Green-belt Development: Rayleigh and Wickford

Debate between Mark Francois and Matthew Pennycook

Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Let me begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on securing this debate. While I may disagree with a number of the arguments he made, for reasons I will expand upon in due course, I know that he speaks with genuine conviction on behalf of those he represents, and no one can doubt his commitment to his constituency.

In the time available to me, I intend to touch on all the substantive issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised, although I will not go into individual planning applications, for reasons that he will understand. I start by reminding the House about the problem that the Government are working to resolve. It is not, I believe, in doubt that England is in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis. To ensure that we have a planning system that is geared towards meeting housing need in full, the Government introduced a new standard method for assessing local housing need as part of the revised national planning policy framework we published in December, and we made that standard method mandatory.

That standard method now relies on a baseline, set at a percentage of existing housing stock levels, to better reflect housing pressures across the country, and uses a stronger affordability multiplier to focus additional growth on those places facing the biggest affordability challenges —south-east Essex would be one of those. We have been entirely open that that will mean that all parts of the country, including Essex, must play their part. I appreciate that some right hon. and hon. Members simply do not want to see housing growth in their constituencies—I do not name the right hon. Gentleman in this respect—and some may even question whether housing need exists on the scale that it does, and that the Government are clear that it does. However, the Government are clear that we must have ambitious targets to begin fixing the housing crisis afflicting our country, and that decisions made locally should be about how to meet housing needs, not whether to do so at all.

Turning briefly to local plans, the plan-led approach is and must remain the cornerstone of our planning system. As I know the right hon. Gentleman understands, due to the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial role in the planning system, I am unable to comment on the details of his, or any other, specific local plan. However, I want to underline that the best way of allowing communities to shape development in their area is to have an up-to-date local plan that ensures the provision of supporting infrastructure, so that development proceeds in a sustainable manner. In the absence of an up-to-date plan, there is a high likelihood that development will come forward on a piecemeal and speculative basis, with reduced public engagement and fewer guarantees that it will make the most of an area’s potential.

Having failed to adopt a plan since 1998, Basildon now has one of oldest local plans in the country, a state of affairs that is—I put this as diplomatically as I possibly can—detrimental to the residents of Rayleigh and Wickford. So I am pleased that the new leadership at Basildon council is seeking to address the failures of its predecessors by bringing forward a new local plan, premised on meeting housing need. I want to make it clear that I expect their neighbours at Rochford to progress their local plan, and consult later this year, in line with the updated plan timetable.

To support local planning authorities in their efforts, the Government are awarding £28 million of new funding. As part of that, Rochford and Basildon councils were each awarded approximately £228,000 for local plan delivery, and £70,000 for support with the costs of undertaking a green-belt review. It is now each authority’s responsibility to ensure that their plans unlock growth and secure the housing, jobs and infrastructure their local people deserve.

Turning next to the process of plan making, which is important in regard to some of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised, national planning policy is clear that the standard method should be used by local authorities to inform the preparation of their local plans. Once local housing need has been assessed, authorities should make an assessment of the number of new homes that can be provided in their area. This should be justified on the basis of evidence of land availability and constraints on development—for example, in national landscapes—and any other relevant matters. Planning inspectors will consider those issues if they are raised when the plan is submitted to them.

We expect local authorities to explore all options to deliver the homes that their communities need, including maximising the use of brownfield land, working with neighbouring authorities and, where necessary, reviewing green-belt land. When allocating land, the first port of call must be previously developed land. I put on record again that this Government are fully committed to a brownfield-first approach to development. That is why we made changes to the revised national planning policy framework last year to place an even stronger emphasis on the value of brownfield land development.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, in September last year we published a working paper on a brownfield passport to explore how further to prioritise and accelerate development on brownfield land and ensure that the default answer to suitable proposals on such land is a simple and straightforward “yes”.

Just last month, we published a working paper exploring ways that we can speed up the build-out of consented sites, including brownfield sites, so they are delivered as quickly as possible. On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the existing developer contribution system, we are committed to strengthening that to ensure that councils are able to negotiate properly on what public gain can come through the developer contribution system, and to hold developers to account for the commitments they make. However, we know that there is simply not enough brownfield land in the country to deliver the volume of homes that working people need, let alone enough sites that are viable and in the right location. That brings me to the green belt.

The Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large, built-up areas, and in preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another. We have not changed the five purposes of the green belt that are set out in paragraph 143 of the national planning policy framework, and we do not propose to alter its general extent. Instead, our reforms replace a haphazard approach with a strategic and targeted approach to green-belt land designation and release. As a result of our changes, the national policy now includes a clear direction that where development on the green belt is necessary, it should be directed towards the least valuable parts of the green belt: previously developed or low-quality grey-belt land.

The sustainability of sites must be prioritised, and local authorities must pay particular attention to transport connections when considering whether grey-belt land is sustainably located. Because we recognise the value that the public place on the green belt, we have taken steps to ensure that any necessary development on land released from it must deliver high levels of affordable housing; the provision of new—or improvements to—existing green spaces that are accessible to the public; and the necessary improvements to local infrastructure to ensure that residents benefit. Those new golden rules, which are the mechanism by which we will deliver that public gain, will apply where a major housing development is proposed on green-belt land, but I should be clear that the requirement for a high level of affordable housing is for green-belt land specifically, regardless of whether it is released through plan-making or subject to a planning application.

[Mr Francois]

Am I right to say that the Minister described sustainability, particularly for green-belt developments, as a golden rule? I understand that the Planning Inspectorate is beginning to take that approach too. Could he quickly confirm that I heard that correctly?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In judging particular applications, particularly when local authorities seek to release land as grey-belt land, they do have to have sustainability as a concern. When cases go to the Planning Inspectorate—for example, on appeal—all these matters will be considered, but the right hon. Gentleman can find the definition of what needs to be considered in the NPPF. I am more than happy to point him to that.

I turn very briefly to nature, because the right hon. Gentleman did mention the environment. Our reforms will help to deliver the homes and development that our country needs, but we have been very clear that these must not come at the expense of the natural environment or rural communities. We are clear that policies and decisions should recognise the intrinsic character of the countryside, and we are maintaining the strong protections for the best and most versatile agricultural land. We have preserved protections for high-quality green-belt land, and for land safeguarded for environmental reasons, such as national landscapes. As I have said, we are ensuring that major new developments in the green belt deliver more accessible green space and support nature recovery.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman once again for sharing his concerns on this matter with the House. While I appreciate that there is a principled and strongly felt difference of opinion between him and me on these matters, I trust that I have clearly laid out the Government’s position. As ever, I would be more than happy to speak to him outside the Chamber, and to discuss any issues of local concern.

Question put and agreed to.

Green Belt: Basildon and Billericay

Debate between Mark Francois and Matthew Pennycook

Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

Mid and South Essex hospitals trust, which runs Basildon hospital, reported that in the autumn, the hospital was running at between 98% and 99% of its bed capacity. In recent weeks, because of winter pressures and flu, bed capacity has exceeded 100%. The standard NHS ratio is 2.4 new patients for each house, so 27,000 new households is just under 65,000 new patients for Basildon hospital, which is already bursting at the seams. Surely the new local plan is unsound on that score alone; Basildon hospital just cannot cope with it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I note his concerns about hospital capacity in the area. My colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care will also have registered those comments. We are working closely with colleagues across Government to bring forward the necessary infrastructure, whether it be health or educational provision. It is for local authorities in the first instance, through the development of up-to-date local plans, to address the needs and opportunities in their area in relation to infrastructure, and—as planning policy guidance makes very clear—to bring forward infrastructure funding statements setting out what local infrastructure is needed and how it should be funded, including through the contributions made by developers.

[Mr Francois]

I understand the principle, but I have read the local plan. There is not one specific word in there about plans to expand Basildon. There is an associated infrastructure delivery plan, which is a living document; it is three years out of date, and there is no specific plan in there for Basildon. I understand the theory, but Basildon borough council simply has not addressed this—it has said nothing about it at all.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have heard the point he has made. He will understand that given the quasi-judicial nature of the planning system, I cannot comment on the specifics of an individual local authority’s plan, but he has put his point on the record regarding health provision in the area.

When it comes to affordable housing, our new golden rules will require a 15 percentage point premium on top of existing requirements, up to a maximum of 50%. No site-specific viability assessments will be permitted until we have strengthened national planning guidance on viability, in which we will consider the case for permitting viability negotiations on previously developed land and larger strategic sites that are likely to carry greater infrastructure costs. We have also ensured that the sustainability of sites must be prioritised. No one wants to see isolated and disconnected development, which is why our policy asks authorities to pay particular attention to transport connections when considering whether grey belt is sustainably located.

I want to make it clear that while our reforms will help deliver the homes and development that this country so desperately needs, they will not come at the expense of the natural environment or rural communities. We are maintaining the existing strong protections in the national planning policy framework for the best and most versatile agricultural land—the land most important for food production—and we have preserved protections for high-quality green-belt land and land safeguarded for environmental reasons, such as national landscapes. Alongside those protections, we are ensuring that green-belt developments deliver more accessible green space and support nature recovery.

As the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay knows, to support the Government’s plan-for-change milestone of building 1.5 million new homes this Parliament, we introduced a new standard method for assessing local housing need. We recognise that as a result, some areas of the country will see their targets raised. That includes London and the south-east; the numbers we consulted on back in July were raised partly in response to concerns expressed through the consultation about the lack of responsiveness to affordability. Many areas will see their targets raised, and on 12 December, we raised London’s target from the number we had consulted on. However, the acute and entrenched nature of the housing crisis in England demands that we take steps to significantly increase the supply of homes of all tenures, and all parts of the country, including Basildon and Billericay, need to play their part.

Before I conclude, I will touch on the importance of up-to-date local plans. As I have just made clear to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, due to the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial role, I cannot comment on specifics. However, I will take the opportunity to underline that having up-to-date local plans is the best way for local communities to shape development in their area, deliver housing that meets the needs of their communities, and ensure the provision of supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner.

Planning Committees: Reform

Debate between Mark Francois and Matthew Pennycook

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is true. The Office for Budget Responsibility is projecting that supply will dip below 200,000 homes this year, and the affordable homes programme is on course to deliver between 110,000 and 130,000 affordable homes, not the original 180,000 that were allotted to it. We are taking steps to increase the supply of social and affordable homes, including using the £500 million in additional funding secured for the affordable homes programme in the recent Budget.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Labour-led Basildon borough council’s new draft plan is at the regulation 18 stage, but it proposes a completely unsustainable 27,000 new properties across the borough, including 4,300 in Wickford, in my constituency, which is completely unsustainable and would involve concreting over whole swathes of our local green belt. As well as reimposing mandatory housing targets, which are an insult to local democracy, why is Labour now trying to neuter local planning committees of democratically elected councillors, taking away the say of local people, when it is desperately difficult to persuade people to vote in local elections as it is?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Mr Speaker, you will forgive me if I do not comment on the specifics of the local planning question, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the role of the Secretary of State in planning applications. We set out transitional arrangements in the NPPF consultation in July for how local plans at regulation 18 and 19 stage will proceed through the system, to ensure that we get up-to-date local plans through where appropriate and meet housing need in terms of the revised standard method that we have put forward.

We are determined to get these homes built. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) says that those levels of housing are unsustainable. It will be for the Planning Inspectorate to decide whether the local plan is sound, but I do not take issue in any way with the ambition that the local authority is showing. We have an acute and entrenched housing crisis in this country. Every week in my advice surgery—I am sure that his is the same—people come to me who are desperately in need of houses. The 1 million homes that the previous Government built in the last Parliament are not enough. We will build 1.5 million homes over the next five years.