolved until March, despite multiple SNG visits confirming the property was extremely damp and infested with mould and woodlice. These are just samples, but the pattern is borne out in both tenant survey data and the judgment of the Regulator of Social Housing.

In the tenant satisfaction measures headline report, published last November, SNG performed worse than the national average across a range of measures, including overall satisfaction, repairs service, time taken to complete repairs, home maintenance, listening to residents and complaints handling. The regulator has found weaknesses in SNG’s delivery of an effective, efficient and timely repairs service, and a related failure to meet complaints handling timescales. I am aware that improvement plans are said to be in place, but the record points to a real issue of trust. Residents tell me repeatedly that they struggle to believe SNG can deliver a regeneration of this scale when it is struggling to deliver day-to-day repairs. Let us remind ourselves that this is one of the largest regenerations in the country.

Does the Minister agree that improvement is needed on repairs and maintenance? Does she recognise that the record erodes residents’ trust in SNG’s ability to handle a scheme of this size? Might there be scope to update national guidance on estate regeneration so that minimum standards on repairs must be met?

In conclusion, how does the Department monitor adherence to its 2016 guidance, and what plans are there to update it and make it statutory for both local authorities and housing associations? I recognise the role that estate regeneration can play in restoring civic pride, breathing new life into communities and improving quality of life, but it must be done with communities—with them shaping and directing the change, with clear accountability, with trust between all parties, and with the provision of as much certainty as possible. I will continue to fight for the residents of Buckskin and South Ham for as long as is needed. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan]

Yes, and I have a long way to go.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this important debate and thank all Members for their contributions. Each one has provided an important perspective on the challenges of estate renewal and the need generally to build homes in a way that works for communities. My hon. Friend spoke powerfully about the difference between good regeneration and poor examples in his constituency. The Government recognise that good estate regen is critical to delivering our housing target and to providing decent homes for everybody to live in.

There are many reasons why estate regeneration might be the best thing for existing tenants or for a local area. In some cases, years of neglect from a Conservative Government that failed to invest in existing estates and mandated council rent reductions, which meant even less for housing revenue accounts, has left many estates in dire need of regeneration. I know that only too well, having led a local authority that felt the burden of pressures on the HRA account. Social housing was the tenure most affected by damp and mould issues—my hon. Friend correctly highlighted the impact that that has on many of his constituents, and I know that many other Members have cases involving the same problem.

An ageing housing stock not only impacts life chances, but costs the taxpayer more in the long term, because disrepair has a bigger impact on communities and also on the stock itself. In that context, it might make more sense for an entire estate to be regenerated than to take a sticking-plaster approach, particularly when some buildings reach the end of their life. In other cases, estates are the best places to build more affordable homes, particularly in our towns and cities, where there may be fewer development sites available, but more social infrastructure in local areas.

The people often forgotten in housing debates are the 1 million families on council housing waiting lists and the thousands of people trapped in temporary accommodation. I know that there are something like 4,000 on the housing register in my hon. Friend’s local authority area, and the figure is similar in my borough of Barking and Dagenham. Everyone deserves a decent home—a safe home, in a clean neighbourhood, with decent social infrastructure. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who spoke so passionately and accurately about the importance of the facilities that make a community, whether that is a youth centre or much needed GPs. I pay tribute to her long-standing campaign, which reflects the need to build neighbourhoods with homes that are more than just the buildings that house people.

In my view, the simplest, most powerful thing we can do to lift people out of poverty and improve life chances in this country is to provide more decent homes. First and foremost, we must recognise that the supply of homes is the foundation for everything. Indeed, we will only address the housing crisis by building more homes, period. I listened with great interest to the shadow Minister, who made important points about house building and getting on with it. I have to say, though, having been a council leader in and now a Labour Member of Parliament in London, that it is a great shame that Conservative and Lib Dem councils, councillors and MPs frequently object to house building.

Of course, brownfield sites are a really important part of the solution; but the idea that we can meet housing need in London or the rest of the country only by using brownfield sites or doing infill on existing estates is, I am afraid, misleading. That does not mean that we look at only one aspect of house building. I recognise that the picture is complicated, and it will take a multitude of approaches to make sure that regeneration delivers the number of homes to the decent homes standard that we need, but I also know that regeneration must be delivered in partnership with communities. Good regeneration puts communities in the driving seat. That does not just mean being transparent with decision making; it also means allowing those who live in the community to have a real say in shaping proposals. Decisions on property size, building height, materials, amenities and timelines for delivery are important for getting community buy-in. That approach is not new. Good developers, of which there are many, do that anyway, and the regulatory standards are clear: registered providers must communicate with tenants, provide information to them and take their views into account in decision making. That extends to providers undertaking estate regeneration.

It is difficult to set out realistic timelines, because each estate regeneration is different and unique due to their different sizes and ambitions, and good engagement with existing residents may further change those ambitions. Timelines for estate renewal are also highly dependent on viability, phasing, planning permission conditions, and ground and infrastructure prep, but I accept that families who live on an estate face huge anxiety when they do not know when their home is going to be knocked down. Indeed, there are examples in my constituency of families who have been told their estate has been earmarked for renewal; they can see their community being hollowed out, yet they do not know when they will need to move on. Timelines for estate renewal are complicated, but it is important that engagement takes into account the instability caused by estate renewal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked a valid question about whether the process for decision making should be through a ballot. I led a local authority that had a ballot for an area. It is hard work to say the least, but it is perhaps one of the most important things a local authority can do to secure community buy-in. However, to say that ballots in themselves are what secured that engagement would be to do a disservice to the engagement that the ballot provided.

Ballots in and of themselves do not solve trust issues among residents. They can force developers to do the meaningful engagement that they should be doing anyway, but they do not mean that we will get the outcome that we want. Where providers fall short, there is usually a complaints process and an ombudsman. In addition, the Government have also committed to introducing social tenant access to information requirements from this October, which will make it mandatory for providers to give information about property management in response to information requests.

[Luke Murphy]

I completely accept that, as the Minister said, residential ballots are not the answer in and of themselves, but they do drive the behaviour that helps to build community consent. Will she extend my request to the Housing Minister, our hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), to meet me about this issue following this debate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy]

I thank the Minister for her response. I particularly want to recognise the points she made about repairs and maintenance. I would welcome her passing on my request to the Housing Minister, and I acknowledge what she said about residential ballots. I fully agree that it is just one part of the process, but it would be a useful mechanism to drive some of the engagement she was referring to.

I also thank other Members for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) made a point about the value of estate regeneration to both the economy and pride in place. I fully recognise that community needs to be at the heart of any proposals. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made the point that communities are not just a number on a spreadsheet and spoke about the need for a holistic blueprint for renewal. I think that we all agree that there should be a UK-wide approach on that.

I heard the pride of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) in the Alton estate, and I share that pride in representing Buckskin and South Ham. She mentioned a number of things that are also really important locally in Buckskin and South Ham, including the need for a permanent community centre as part of the regeneration and the role of co-design. She also mentioned the way that the residential ballot worked—I was very interested to hear that. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) made a powerful argument about pride in place and resident action groups, which I would like to speak to him more about.

I appreciated the response of the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), and his agreement with the point about minimum standards and what community consent can help to deliver. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for what he said about my speech. However, I am old enough to remember when the Conservative Government cut the budget for affordable housing by two thirds, introduced the unaffordable rent model and decimated the building of social housing, so I might gently disagree with some of the points he made about the Conservatives’ record on housing.

I put on record my thanks to the Minister for her response and to all Members for contributing. I am having conversations with the SNG, the Sovereign Hill Partnership and the local council, and I want to work constructively with them. I recognise the need for investment and more homes, and many residents do too, but it has to be done in the right way, with the accountability needed to build trust. I will always be a strong voice for my constituents and the residents in Buckskin and South Ham. Thank you, Dr Murrison, for presiding over the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered estate regeneration.

Local Government Reorganisation

Luke Murphy Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I am sorry to say that I have not seen that report in The Times, but I would be very happy to write the right hon. Gentleman with a response to his question.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that Ministers will be considering representations from councillors and MPs on the interim warding arrangements? There is some concern in Basingstoke and across North Hampshire that urban areas could be disadvantaged by having a smaller number of councillors, as has been proposed.

[Alison McGovern]

Yes, we will consider representations from all stakeholders through this process.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

Luke Murphy Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

The draft Bill, as published, includes exemptions that mirror the ground rent exemptions for new leases entered into since 30 July 2022, based on that previous Act of Parliament, but we will consider through the pre-legislative scrutiny process whether other exemptions would be appropriate for a small number of leases granted for specialist purposes. I can assure the hon. Member that I have given consideration, and will give further consideration, to the matter she raises.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Since I was elected, so many constituents have raised with me the absolute nightmare of being trapped in leasehold and fleecehold, so I wholeheartedly congratulate the Minister on the action he is announcing today, particularly on capping ground rent, ending leasehold flats and the transition to commonhold. On the transition to commonhold, previous Governments have attempted to make this easier. Will he say a bit more about what the Bill will do to ensure that this Government make the transition happen, rather than failing as previous Governments have done?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For various reasons, commonhold failed to take off after its introduction in 2004 and the legal framework is now hopelessly out of date. That is why we have to reform and reinvigorate commonhold as a tenure. We want to put in place an easier conversion mechanism. We have given a great amount of thought to the Law Commission’s recommendations in this area, and we have tried to strike the right balance to ensure that our approach meets those objectives, but my hon. Friend is more than welcome to contribute to the scrutiny process for the draft Bill outside the Select Committee, and I hope that the does so.

Local Government Reorganisation

Luke Murphy Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I cannot comment on legal proceedings—it would be entirely inappropriate. I think the best response to his question is to quote the “new sheriff in town”, the right hon. Member for Newark, who is sitting directly in front of him and who took exactly the same decision in exactly the same circumstances. This is a direct quote from him:

“Elections in such circumstances risk confusing voters, and would be hard to justify when members could be elected to serve shortened terms.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 23WS-24WS.]

For once, he got it absolutely right.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I take issue with the absolute brass neck of the shadow Secretary of State, who talked about the Government putting pressure on local government finances and then devolving the blame. Nothing could better describe the destructive austerity policies of the last Government, who devastated local councils across the country.

On the matter in hand, I welcome the decision to go ahead with elections in Hampshire and Basingstoke. That was the will of local councillors, though I accept that different areas have different circumstances. Are we still on track for the local government reorganisation process in Hampshire and Basingstoke? Can I impress upon the Secretary of State the importance of reaching a decision that endorses the proposal from Basingstoke, Hart and Rushmoor councils for a north Hampshire authority?

[Steve Reed]

I am seeking to ensure that we remain on track by responding to the comments I have had from councils, and ensuring they have the resources so that the process goes ahead as everyone intends it to.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Luke Murphy Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes]

I knew that was coming from the hon. Gentleman. The last Government put forward many things in legislation that we are looking at again. We have been very clear about that, and I have been clear about what this new Conservative party stands for. We said throughout the Committee stage that we do not support the extension of powers within CPOs.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am aware that you are looking at me to move on. I will do so and restrict the number of interventions I take, as I am about to wind up. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I knew I would bring universal acclaim once again, including from my Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). I thank him.

We have had a robust debate in this House on this groundbreaking piece of legislation. As I have said repeatedly, much to the Minister’s embarrassment— I hope he takes this in the genuine spirit in which it is said—even though we have fundamental disagreements on the measures that he is taking to get what he wants later on, we know that he has a well-intentioned and principled approach. The Labour party won the election and we know that. However, that will not stop us having principled and robust arguments around our disagreements with the methods by which he wants to get there.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) indicated in her intervention, the Minister had—and still has—a chance to listen to some of the well-intentioned, educated and intellectual amendments and new clauses that have been proposed by all parties to strengthen the legislation and make it better.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Paul Holmes]

I will briefly, but he will let me finish this point. The proposals have been put forward by all parties to ensure that the legislation is better and more efficient, but fundamentally serves the people who send us here and who want to see differences in the way in which their country is run. We argue that this legislation does not do that, we argue that this is a massive centralising overreach advocated by the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, and we stand fundamentally against it.

[Paul Holmes]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) first because he is a sparring partner from the Public Bill Committee—I hope he does not have another quote—and then I will give way to the hon. Lady.

[Luke Murphy]

Unfortunately, I have another quote, which is from yesterday. With regard to the Opposition’s amendments, can the shadow Minister point to a single measure that would increase the number of homes? All the changes directed at the Bill seem to be designed to impede development. I also want to ask him what he meant yesterday in his opening remarks, when he said,

“The last Government built the largest number of houses in history.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 693.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. It might be helpful if I emphasised that we are not here to relitigate yesterday’s debate; we are here to debate the amendments that have been tabled today. I am sure the hon. Member will restrict his comments to that.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Luke Murphy Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Chowns]

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

Green MPs gave the Bill a chance on Second Reading—

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ellie Chowns]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Luke Murphy Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

Yes, the lifetime ISA is still in operation—the last Government brought it in—but it does not deliver the real numbers that we need, as the Help to Buy and stamp duty relief systems did. We brought those in, but they have been reversed.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Holmes]

Not yet. Those have been reversed by a lot of the things that this Government have done. For the first time, the sector does not have any incentivisation.

[Paul Holmes]

If he has a quote, then I am not giving way. I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow East that the local housing plans that we are proposing must also include social housing. Local authorities need to put forward a proper housing mix.

[Luke Murphy]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and apologise to the rest of the Committee—I do not have a quote. Under its new leadership, his party is reflecting on the policies of the previous 14 years, so given that he is making an argument about first-time buyers and SME builders, why did the number of SME builders in the UK catastrophically decline over the past 14 years while the average age of the first-time buyer increased?

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman does not have a quote, but his intervention is still misguided. He fails to realise that under the past 14 years of the Conservative Government, 800,000 people bought their first home through schemes such as Help to Buy and the stamp duty relief, and 2 million homes for first-time buyers were built. This Government have not even shown that they have the aspiration to match that, because they have cut a lot of the products that turbocharged first-time buyers’ getting on to the housing ladder.

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that if he wants to, he can come for an appointment. By the way, we are under new leadership, and we are constantly reviewing our policies. We will be making announcements on the new products we will be bringing to people to fill the void that this Government have simply left for the first-time buyer.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Luke Murphy Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

I therefore ask the Minister to think again about reducing the element of compensation for landowners. Being a landowner does not necessarily mean that someone is exceptionally well-off. It simply means that landowners will go through huge disruption, particularly if they want to challenge the CPO. Given that we agree with the level of compensation that the Minister has set in the new regime for occupiers, it is fair that he reconsiders. Has he made an assessment of any costs that the new clause would incur? Will he explain why he believes that the element of fairness in the system that the new clause introduces should not be accepted? I ask him to reconsider his resistance to it.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions about compulsory purchase and redevelopment and regeneration schemes. A significant regeneration scheme has been proposed in Basingstoke for the communities of South Ham and Buckskin by the housing association SNG. To say that the consultation with residents has been badly handled is an understatement. I have been calling for a complete reset of the project by SNG, which has fundamentally failed to take the community with it. It has lost the trust of many people, from its tenants to local homeowners and private renters. It must rebuild that trust. I have committed to working with residents to ensure that any plans benefit and have the support of the local community.

One of the key concerns of the community is the threat of widespread compulsory purchase. Can the Minister confirm that nothing in the Bill will weaken the voice or say of residents involved in redevelopment or regeneration schemes, where CPO is involved? Can he also confirm that CPO should always be used as a last resort, that it must always be taken in the public interest, and that it will not change the compensation available to ordinary owner-occupiers and tenants involved in such regeneration schemes?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank all Members for their contributions. To the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, I do not think that I can add much more to the very clear set of principles that have guided our approach in opening this particular part of the Bill. This is not particularly directed at the shadow Minister, but there has been a fair amount of scaremongering about what the compulsory purchase provisions in the Bill entail, which has not always been completely accurate—let me put it as gently as that.

In response to a number of the challenges, I recognise why the shadow Minister raised his point, and I addressed the point about the Welsh Government. Welsh Ministers have devolved competence to reform loss payments for CPO in Wales, and therefore this clause applies in the way that I have set out. On the more substantive point, without getting into individual cases, I note the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke made and I appreciate why he raised it, but he will also recognise why I cannot comment on specific instances of CPO use.

On the general principle of the Bill, I will say a couple of things to the shadow Minister. First, we are not removing the ability for landowners and occupiers to claim for a basic occupier’s loss payment. The Government consider it necessary to rebalance how loss payments are allocated between owners and occupiers to ensure—this is the guiding principle—that those who experience the most level of disruption and inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase are compensated fairly.

The shadow Minister pushed me to reassure him and to go away and reflect to ensure that the system has equal parity. We already have a two-tier system in place; there are differing rates for tenants and landowners. All we are seeking to do through this clause is rebalance the loss payment compensation in favour of occupiers for the reasons that I have given. Landowners and occupiers can still claim for loss payments in addition to claiming compensation for the market value of their land, disturbance costs and other reasonable costs incurred because of a CPO, such as legal and other professional fees.

We may have a principal difference of opinion here; however, on the substantive point, although we have a two-tier system already, we think that it is right to rebalance that two-tier system and weight it slightly more in favour of occupiers of land so that they are entitled to the higher amount of 7.5%, and owners of land to the lower amount of 2.5%. We think that is right, and for that reason, we will not be able to accept new clause 52.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 88 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89

Home loss payments: exclusions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting)

Luke Murphy Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. Some points have already been made on the underlying point of amendment 14, so I will be reasonably brief, but clause 55 goes to the heart of the overall improvement test and is crucial to the structure of the Bill.

In many ways, amendment 14 has a similar target as amendment 20, but I would argue that it is more in the spirit of the Bill and how the Government are going about it. Amendment 14 would require that the conservation measures within an EDP would “significantly”—it would add that word—outweigh the negative effect of development.

Clause 55 sets the overall improvement test that an EDP must pass before the Secretary of State can approve it. At the moment, in order to pass, the conservation measures in the EDP must be

“likely to be sufficient to outweigh the negative effect, caused by the environmental impact of development”.

As the Wildlife Trusts has argued:

“The lifting of the bar to ‘significantly outweigh’—

through this amendment—

“is needed to secure a level of gain for nature capable of meaningfully improving conservation outcomes.”

That approach aligns explicitly with the Government’s stated intentions for the nature restoration fund. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government factsheet describes the proposed system as being a

“marked change from the current approach which, at most, requires development to offset its impact and no further”—

on that, the Minister and I are agreed. Instead, the Government say the approach will deliver

“a positive contribution to nature recovery”,

but saying “likely” to outweigh simply will not deliver that marked change, as “likely” is neither a high bar nor a strong test.

The higher bar of “significant improvement” that we propose is also in line with well-established environmental law. The Environment Act 2021, for example, is notable; now four years from receiving Royal Assent, its use of the robust benchmark of “significant improvement” has not experienced a single legal challenge. There is no reason to expect that any would arise from applying that test in this EDP legislative framework.

An EDP that passes that high bar and is made by the Secretary of State would, by definition, be environmentally robust as a result, and less vulnerable to a legal challenge than one that passes only the lower bar currently in the clause. It is in everyone’s interest that the EDPs deliver the promise of positive contributions and that step change—that marked change—the Government have stated they intend to achieve.

Finally, if we are not raising the bar through this amendment, can the Minister explain, in his summing up, why the wording is only “likely” to outweigh? Why not use “will”, as the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire proposes, or “significantly” outweigh, as in our amendment? Those who are familiar with the habitats regulations will know that the test there is that “no reasonable scientific doubt” should exist. There is a marked difference between that established approach and the current wording in the Bill, which is not simply strong enough.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I acknowledge that this is an important part of the Bill and that some organisations have expressed concerns about the matter. I agree with the hon. Members for North Herefordshire and for Taunton and Wellington pointing out what the OEP has said about this part of the Bill, but we should acknowledge that what the Minister said yesterday and his speech today could not have been clearer: the Government are reviewing and reflecting on the OEP’s advice, and they have set out their incredibly clear intention to ensure not only that nature is not worse off, but that it is better off as a result of the Bill.

The Minister has been crystal clear that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s advice. The latter came through seven working days ago yesterday. We are now on the eighth working day since it provided its advice. I urge colleagues to take the Minister at his word and to allow the Government to respond to the OEP. If colleagues across the House are not content with their response, that can be dealt with on Report, but we should take the Minister at his word when he says that the Government are taking the OEP’s comments incredibly seriously and reflecting on them.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, although I do not expect hon. Members to just take me at my word; I think they should both interrogate the Bill and the provisions and reflect on my further comments. Although I caveat everything by saying that we are grateful to the Office for Environmental Protection for its recent advice and its support for the intention of these reforms—let us be clear: it supports the intention and we are carefully considering its advice —we are clear that this approach will deliver more for nature, not less. The important thing is that those improved outcomes—and they are improved outcomes; we are not talking about merely maintaining the status quo—can be achieved only if we are willing to do things differently. That is why the Bill establishes an alternative to existing processes, but only where that will lead to better outcomes.

I should make a brief comment about Natural England, as the other body that will be involved in the design and implementation of environmental delivery plans. It is slightly unfair, if I may say so, for the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to suggest that there is a stark conflict of interest here. As I have said in previous sittings, Natural England has the expertise and ecological skills to make the right judgments. It will put in place suitable propriety barriers to ensure that it can act effectively as both an advisory body and the body tasked with preparing, designing and implementing EDPs.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

Luke Murphy Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns]

I am delighted to move amendment 1 on chalk streams, which was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff).

Clause 47 introduces spatial development strategies to provide a new strategic layer to the planning system. That creates a real opportunity to create new planning protections for strategic but threatened natural resources, such as chalk streams. We have talked about these matters in the Chamber throughout my time here, so I think we all know that the south and east of England are home to fresh waters that rise on chalk soils, whose filtration qualities result in crystal-clear, mineral-rich waters teeming with aquatic life. They are truly beautiful.

A handful of chalk streams occur in northern France and Denmark, but the majority are found in England, so this globally rare ecosystem is largely restricted to our shores. We have a huge responsibly to protect it, and a huge opportunity with the Bill. Sadly, however, we are currently failing to look after this natural treasure adequately for the world. These rare habitats are threatened like never before due to development and other pressures. Some 37% of chalk water bodies do not meet the criteria for good ecological status, due in large part to over-abstraction of water to serve development in inappropriate locations. This spring is the driest since 1956, and there is a risk that some vulnerable chalk streams will dry up altogether, which would be terrible.

Amendment 1 would equip the Bill to address those risks and reduce the impact of development on chalk streams. It would direct the Secretary of State to create new protections for chalk streams and require spatial development authorities covering areas with chalk streams to use those protections to protect and enhance them within the SDS. The affixing of chalk stream responsibility to spatial development strategies would allow the protections to be applied strategically and effectively across entire regions where chalk streams flow. Water bodies, rivers and streams do not respect our administrative boundaries, so we need cross-boundary co-operation to ensure effective protection in the whole catchment. That would also allow the protection requirements to be fairly balanced with development objectives, furthering the wins for both nature and development that Ministers say they are so keen to see from this Bill.

Successive Governments have failed to bring forward the planning reforms needed to address the development pressures that are eroding some of England’s natural crown jewels, and chalk streams are absolutely in that category. There is significant cross-party support for this amendment and for action—I have heard many Members speak about this matter in the Chamber—so I hope the Minister listens, accepts the amendment and delivers a timely new protection for one of our most threatened habitats.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship Mrs Hobhouse. I do not agree that this is the right place to make such an amendment to the Bill, but I agree with the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about chalk streams and I want to put on my record my appreciation for those rare and irreplaceable habitats.

In Basingstoke and Hampshire, we are blessed with the River Loddon and the River Test. During the election campaign, I enjoyed—or was subject to, depending on your point of view—a sermon from Feargal Sharkey about chalk streams, and I learned much. As the hon. Lady says, they are very rare and irreplaceable, and they mean a lot to many people.

Although I do not believe this is the place to put this amendment into legislation, I would be grateful if the Minister can set out the Government’s position on how to protect these rare and special habitats. I also pay tribute to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Natural Basingstoke and Greener Basingstoke for their outstanding work and campaigning to protect these much-loved rare habitats.

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to support amendment 1 and speak to amendment 30, which my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage will talk about, and amendment 28, in my name, which relates to local wildlife sites.

Amendment 28 would require spatial development strategies to take account of local wildlife sites and include policies that would avoid development on them. Local wildlife sites are some of the country’s most valuable and important spaces for nature. They are selected locally using robust scientific criteria. Those critical sites for biodiversity create wildlife corridors that join up other nationally and internationally designated sites, improving ecological coherence and connectivity. It is a misconception to think that all the best sites for nature conservation are designated sites of special scientific interest—that is not true. SSSIs cover only a representative sample of particular habitats, which means that only a certain number of sites are covered by the national selection. Local wildlife sites, in contrast, operate by a more comprehensive approach, and all sites that meet the criteria are selected. Consequently, some local wildlife sites are of equal biodiversity value to SSSIs.

Where there is little SSSI coverage, local wildlife sites are often the principal wildlife resource for the area, as well as an important place for communities to access nature on their doorstep. In my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, there are 213 local wildlife sites covering almost 23.5 sq km, compared with 16 sq km of land designated as sites of special scientific interest.

In the interest of time, I will cut short my remarks, but it is important to say that the current protection for local wildlife sites in the national planning policy framework is not strong enough, and 2% of sites have been lost or damaged in recent years. My amendment would improve the recognition of local wildlife sites and provide clarity to allow plan makers and decision makers to make the appropriate provision to protect and enhance local wildlife sites within spatial development strategies.

--- Later in debate ---

I urge the Committee to support the amendment. It reflects public expectation, ecological and scientific evidence, and policy consistency. It would give clarity to developers and comfort to conservationists, who are deeply worried. Most of all, it would honour our obligation to protect the natural heritage we cannot afford to lose.

[Luke Murphy]

I rise to speak to clause 50. The Government and the Minister deserve complete praise for their attempt to thread the needle of building more homes while protecting and restoring nature. We must recognise that the system we inherited was failing on both counts. The innovative approach outlined in this part of the Bill, including in clause 50, is to be applauded.

I have one question for the Minister. In evidence to the Committee, there was a difference of opinion between Natural England and Wildlife and Countryside Link about whether the mitigation hierarchy would still apply under the Bill. As the Minister is aware, the Office for Environmental Protection has also expressed concerns about the undermining of the mitigation hierarchy. Here we have a disagreement between Natural England and the OEP on the loss of the mitigation hierarchy, and whether developers can indeed get away without avoiding harm.

I have also seen written evidence from Arbtech, the leading ecological consultancy in the UK and a major employer in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). In its representations on the issue, it also expressed concerns on behalf of developers about the complexities that could be created for them. I ask the Minister, how can we clear up the discrepancy? It is absolutely clear that the Government want to avoid harm for habitats that cannot be easily replaced, and that the Government want to restore and protect nature and achieve our housing goals. How can we give the OEP and others the confidence that the Government’s intentions will be made a legal reality?

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 13, which would require that the conservation measures undertaken within environmental delivery plans should significantly protect environmental features. It is one of a number of similar amendments that I will not speak to at length. Together, they would strengthen the thrust and strength of environmental delivery plans.

I say gently to the Government that if none of these strengthening opportunities is taken, we will end up with a Bill that provides environmental delivery plans that do not have the confidence of environmental bodies in this country or those who represent our environment. I hope that the Minister will consider that as we debate these amendments, which may seem to concern minor matters of wording but could really strengthen the structure of EDPs.

We look forward to hearing what the Government have to say about amendment 18, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. We are concerned about irreplaceable habitats, and we look for some reassurance on that topic before considering how we respond to that amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not think I could have been any clearer that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s letter and the points it has set out. I will not issue the Government response to that letter today in Committee; I am setting out the Government’s position on the Bill as it stands, but we will reflect on those concerns. If we feel that any changes need to be made to the Bill, we will, of course, notify the House at the appropriate point and table any changes. We are reflecting on whether they are needed to ensure that the intent of this part of the Bill, which we have been very clear must deliver both for the environment and for development, is met.

I will finish by making a couple of more points, because there are other provisions of the Bill that pertain to this area. There is already a requirement in clause 57 for Natural England to publish reports at least twice over the environmental delivery plan period, which will ensure transparency on how conservation measures are being delivered. That requirement is a minimum, and it may publish reports at any other time as needed. The reports will ensure that Natural England can monitor the impact of conservation measures to date to ensure that appropriate actions are taken to deliver the improved outcomes.

In establishing an alternative to the existing system, the Bill intentionally provides flexibility to diverge from a restrictive application of the mitigation hierarchy. We will come on to that again in clause 55. That, however, will only be where Natural England considers it to be appropriate and where it would deliver better outcomes for nature over the course of the EDP. The status quo is not working, and we have to find a smarter way to ensure there is that win-win. The alternative is to say that the status quo remains as it is, and we do not get those more positive outcomes for nature, but as I have said, we are reflecting on the OEP’s letter.

[Luke Murphy]

The Committee should hear exactly what the Minister has said: he and the Government are reflecting on what the OEP has said. It is only seven working days since the OEP sent its letter, so to rush forward with a full response now would be foolhardy. It is right that the Government reflect on it and we should accept the Minister at his word, given that he has strongly made clear that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s advice.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is only seven days. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire might expect Government to move quicker than they do, but they do not. It is right that we take time to reflect properly on whether the Government agree that some of the points the OEP has made are valid—we are allowed to have a difference of opinion—and that we should respond in an appropriate way, or whether the Bill as drafted on the particular points made is sufficient. We are reflecting on those points.