Playgrounds: Bournemouth East

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) on securing this important debate. I commend him for the eloquence with which he stated his case and how he always speaks on behalf of those he represents. I thank him for the tenacity and dedication with which he has continued since his election to promote playground and play space provision. I note and recognise his ongoing efforts to maintain and improve playground provision in his Bournemouth East seat. His council will have heard that message, too, as it has on other occasions. I thank him for his ongoing engagement with the Department on this matter. I should also welcome him to his role as the chair of the new all-party parliamentary group on play, which, as he mentioned, met for the first time last week. I am delighted that, through that avenue, he will continue to champion this work, and I look forward to the continuing discussions in this area.

The Government recognise that access to playgrounds is vital for the health and wellbeing of communities and in supporting physical activity, social cohesion and opportunities for young and old people. My hon. Friend made an important point about the benefits that playgrounds bring for parents and grandparents, who find others in their community to speak to when they are with their children or grandchildren in those settings. As the Minister for Housing and Planning, I will speak in what remains of my time in large part to the planning system and how it supports play, but I will touch on other areas.

Our planning system plays an important role in securing and protecting playgrounds, but this is not the reserve of planning alone. As a whole, the Government are considering how to improve both the availability and quality of play spaces across England. Following my meeting with my hon. Friend after our debate on Report of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I wrote, as promised, to my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that we do all we can across Government to support better outcomes for children and communities. We are considering how to bolster further the provision of sufficient opportunities for play, and although I cannot speak for those Departments and their thinking in policy terms, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government as a whole have heard his call to explore a national strategy in the area.

With local authorities and industry specialists, the Government have established the parks working group to find solutions to the issues facing parks and green spaces across the country, including in Bournemouth East. The work includes increasing the number of playgrounds more generally. Our £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods will deliver funding to enable neighbourhood boards in 75 communities across the country to develop local regeneration plans in conjunction with local authorities. The boards can choose to use that funding for a wide range of activities, including to upgrade play areas.

My hon. Friend knows—we have a difference of opinion on this point—that it is not the Government’s intention to place new statutory responsibilities on local authorities in relation to play. We are instead giving them the freedom and flexibility they need to meet local needs, including looking after treasured green spaces. The spending review provided more than £5 billion of new grant funding over the next three years for local services that communities can rely on. That includes £3.4 billion of new grant funding to be delivered through the local government finance settlement in financial years 2026-27 to 2028-29. The Government have also committed to simplifying the wider local funding landscape, reducing the number of grants and consolidating them into the local government finance settlement, so that local authorities are able to plan more effectively for infrastructure, amenities and services.

As my hon. Friend also knows, because we have had many a discussion on this point, the national planning policy framework includes a number of safeguards for play spaces. It makes it clear that local planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. That includes places for children’s play, both formal and informal. Information gained from those assessments should be used to determine what recreational provision is needed, which development plans should then seek to accommodate.

The framework also includes strong protections for these spaces, where they may be threatened by development. It sets out clear and robust tests that must be met before any development affecting such spaces can be approved. It means that these facilities can be lost only where the facility is no longer needed or where there is a justified and appropriate alternative, such as equivalent or better provision elsewhere. My hon. Friend welcomed the further strengthening of that policy in our update to the NPPF in December last year, through the explicit safeguarding of formal play spaces.

My hon. Friend knows—we have had this discussion, and I will continue to engage with him on the subject—that in recognition of the importance of play space provision, we are actively considering what more we can say about this important matter, including on the vital role of communities in ensuring that play spaces are fit for purpose. The debate today has, as have other discussions I have had with my hon. Friend, provided invaluable feedback and experience on play spaces and the issues affecting them in his part of England, and he has spoken about others more generally.

We are, as my hon. Friend knows, intending to launch a consultation on what are termed new national policies for decision making—that is, the rules by which development management is managed and taken forward. That currently sits within the national planning policy framework, but he knows we are looking at how we make reforms in that area. I have taken on board his points about what more that suite of national policies might do in relation to the provision of play space. I know that he will contribute, as a constituency MP, to that consultation when it goes live.

A couple of other points are worth mentioning. The national planning policy framework is supplemented by national design guidance, which encourages the provision of open space and play space, including guidance on types of play space and how this can be integrated into new development in an accessible, inclusive and secure way. We are in the process of updating that suite of national design guidance and we are reviewing existing guidance on play space as part of that effort.

My hon. Friend mentioned the role of Sport England. With regard to that role, and potentially, as he put it, extending its duties to play, he will know that the Government have a moratorium on new statutory consultees. However, we want to improve and streamline statutory consultee arrangements in England more generally and empower local areas to make those important decisions. We remain committed to ensuring that our playing field capacity is protected and extended, and the NPPF ensures that those interests are maintained in the planning system, as I have set out.

Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East on securing this debate. I thank him for outlining, with his customary clarity and force, the issues affecting playgrounds in his constituency and around the country. Parks and playgrounds provide places for social connection, support health and wellbeing, increase community engagement and volunteering, help people to connect with nature, and can be a foundation for social capital that underpins local opportunity and prosperity.

We will continue to do all we can to bring together key stakeholders, as well as local and central Government officials, across the parks and green space sector to identify effective and deliverable solutions to improve the quality and sustainability of those spaces. More widely, this Government remain committed to creating a planning system that delivers the play space opportunities that my hon. Friend’s constituency and other parts of the country need. I look forward in particular to sharing our updated planning policies and designing guidance with him and other hon. Members in the months to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Housing: North Staffordshire

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) on securing the debate and commend her for managing to fit a phenomenal number of issues into that very brief speech.

In general terms, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government want to see more plan-led development and want development generally to provide all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities. While there is much more to be done, I trust that she recognises that the Government have already taken decisive steps to deliver on those objectives.

My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am unable to comment on individual local development plans or individual planning applications in her constituency due to the role of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers in the planning system, but I will seek to respond to as many of the general points that she raised as I can. If there are any that I am unable to cover in the time that I have, I will happily write to her with further detail.

I very much welcome the fact that the local planning authorities that cover parts of my hon. Friend’s constituency are all taking forward draft local plans. It is really important that local plans are put in place, and at speed. Having an up-to-date local plan, or, where one is not in place, ensuring that one is brought forward quickly, is the best way for a community to shape the development required in its area. Where local plans are not up to date or in place, there is a detrimental impact on individuals and communities. We really need to drive that point home: it is not cost-free to not have a local plan in place.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I commend to the Minister the draft local plan in Stoke-on-Trent, which is very bold. It recognises that there is an acute waiting list for housing in Stoke-on-Trent, and that we need to build the houses that we need for local people, so that generations of families can live there. The council is taking some tough decisions and building on pieces of land that residents would not ordinarily want built on, but that is one of the trade-offs for having a growing city.

The Minister and I spoke about an urban development corporation covering Hanley, in Stoke-on-Trent, to allow land assembly in order to bring derelict brownfield sites back into use and build the homes that we need. Is that a conversation that we can pick up again? The opportunity is there with the local plan, but it just might need a shove from the centre to help get it over the line.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am more than happy to pick up that conversation and see where we have got to. For the reasons I have already given, I will not be able to comment on the local plan in question, but suffice it to say that we have a local plan-led planning system, and such a system operates effectively only if coverage of up-to-date local plans is extensive.

My hon. Friends will no doubt be aware that the Government inherited a system in which less than a third of local plans were up to date. We have taken decisive steps to progress towards our ambition of universal local plan coverage, both by providing local planning authorities that are striving to do the right thing with financial support and by intervening where necessary to drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible. We are also introducing a faster and clearer process for preparing local plans, which will set a clear expectation that local plans—as well as minerals and waste plans, it should be said—should be routinely prepared and adopted within 30 months. Other aspects of the reforms—such as the introduction of gateways; shorter, simpler and standardised content focused on the core principles of plan making; and a series of digital transformation initiatives—will support that aim.

I very much commend the efforts being made in the area in question to get the local plan in place. As I said, where local plans are not up to date, and where LPAs are not delivering in line with the needs of their communities, areas are open to speculative development. It is right that, in those circumstances, development comes forward outside of plans—the homes our country needs cannot be put on hold—but we have made it clear that that is not a route to poor-quality housing, and we have added new safeguards to the presumption in the national planning policy framework in order to ensure that.

It must also be said that the absence of an up-to-date local plan does not remove the need for local planning authorities to consider the use of conditions or planning obligations to make otherwise unacceptable developments acceptable. That can include the provision of necessary site-specific infrastructure at appropriate trigger points in development. Local planning authorities already have enforcement powers to ensure compliance with such provisions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South mentioned a number of issues in relation to brownfield development—development on previously developed land—as well as green-belt development. It should be said at the outset that, like all Governments over the last few decades, this Government have a brownfield-first approach to development. We want, in all cases, local authorities to exhaust their options for brownfield development. Indeed, we are making that easier: we made changes to the NPPF in December, and we have consulted on what we call a brownfield passport—essentially a means of making sure that, when applications on brownfield land are suitable, the default answer should be a straightforward yes.

[David Williams]

We have certainly talked about the brownfield-first approach being taken. As I alluded to earlier, one of the issues in Stoke-on-Trent is that we have a number of historic and heritage buildings lying dormant. I encourage the Minister to talk across Departments about how we could create a heritage building release fund, similar to the brownfield land release fund. Those buildings are at the centre of our towns and communities, but at the moment they tend to fall down on value for money.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will happily take that conversation up with colleagues in other Departments, and I am happy to write to my hon. Friend about heritage policy in the planning system more generally if he would find that useful.

The point needs to be made, and it needs to be made again and again, that there is not enough brownfield land on registers—and certainly not enough viable sites in the right locations—to meet the demand for homes across the country. That is why we have taken a different approach to the green belt. We are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over recent decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbourhoods from merging into one another. We have acted quickly to replace the haphazard approach taken by the previous Government to green-belt designation and release with a more strategic and targeted approach.

I emphasise that Ministers do not themselves determine what, if any, grey-belt land is released in any given local planning authority area. It is for the local planning authority itself to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist that justify doing so. In those instances, we expect it first to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting identified need for development, including making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land, optimising the density of development—a number of local authorities across the country are looking again at brownfield sites and exploring whether they can get additional density to make up housing numbers—and working with neighbouring authorities to assess whether identified need might be sensibly accommodated across borough boundaries.

Where those options have been exhausted, we expect local authorities to look again at green-belt land release. National policy makes it clear that, in those circumstances, local development plans must take a sequential approach: first exhaust previously developed land, then consider low-quality grey-belt land that is not previously developed, and only then consider other green-belt locations. Under our revised approach, the sustainability of green-belt sites must also be prioritised, and local planning authorities must pay particular attention to transport connections when considering whether grey belt is sustainably located.

[Leigh Ingham]

The Minister and I discussed this issue just prior to the recess, particularly in relation to Eccleshall, where greenfield sites with really poor transport infrastructure, as well as poor sewage and water infrastructure, are being proposed for development. I gently remind him that we were going to meet this month or early next month to discuss that further. It would be great to have that meeting put in the diary as soon as possible.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am looking forward to that meeting. The relevant diary slots have moved around on several occasions, but I will ensure that it takes place in the very near future. We can discuss that and other issues.

Because we recognise the value that communities place on green-belt land, we have taken steps to ensure that any necessary development on it must deliver high levels of affordable housing; the provision of new green spaces, or improvements to existing green spaces, that are accessible to the public; and necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure. Our 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, released either through plan making or subject to a planning application.

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will make this the final intervention; otherwise, I will not be able to cover all of the many topics that were raised.

[Gareth Snell]

While the Minister is talking about green-belt land, I want to talk about the Stoke-on-Trent local plan. Berryhill Fields in my constituency has been given a reprieve from previous Conservative plans to build. Other green spaces in Stoke-on-Trent could be protected if there was a way of passporting the Homes England compulsory purchase powers to local authorities so that they could do land assembly in built-up urban areas where landowners who have no interest in building houses in the city are sitting on great swathes of land, which are just causing nuisance and antisocial behaviour. That would help with housebuilding, but also with urban and economic regeneration. If the Minister looked at that, Stoke-on-Trent would probably be up for being a pilot area and seeing what could be done.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is probably worth me writing to my hon. Friend. The Government have undertaken a number of reforms—building, it has to be said, on reforms made by the previous Government in the last Parliament—to compulsory purchase powers. Some of those powers are novel; not many places, if any, have tried some of the new powers that I have brought into force. We are very encouraging of any local authorities that want to explore them. Let me set them out in writing to my hon. Friend so that he has the full detail.

In the time left, I want to address a couple of other issues that were raised, starting with infrastructure provision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South made clear, communities across the country want to see infrastructure delivered as early in the development process as possible rather than as an afterthought. The provision of infrastructure is incredibly important. The NPPF sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. The revised NPPF we published last year also supports the increased provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure.

Planning practice guidance recommends that, when preparing a local plan, local planning authorities use available evidence of infrastructure requirements to prepare what is known as an infrastructure funding statement. Such statements can be used to demonstrate the delivery of infrastructure through the plan period. There is already detailed guidance and an infrastructure funding statement template on the planning advisory service website. However, the chief planner has written to local planning authorities to remind them of their statutory duty to prepare and publish an infrastructure funding statement where they receive developer contributions via section 106 or community infrastructure levy.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South knows, the Government also provide financial support for essential infrastructure in areas of greatest housing demand through land and infrastructure funding programmes, such as the housing infrastructure fund. The Government are also committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide necessary affordable homes and infrastructure. We will set out further details on that specific point in due course.

My hon. Friend mentioned the issue of section 106 moneys. While there is a variety of entirely legitimate reasons why local planning authorities may be holding unspent developer contributions, including to facilitate the effective delivery of phased development projects, we recognise the need to ensure that the contributions that developers make to mitigate the impact of development and make it acceptable in planning terms are used effectively and in a timely manner. Local planning authorities are expected to use all the funding received by way of planning obligations. Individual agreements should normally include clauses stating when and how the funds will be used and allow for their return after an agreed period of time where they are not.

The planning advisory service, funded by my Department, provides support to local planning authorities in the governance of developer contributions. Any local planning authority that receives a contribution from development through section 106 planning obligations must prepare and publish an infrastructure funding statement at least annually. Reporting on developer contributions helps local communities and developers see how contributions have been spent—and, in some circumstances, underspent—and what future funds will be spent on, ensuring a transparent and accountable system. I know from my own constituency, and I hear from many hon. Members, that what communities want is transparency about where those funds go and certainty that they are being spent on the right mitigations to ensure that development is made acceptable. As I said, we will bring forward further reforms to strengthen the section 106 system so that councils are better placed to strike those agreements and ensure that developers are held to the commitments they make.

My hon. Friend raised a number of other issues, including empty homes. I am more than happy to write to her on them. Community right to buy is not my responsibility as a Minister, but I will get the appropriate Minister in my Department to provide her with an update. She rightly mentioned the provisions in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which recently had its Second Reading.

I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate and other hon. Members for taking part. There is clearly a shared set of issues among a set of colleagues that needs addressing. I am more than happy to pick up conversations, and to meet them as a group rather than individually if that is useful, since some common concerns have been raised. I thank my hon. Friend for the clarity with which she expressed the concerns of her constituents and the points that she made.

I emphasise once again that the Government are in complete agreement with my hon. Friend on the importance of plan-led development that provides the necessary infrastructure, amenities and services that communities want. If they get those things—this will not be the case for all her constituents, as it is not the case for all of mine, but it will be true in lots of cases—and we ensure that we get better development as well as more development, that will be a way to assuage some of the concerns that communities have about what housebuilding in their area means. I look forward to continuing to engage with her to ensure that the changes the Government have already made, along with those to come, of which there are many, are of lasting benefit to her constituents as well to as others in the region.

Question put and agreed to.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 14, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendment 18, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 19, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 26, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 27, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 39, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 53, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 55 to 62, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendment 64, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 67, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendments 1 to 10, 12, 13, 15 to 17, 20 to 25, 28 to 38, 40 to 52, 54, 63, 65, 66 and 68 to 77.

[Matthew Pennycook]

This Government were elected with a clear mandate to do what the Conservatives failed to do in the last Parliament—namely, to modernise the regulation of our country’s insecure and unjust private rented sector, and empower private renters by providing them with greater security rights and protections. Our Renters’ Rights Bill does just that, and it needs to receive Royal Assent as quickly as possible so that England’s 11 million private renters can benefit from its provisions.

Before I turn to the Lords amendments, I want to thank Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding the Bill through the other place. I put on record my appreciation of all the peers who contributed to its detailed scrutiny.

As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Government made several important changes to the Bill in the other place with a view to ensuring that it will work as intended and in response to the legitimate concerns raised about the implementation of specific provisions. In the interests of time, I will update the House only on the two that are most apposite.

The first change concerns the date from which a tenant is required to pay a new rent in instances where the first-tier tribunal has set a new rent amount following a tenant’s challenge to a proposed increase. The Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases. It is essential that we deliver on that commitment not only to protect tenants from undue financial pressure, but to prevent rent hikes from being used as a form of back-door eviction once section 21 notices have been abolished.

However, recognising that there is inherent uncertainty about the volume of rent increase challenges that will be brought when the new tenancy system comes into force, and as a safeguard against a scenario in which the first-tier tribunal is overwhelmed by a sharp increase in challenges, Lords amendments 6 to 8 introduce a new delegated power that will enable the backdating of rent increases following determinations by the tribunal of new rent amounts. I want to reiterate what Baroness Taylor made clear in the other place—namely, that it is not the Government’s intention to make use of this new power unless and until it is considered necessary to avoid lengthy delays for genuine cases to be heard. If used, it would be subject to the affirmative procedure to allow appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. In addition to introducing that important safeguard, the Government also concluded that there is a compelling case for the use of an alternative body or mechanism to make initial rent determinations. Subject to a final viability assessment, we intend to establish such an alternative body or mechanism as soon as possible, and will confirm further details in due course.

The second important change the Government made in the other place concerns insurance to cover potential damage from pets. As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill as originally introduced, mirroring provisions in the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill, enabled landlords to request such insurance in instances where a tenant had requested a pet. In response to concerns expressed by several peers that the insurance industry appears unlikely to provide suitable financial products at the speed and scale required, and that the reasonable request of tenants to keep pets might be hampered as a result, Lords amendments 10, 12 and 13 remove the provisions in the Bill which made landlord consent to a request to keep a pet conditional on the tenant taking out, or paying for, pet damage insurance.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Just last week, I was asked a similar question back home; the legislation back home is not covered by this House. The issue for those who have animals is that almost every person who has an animal in a flat, apartment or other property always looks after the property as if it were their own and the issue of animal damage does not come up. It does, however, come up the odd time, so is it not better—I think the Minister is saying this—to have an obligation rather than legislation to ensure that the tenant covers any damage by a pet, because most tenants will be accountable for their pets no matter what?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes a good point. There is evidence that pet damage is, in many cases, not extensive or a particular issue. Where pet damage occurs, as I will come on to make clear in response to the relevant Lords amendment, we think that the provisions in the Tenant Fees Act 2019, which allow for tenant deposits to be changed in response to such issues, mean that we have the necessary delegated powers, but I will set out further detail on that particular issue in due course.

I will now turn to the amendments made by peers in the other place. We welcome the scrutiny and challenge provided, and are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas, but most of the amendments in question serve to undermine the core principles of the Bill and for that reason we cannot accept them. Let me make clear precisely, in each instance, where that is the case, starting with Lords amendment 53.

Lords amendment 53 dramatically broadens the scope of possession ground 4A, so that it encompasses not only full-time students living in houses in multiple occupation, but non-typical students, such as older students with families undertaking postgraduate studies who may live in self-contained one and two-bed properties. Ground 4A exists precisely because the Government recognise the unique nature of the student rental market and are determined to ensure that the annual cycle of student lettings continues accordingly. However, ground 4A was deliberately designed to ensure that the benefits of the new tenancy system introduced in the Bill were not denied to non-typical students. We believe restricting its use to HMOs or dwelling-houses in HMOs strikes the right balance, and I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendment 53.

Lords amendment 64 introduces a new ground for possession for the sole purpose of allowing a landlord to regain their property to house a carer for themselves or a member of their family living with them. Everyone in this Chamber recognises the vital work carers do to support people to live independently and with dignity. However, while the Government are profoundly sympathetic to the needs of those who require care, I am afraid we cannot support this amendment for two main reasons. First, while I appreciate entirely that some peers currently own and let rental properties in close proximity to their homes, with a view to one day using them to house a carer for themselves or members of their family, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that this practice is sufficiently widespread to justify the insertion into the Bill at this late stage of a dedicated possession ground to cater specifically for it. Secondly, the definition of “carer” in the amendment—namely, anyone providing any form of care in a voluntary or contractual arrangement, is so broad that the scope for abuse, in our view, is substantial. I therefore urge the House to reject the amendment.

Lords amendment 18 would reduce the prohibition on re-letting or re-marketing a property following the use of possession ground 1A from 12 months to six. We recognise that there will be occasions when landlords regain vacant possession of their property using ground 1A but are unable subsequently to sell it despite repeated attempts to do so, but we are not prepared to weaken the strong safeguard against abuse provided by the 12-month no-let provision. It is essential to prevent landlords misusing ground 1A and evicting tenants who are not at fault, whether that be because they have made a legitimate complaint or simply because the landlord wants to re-let at a higher rate. The Government remain firmly committed to the 12-month no-let restriction, and I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 18 on that basis.

Lords amendment 19 is a related amendment that exempts shared owners from the 12-month re-letting and re-marketing restriction, as well as other important restrictions. I want to make it clear that the Government recognise the plight of shared owners living in buildings that require remediation. I know from my own efforts to support shared owners in my constituency of Greenwich and Woolwich that those affected by the building safety crisis often face unaffordable costs, often with no viable exit route other than a distressed sale.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The UK needs a vibrant and fluid private rented sector. We need it to deliver communities that are happy and cohesive, and to deliver fairness, stability and security for families. I have been looking at the Government’s position on the Bill, and I pay tribute to the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), for the work he has done on it—or is he the right hon. Member?

[Matthew Pennycook]

indicated dissent.

[Sir James Cleverly]

Well, he deserves to be the right hon. Gentleman. He has been doing the hard yards; he has done loads of work on this Bill. I am sure he was disappointed that he did not get to lead the Department—congratulations to the new Secretary of State—but I have no doubt that the opportunity will come in the near future. I would just say: be patient for the moment.

While I have no doubt that the Bill is full of good intentions, it is poorly though through and counterproductive. In fact, I am assuming it is poorly thought through, but it is entirely feasible that the measures within it are well though through, and are designed to undermine the private rented sector. It is inept, either by accident or on purpose—I will go with inept by accident, because that is more in keeping with the Government’s actions in this Department.

The Bill is clearly a mishmash of measures on issues that are Back-Bench hobby horses—issues that those on the Front Bench do not have the authority or the courage to put to bed. It is entirely counterproductive, as has been recognised and highlighted by their lordships in the other place. The Bill risks driving private landlords out of the sector, reducing the supply of private rented accommodation and pushing up rents for those in the private rented sector. Limiting the supply of such accommodation means limiting the options for tenants in the private rented sector, and leaving them worse off.

We do not need to look very far to see what happens when Governments get this wrong. In Scotland, fixed-term tenancies were abolished, rent controls imposed and regulations tightened, and what was the result? Fewer landlords, shrinking supply and the fastest rises in rents in the UK, with Edinburgh and Glasgow facing steeper rent rises than ineptly Labour-run London. The Labour Government in Westminster are about to make the same mistake, because Government Back Benchers are, for whatever reason, obsessed with “fixing” an already highly successful sector. The private rented sector has the highest satisfaction levels of any tenure type—higher than levels in the social rented sector or among owner-occupiers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir James Cleverly]

No, no, get it right first time. What I said was that extrapolating from a Member of Parliament’s inbox is not a good way of gauging the full spectrum of opinion within a cohort of people. At no point did I say—and I would never say—that we should ignore the people who write to us, and no one should assume that we do. I am pretty certain that the hon. Gentleman would not, and I certainly do not. That is absolutely not what I said.

The point I am making is that the Government’s argument was, “There aren’t that many people, and frankly they’re all posh, so we can ignore them.” That was basically the framing of their argument, but tell that to the extended families of people, typically of ethnic minority origin, who often live in close proximity to each other. There will be communities all across the country where the elders of the family have rented properties that have tenants in them, but because those properties are near where they live, they envisage at some point in the future members of their extended family moving into the properties in order to provide care for them. Disregarding and diminishing this as an idea just because it is something that the Government Front Bench accuse only the posh Members of the other place of doing is rather distasteful.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The shadow Secretary of State failed to address the second concern the Government have about amendment 21, which is the substantial risk of abuse that will flow from the definition of a “carer”. The definition under the amendment could be anyone providing any form of voluntary care. It could be someone who provides the weekly shop. Does he not see the risk of abuse that comes with a ground that is so broadly drawn? That was our other concern, and he has not addressed it.

[Sir James Cleverly]

There are always opportunities for abuse, but we cannot be closing off a provision that would be really valuable to many families around the country because there is a risk of abuse. If we were to do that, there would be loads of areas where Government would not legislate. We do not disregard an opportunity just because of the potential for abuse; we manage that potential for abuse.

I will move on a bit more quickly as I want to ensure that all Labour Back Benchers get their opportunity to speak. [Interruption.] It is their legislation.

Lords amendment 58 in the name of Lord Cromwell would reduce the ban on re-letting from 12 months to six months. That is a wholly pragmatic point. There is the idea in the Bill that a landlord would have to wait for 12 months, but if it is clear after six months that, despite genuine efforts—there is provision to ensure that efforts are genuine—there is no chance of selling, it is entirely reasonable that a landlord should seek to re-let. That is not as quickly as Members on the Labour Benches would do so; nevertheless, it is an entirely fair provision.

The largest Government defeat in the other place came on amendment 59 in the name of Lord Young of Cookham, which is about the exemption for shared owners from the 12-month ban on re-letting. The Minister said at the Dispatch Box that he recognised that this area created challenges, but I urge the Government not to dig in their heels on the issue. The cohort of people envisaged by the amendment are often those most in need of flexibility—people who are not of significant financial means—and limiting their options when it comes to, perhaps, a distressed asset would be entirely wrong. I have no doubt that he recognises that. I urge him to move quickly to a resolution on this matter to reassure the Chamber and the other place that those people will not be disadvantaged by the Bill.

The Lords amendments are well thought through. They attempt to take this mishmash of a Bill and knock it into some credible shape, providing protection for tenants and a bit of reassurance for landlords so that they can continue to provide a supply of private-rented accommodation to help people get on the housing ladder and to live in homes they love and value in communities that they cherish. If the Government choose to blindly ignore those amendments, I have no doubt that the Bill will have the effect of reducing the number of landlords, reducing the number of homes and increasing rents, which is the opposite of what any of us in the Chamber should want. That is why the Opposition will support the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

Indeed, our military deserve no less than this being on the face of the Bill, in whichever way the Government wish to do it. If it is so easy and, as my hon. Friend points out, it is the Government’s position, surely it can hold no fear for them.

It would be disappointing not to have those amendments. We are told that 90% of service accommodation meets the decent homes standard—my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) had clearly already read this part of my speech—but those figures come from contractors who are responsible for managing those properties and have an interest in saying that they already meet the standards. There is no independent assessment.

The Defence Committee painted a very different picture, when families reported to it. The Committee stated:

“It is disingenuous for DIO to present glossy brochures about being ‘decent homes plus’ when they are anything but. It is clear that the DIO’s property frequently does not meet the standards.”

Crucially, it added:

“Moreover, there is no local authority”—

or anyone else—

“to hold them to account as would be the case for private and other local landlords.”

We are also told that it would be impractical to extend the decent homes standard to military housing because of access “behind the wire”, yet former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Stirrup, reminded colleagues in the other place that civilian officials already go into far more sensitive areas of military bases, so that is not a serious objection.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Do those on the Lib Dem Benches have any concerns about one of the issues that I raised: applying the decent homes standard to the defence estate in England when a different standard will apply to Scotland and Wales—to other parts of the United Kingdom? Fracturing the defence estate in that way is problematic.

[Gideon Amos]

Any opportunity to give our service people decent homes, beginning with England, should be taken. I am surprised that the Minister has not grasped it with both hands. The Minister and the Government are in the position, with a large majority, to legislate for this in whichever way they choose, but it needs to be on the face of the legislation. That is what our military deserve. Warm words about things improving are not enough; we have heard them before. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire gained a categoric assurance from the last Government’s Housing Minister at the Dispatch Box that that Government would legislate. They did not.

[Gideon Amos]

I welcome the moves to which the hon. Gentleman refers, including the insourcing, but the responsibility for determining whether the homes meet the “decent homes plus” standard is down to contractors, who have a commercial interest in reporting that. The difference with the decent homes standard generally is that it is subject to independent inspection. That is a crucial difference. Surely there should be a robust and accountable regime set out in primary legislation to ensure that that investment continues and those standards are reached. That is the least that our service people should be able to expect.

As I was saying, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire was given categoric assurances that the Government would legislate in this regard, but they did not and neither have this Government. Lord Stirrup, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, reminded the Lords, speaking from experience, that this is not a new problem but one that Governments had failed to tackle for decades. He said:

“For decades now, I have seen at close hand the deficiencies in service families’ accommodation…For years, I have listened to successive Governments undertake to get to grips with the issue. For decades, I have seen them fail to do so…So why should I, or anybody who comes after me, put any faith in any Government’s promises that are not backed up by enforceable measures?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2025; Vol. 847, c. 1759.]

That is the nub of the issue. Service families have heard promises for decades. Now, surely, is the time for action. Our military deserve the gold standard, and that means they deserve legislative provision for decent homes, however the Government wish to do it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I urge the hon. Gentleman to engage with the clear concession I made from the Dispatch Box: the confirmation that the Ministry of Defence will lay before Parliament—and publish on gov.uk—an annual report on the standard of service family accommodation in the UK, giving transparency, accountability, and reassurance that the standards we all want to see improve and be met will be.

[Gideon Amos]

I welcome any report that will deal with this issue, but the fact is that unless the Government accept an amendment or table their own amendment to provide this protection for service families in primary legislation, our service people will be the only category of renters who are not guaranteed the decent homes standard in primary legislation. Private renters will be, social renters will be, but our military service families will not be. That cannot be right. The balance is wrong and the Government need to do more; they need to legislate.

The Government’s final objection is that they want to do it differently. So be it. I will wait with bated breath, as I am sure the whole House will, for the Government’s amendment giving servicemen and servicewomen the gold standard they deserve. Since the Government have tabled no amendment of their own, however, we shall continue to press ours, both here and in the other place. Our armed forces should not be the only group in Britain excluded from the right to a decent home in legislative terms. That is what Lords amendment 39 delivers, and it must stand part of the Bill.

This Bill is about a vision for better homes and for dignity, security and fairness for renters. That must include the families of our armed forces, such as those of the 40 Commando Royal Marines in Norton Fitzwarren and elsewhere in Taunton. I was proud to start a petition to save Norton Manor camp following its proposed closure by the previous Conservative Government. That commitment must sit alongside our national mission to build more social and council homes—150,000 per year—to restore hope for a whole generation. That is what Liberal Democrats are fighting for, and that is the change the country desperately needs.

--- Later in debate ---

When I hear that from an organisation such as the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance, I find it difficult not to be proud to walk through the Lobby and support my Government in getting rid of the watering-down amendments from the other place. We have an opportunity to make real change for survivors, and I am proud to be part of it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

With the leave of the House, I will close what has been a brief but good-natured and considered debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. In opening the debate, I set out in some detail the reasons the Government are resisting the bulk of the amendments made in the other place, but in the time remaining, I will further substantiate some of the Government’s arguments and respond to a number of the issues that have been raised in the debate.

Several hon. Members questioned the Government’s logic in resisting Lords amendment 75 related to ground 4A. They argued that it is too narrow. As I made clear, ground 4A exists precisely because we recognise the unique nature of the rental market. We think that the ground as it exists covers the majority of the market, but the truth is that no one-size-fits-all solution covers all circumstances. We have been clear: we do not want to deny to non-typical students the benefits of the new tenancy system under the Bill. Removing the restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with children or postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in an area being evicted more regularly. The possession ground as originally drafted strikes the right balance and we will resist the amendment on that basis.

Several hon. Members raised the issue of pet insurance and questioned why the Government have changed their position. Debate in the other place was extensive. Furthermore, alongside that, drawing on the expertise of peers such as the Earl of Kinnoull, Lord de Clifford and Lord Trees, the Government consulted the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. Following such engagement, we concluded that we are no longer confident—as we once were, and as the previous Government were—that the insurance and underwriting sector will have sufficient or suitable products available at the scale and speed required for either landlords or tenants to purchase.

We do not want to leave tenants in a position where they cannot comply with conditions set out as part of the pet consent granted by their landlord, as that would mean—as several hon. Members have made clear—that they simply would not be able to have a pet, which would defeat the object of having the pet provisions in the Bill. The Government’s position, I am pleased to say, is supported by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and other organisations. I hope that hon. Members note that.

A report produced by the University of Huddersfield, which was commissioned by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, found that 76% of landlords reported that they did not encounter any damage caused by dogs or cats in their rental properties. When damage was caused by pets, that was an average additional cost of £300 per property, compared with £775 for non-pet-related damage. The report also shows that renters with pets tend to stay longer in their properties than those without pets, indicating financial and social advantages for landlords in fostering longer and more stable tenancies.

In the rare cases where the insurance and deposit do not cover the cost of the damage caused by a pet, a landlord could take the tenant to a small claims court by bringing a money claim to recoup any outstanding funds. On that basis, and having reflected, we are satisfied that the existing requirement for five weeks’ deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of increased damage by pet ownership. As I noted in my opening speech, however, the Government will continue to keep that under review. We already have powers available to allow for higher deposits for pets if needed.

The very topical and pertinent issue of shared owners affected by the building safety crisis was raised by a number of Members. The Government are absolutely clear: we recognise their plight. As I made clear, we have already taken a number of measures to better support shared owners in that position. We recognise more can be done outside this Bill. We are more than happy to continue conversations with peers, hon. Members and organisations such as the Shared Owners’ Network about what more we can do in this space on issues such as valuations, sub-letting requests and repurchases.

We remain of the view, however, that the amendment in question could undermine protections for that cohort of tenants who happen to rent a sub-let home from a shared owner. Carefully considering arguments made by the peers and their validity, we will have further conversations. I will carry on those conversations to ensure that we are satisfied whether a solution that does not undermine the core principles of the Bill would allow us to provide that greater support to shared owners.

Carers and the carers ground were raised by a number of hon. Members. We have all recognised the contribution that carers make, but we believe that not only is there not sufficient evidence that the scenario in question is extensive—that it is common—but that there are real risks of the ground being abused. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), mentioned the example of families across the country who own properties and who may wish to move a family member back in as a carer. I gently point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, if the carer is a family member as set out in ground 1, a landlord can already use that ground to gain possession, enabling them to accommodate a carer. We think that Lords amendment 64 is drawn too widely and is open to abuse. We will resist it on that basis.

Finally, I come to the last couple of issues that were raised. Several hon. Members made a powerful case for not accepting Lords amendments 26 and 27, related to the criminal standard of proof. We are absolutely clear that the civil—not criminal—standard of proof is the appropriate one. The standard of proof is lower for the breaches in question—breaches of the rental discrimination and rental bidding clauses in the Bill—precisely because they are purely civil, rather than criminal matters. Raising that standard of proof to align with other criminal offences would logically result in repeated instances of those breaches on rental discrimination and rental bidding, attracting the higher fine of £40,000, rather than £7,000. I do not understand the logic of the Opposition’s position, but we very much think that those breaches should remain subject to the civil standard of proof, with the penalty of £7,000 and without the impact on local authorities across the country.

I will briefly address the arguments made by Liberal Democrat Members about service family accommodation. We have had extensive debates about the subject and I know that they are coming from an honourable place when they make those arguments, but I gently point out that the Ministry of Defence has made it clear that in its view, subjecting secure defence sites to local authority inspections, as proposed in the amendment tabled by Baroness Grender, is unworkable because of access and security arrangements. As several hon. Members have said, let us find a solution to that. The MOD does not think there is a workable solution and is worried about fracturing how standards are applied across the defence estate, as this legislation applies only to England. As I have said, in the coming months, the Government will bring forward a defence housing strategy, setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve accommodation. I have offered a very clear concession from the Dispatch Box that we will provide for annual reporting to give the transparency and accountability that those standards will be met.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his engagement in the issue of service family accommodation. Will he consider bringing forward primary legislation, on the face of this Bill or another Bill, so that service families are given the same legislative protection that private and social tenants are given?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to continue the conversation with the hon. Gentleman and with Liberal Democrat peers in the other place, but our argument today is that we cannot accept the amendment tabled by Baroness Grender. We think that the concessions that I have offered today from the Dispatch Box should be sufficient to satisfy the concerns that have been raised.

I will briefly address the incredibly important issue of implementation, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). This Bill must receive Royal Assent as soon as possible. The time that it has taken for the legislation to make its progress through the House is not cost-free. Families across the country have been subject to no-fault section 21 evictions, which we know are a leading cause of homelessness, and renters across the country need the Bill on the statute book.

Following Royal Assent, we will allow for a smooth transition to the new system, and we will support tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules. We want to make that change as smoothly and efficiently as possible, and to introduce the new tenancies for the private rented sector in one stage. On that date, the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies: existing tenancies will convert to the new system and any new tenancies signed on or after the date will be governed by the new rules. We will work closely with all parts of the sector to ensure a smooth transition and we will provide sufficient notice ahead of implementation.

To conclude, this Labour Government are going to succeed where their Conservative predecessor failed. We will level decisively the playing field between landlord and tenant, and transform the experience of private renting in England. While we have shown ourselves more than willing to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to concerns raised, we are not prepared to accept amendments that undermine its core principles. I look forward to continuing the constructive conversations that I have had with peers over recent weeks, with a view to securing agreements across both Houses in the near future, and I commend the Government’s position to the House.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11.

Housing Provision in Stafford

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this debate. As you know, she always speaks with force and passion on behalf of her constituents, and has done so again today on this important matter.

I appreciate fully the concerns that my hon. Friend expresses on behalf of residents in Eccleshall. I assure her that the Government want to see more plan-led development, and development generally, to provide all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities. Without doubt, much more remains to be done, but I trust she recognises that the Government have already taken decisive steps to deliver on those objectives.

My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am unable to comment on her local development plan or on individual planning applications within her constituency, due to the role of Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers in the planning system. I will seek to respond to the points she has made in general terms.

Let me start by addressing the concerns that my hon. Friend expressed about local development plans. She is absolutely right to highlight the importance of areas having up-to-date local plans, and the detrimental impact on individuals and communities where that is not the case. Local plans are the best ways for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their areas need. We want more people involved in the development of local plans. The plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our planning system, but a locally led planning system only operates effectively if coverage is extensive.

As my hon. Friend will no doubt be aware, we inherited a system where less than a third of local plans were up to date. We are taking decisive steps to progress towards our ambition of universal local plan coverage, both in providing local planning authorities that are striving to do the right thing with financial support and intervening where necessary to drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the length of time that it takes to progress and adopt a local plan—on average, seven years. Slow progress in the preparation of local plans means that those areas are at greater risk of speculative development and that those local plans are out of date more quickly upon adoption, which creates uncertainty for communities and holds back development where it is needed. That is one of the many reasons why we intend to introduce a new, faster and clearer process for preparing plans. That new system will set a clear expectation that local plans, as well as mineral and waste plans, are routinely prepared and adopted in 30 months. Other aspects of our reforms will support that aim, such as the introduction of gateways, shorter, simpler and more standardised content focused on the core principles of plan making, and a series of digital transformation initiatives.

The new system will help us to deliver and maintain universal coverage across England, supporting the Government’s wider commitments to deliver the development the country needs. It is our intention that a package of plan-making reforms, enabled through provisions in the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023, will commence later this year. I understand that Stafford borough council has chosen to introduce its next local plan under the new local plan-making system that we intend to put in place, and my Department will continue to engage with it to that end.

Where plans are not up to date and local planning authorities are not delivering in line with the needs of their communities, it is right that development can come forward outside of the plan; the homes our country needs cannot be put on hold. However, we have been clear that that is not a passport to poor-quality housing. That is why we added new safeguards to the presumption in the revised national planning policy framework that we published in December last year. The absence of an up-to-date local plan does not remove the need for local planning authorities to consider the use of conditions or planning obligations to make otherwise unacceptable development acceptable. That can include the provision of necessary site-specific infrastructure at appropriate trigger points in the development, and local planning authorities have enforcement powers to ensure compliance with any such provisions.

My hon. Friend asked me, very reasonably, what can be done about multiple applications and whether they can be considered in the round. I again stress the point that local development plans are the most appropriate way to consider applications in the round, in terms of allocating appropriate sites to come forward, and local plans do have an element of sequencing to them in what development they expect to come forward during the whole life of the plan, but for specific applications, it might be worth stressing that other proposed developments can be a material consideration in the determination of an individual planning application, although that is always decided on a case-by-case basis.

As my hon. Friend made clear, communities across the country, including in Eccleshall, want to see infrastructure provision delivered as early in the development process as possible, rather than being an afterthought that comes right at the end. The national planning policy framework sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. The revised NPPF, which was published last year, will also support the increased provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure.

Local development plans should address needs and opportunities in relation to infrastructure, and identify what infrastructure is required and how it can be funded and brought forward. When preparing a local plan, planning practice guidance recommends that local planning authorities use available evidence of infrastructure requirements to prepare an infrastructure funding statement. Such statements can be used to demonstrate the delivery of infrastructure throughout the plan period. There is already detailed guidance and an infrastructure funding statement template on the planning advisory service website. However, the chief planner wrote to all local planning authorities recently to remind them of their statutory duty to prepare and publish an infrastructure funding statement where they receive developer contributions via section 106 and/or the community infrastructure levy.

The Government also provide financial support for essential infrastructure in areas of greatest housing demand through land and infrastructure funding programmes such as the housing infrastructure fund. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government are also committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide necessary affordable homes and infrastructure. We will set out further details about our proposals in that area in due course.

It is worth mentioning the provisions in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will provide for mandatory spatial development strategies in sub-regions across the country. That is a good example of how groups of local planning authorities can plan at higher than the local planning level for the effective delivery of new homes and infrastructure across a wider area, making smarter decisions in a framework that sees infrastructure and investment come forward.

Finally, my hon. Friend raised the issue of agricultural land. The Government place great importance upon our agricultural land and food production. The NPPF is clear that planning policies and decisions should recognise the benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land—namely, land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the agricultural land classification system. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of higher quality. That said, the Government recognise that the system used to grade agricultural land is currently not fit for purpose. The maps are outdated, not at a scale suitable for the assessment of individual fields or sites, and are not suited to the changing suitability of land. The Government are exploring what improvements are needed to the ALC system to support effective land use decisions.

To conclude, I commend my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I thank her for the clarity with which she expressed the concerns felt by her constituents and Eccleshall and beyond. I emphasise once again my agreement with her about the importance of plan-led development to provide the necessary infrastructure, amenities and services. I am more than happy to meet with her to have a separate conversation on Eccleshall specifically, as she requested, but in general terms, I look forward to continuing to engage with her to ensure that the changes that the Government have already made, along with those to come, are to the lasting benefit of her constituents and those of other hon. Members across the country.

Dr Huq, I wish you, my hon. Friend and other hon. Members an enjoyable and productive summer recess.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Reciprocated all round, I think.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025 Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 (First sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. Alongside our commitment to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, the Government are determined to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing. By ensuring that tenants can feel safe in their homes and giving social landlords clarity as to their responsibilities, the draft regulations are a vital part of that effort.

I will take the draft regulations in turn, starting with the hazards in social housing regulations, or Awaab’s law. As the Committee will know, Awaab Ishak was just two years old when he died in December 2020, as a result of a severe respiratory condition that was due to prolonged exposure to mould in the social home that his family rented from Rochdale Boroughwide Housing. In the wake of his untimely death, Awaab’s parents have tenaciously and courageously fought to secure justice not only for their son, but for all those who live in social housing. The Deputy Prime Minister and I are deeply grateful to them for their passion and persistence.

Awaab’s death was wholly avoidable. His parents raised concerns about their living conditions time and again, but their landlord failed to take any action to treat the dangerous mould present in their home. Awaab’s law is vital legislation that will empower social tenants to hold their social landlords to account, using the full force of the law, if they fail to investigate and fix hazards in their homes within set timeframes. Tenants will also be able to secure access to the Housing Ombudsman Service if their landlord does not adhere to the strict timelines for action in the regulations.

Although progress also depends on a more fundamental change in the culture and values of social housing providers, Awaab’s law will play an integral role in ensuring that all social landlords take complaints about hazards seriously, respond to them in a timely and professional manner, and treat tenants with empathy, dignity and respect. It is also the Government’s sincere hope that over time it will build trust between tenants and landlords.

The regulations apply to the social rented sector, but we are committed to extending Awaab’s law to the private rented sector, and have included measures in the Renters’ Rights Bill to achieve that. We are carefully considering how best to apply Awaab’s law to the PRS in a way that is fair, proportionate and effective for both tenants and landlords. We will consult on that matter separately.

The Awaab’s law regulations will require social landlords to investigate and fix all emergency hazards, as well as damp and mould hazards that pose a significant risk to residents’ health and safety, within set timeframes. Potential significant hazards will have to be investigated by social landlords within 10 working days. Once the landlord has carried out an investigation, they will have to send written summaries to tenants within three working days and take action to ensure that the home is safe within five working days. Emergency hazards will have to be investigated and made safe within a maximum of 24 hours. If the social landlord cannot make the home safe within relevant timescales, they will be required to secure suitable alternative accommodation for the household until their home is safe to return to.

Finally, any additional works to prevent the hazard from recurring must begin as quickly as possible, and no later than 12 weeks from the time of the investigation, and will have to be completed within a reasonable period. Social landlords will also need to investigate potential emergency hazards and take action to make all emergency hazards safe, excluding cladding remediation work, as soon as possible and within 24 hours.

Awaab’s law implies terms into social housing tenancy agreements, so that once the regulations are in force, all social landlords will have to comply with the requirements of Awaab’s law. If they do not, tenants will be able to hold their social landlords to account by taking legal action through the courts for breach of contract. Awaab’s law will also include a provision for a defence if registered providers can prove that they have used all reasonable endeavours to comply with the requirements of the regulations. That means that landlords will not be liable for a breach of the regulations if, for reasons genuinely beyond their control, they have not been able to comply with them.

We intend to act as quickly as possible to bring all relevant hazards within the scope of the new legal requirements, but, to ensure its effective implementation, we have been clear that we intend to implement Awaab’s law through a phased approach. The regulations represent the first phase, covering emergency hazards and damp and mould hazards that present a significant risk of harm to tenants. They will provide for an initial period of testing and learning to ensure the reform is being delivered in way that benefits social tenants and secures the lasting legacy that Awaab Ishak’s family have fought so hard for.

In 2026, we will expand the requirements to apply to a wider range of hazards beyond damp and mould. The hazards we expect to extend Awaab’s law to in the second stage of implementation include excess cold and heat, falls, structural collapse, fire, electrical and explosions, and hygiene hazards. In 2027, we will expand the requirements further to apply to the remaining hazards as defined by the housing health and safety rating system, excluding overcrowding. As we progressively extend the application of Awaab’s law, we will continue to test and learn to ensure that the new requirements are operating effectively, and we will clarify and adapt our approach if it proves necessary to do so.

It is important to stress that the phased approach to introducing Awaab’s law in no way means that social landlords have any leeway when it comes to meeting their existing duties to address dangers to health and safety present in their homes before Awaab’s law is fully implemented. Awaab’s law establishes timeframes for social landlords to act, and if social landlords fail to meet those timeframes they could be challenged by tenants through complaints processes, the Housing Ombudsman Service, and ultimately the courts.

However, social landlords already have a duty to keep their homes fit for human habitation and free of category 1 hazards, as well as to remedy disrepair. The Government expect those duties to be met. Social landlords must ensure that their homes meet the decent homes standards, and it is critical that they take action as quickly as possible to resolve any issues of concern in the homes they let, and to guarantee the safety and comfort of their occupants.

I will turn now to the draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025. All rented homes must be free from dangerously hazardous conditions, including dangerous electrics. In addition, private landlords are required to check the electrical installations in their properties every five years. This Government are determined to ensure that tenants in social housing have the same protections. The regulations will come into force for new tenancies in November this year, and for all existing tenancies in May next year.

All landlords, social and private, will have to have the electrical installations in their properties inspected and tested by a person who is qualified and competent at least every five years. Landlords will need to ensure that electrical safety standards are met, and that investigations or repairs are carried out if required. The electrical safety standards, as set out in the British standard BS 7671, are the national standard developed by the Institution of Engineering and Technology.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the Minister for giving way; I know it is not the convention in a Delegated Legislation Committee, but I wanted to raise issues in my constituency for both social and private tenants. The Minister touched on the issue of ensuring that electrics are checked every five years. Does he recognise the importance of that for residents in my constituency of Harlow, who are concerned about the electrics in their rented properties? That has caused them anguish. Does the Minister see the regulations as the first part of tackling that, making residents in Harlow feel secure and safe in their homes?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It would not be a debate of any kind with my hon. Friend present were he not to take the opportunity to get Harlow on the record. He is a doughty champion for his constituency and I recognise the concern that he raises. The importance of these regulations is that requirements that already apply to the private rented sector will apply equally to those in the social rented sector. We want parity with how the requirements apply across tenancies, so that social housing tenants benefit from the same protections.

The regulations also introduce mandatory appliance inspections on electrical appliances that social landlords provide. All landlords will have to provide a copy of the electrical safety report to their tenants and local authority if requested. That means that tenants will be informed about what work has been carried out in their home, and will have a record of the testing. Local authorities will also have the power to require landlords to carry out vital remedial works, or to arrange the works themselves and recover the costs from the landlord if relevant action is not taken by them.

Additionally, the regulations will raise the maximum financial penalty to £40,000 for those landlords, private or social, who do not comply. Many landlords are already taking a proactive approach to keeping homes safe from electrical faults, so these regulations will not add additional burdens to them. However, we must ensure that all landlords are taking appropriate action and that all tenants can feel safe by making electrical safety checks a mandatory requirement for social landlords as well as those in the private rented sector.

To conclude, the Government are clear that homes must, above all, be safe. Establishing clear standards and requirements of social landlords, and clear timelines to meet those requirements, will eliminate uncertainty for tenants and for landlords, helping to ensure that that is the case. Since their inception in primary legislation, both sets of draft regulations have received broad support, including from across the House—I recognise that Awaab’s law has its genesis in primary legislation under the previous Government and I commend the previous Secretary of State for his work in the area.

I am confident that in bringing the draft regulations into force, we will have robust regulations and robust protections for tenants of all tenures. They have been strengthened by consultation with the sector. Subject to the approval of Parliament, Awaab’s law is due to come into force from October this year. Electrical safety requirements, as I have said, will come into force for new social tenancies in November this year, and for all existing tenancies six months later. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for his broad support for the regulations and their intention, and for his questions. Again, before I address his specific points, I express my gratitude to Awaab’s family for their tireless campaigning in reaching this point—and, it should be said, to all the organisations and campaigners that have supported them along the way.

To respond to the hon. Gentleman’s points, we have absolutely given serious consideration to the ability of registered providers of social housing to implement these requirements. One of the reasons why we are taking a phased approach, as I explained when setting out the purpose of the instrument dealing with emergencies and damp and mould hazards in the first instance, is to ensure that the sector as a whole is able and ready to implement these requirements, and that we can take a “test and learn” approach before extending the hazards in phases two and three.

We also absolutely recognise that placing additional requirements on social landlords brings challenges in terms of costs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the measures that the Government have undertaken, including recently through the spending review, to rebuild the financial capacity of social landlords, so that they can play their full part not only in maximising the delivery of new social homes, but in bringing their existing stock up to standard. He will know that we announced £39 billion at the spending review for a 10-year social and affordable homes programme, but we also took other action, including a 10-year rent settlement and holding a consultation, which is currently out, on a rent convergence mechanism, which will rebuild that capacity and allow social housing providers to make these changes, as well as others that we are bringing forward on quality and decency. He will know that, for example, a modernised decent homes standard is out for consultation, and we have consulted on minimum energy efficiency standards.

On enforcement generally, as I said, Awaab’s law implies terms in all social tenancy agreements. Social landlords will have to meet those requirements when they come into force, and if they do not, tenants can hold their landlords to account. If social landlords fail to comply with the requirements of Awaab’s law, tenants will be able to challenge them through the courts for breach of contract. If the court finds that the social landlord is in breach, it will be able to order the landlord to rectify the problem and/or pay compensation. Seeking redress through the courts is not the only way that tenants can challenge their landlords for breaches of Awaab’s law. Tenants may wish to complain directly to their landlord in the first instance. That can then be escalated to the housing ombudsman, which has the power to order landlords to undertake repairs and pay compensation to the tenant—as the Committee will know, the housing ombudsman is a free service for tenants.

Lastly, to answer the shadow Minister’s question about electrical safety—essentially, it was, “Will there be enough electricians to carry out these works?”— I draw his attention to the efforts we are making in various other respects and across Departments to expand and upskill the construction workforce, and to expand the supply of all the construction workforce we need for the built environment more generally, to ensure that we can meet our ambitious targets and all the other quality and safety measures that we are introducing. In relation to these regulations, we work closely with the electrical safety industry—the very people who will be doing the inspections—and with landlords to develop the policy.

To support implementation, we are introducing the regulations through a phased approach, as I have said, with new tenancies coming into scope first and existing tenancies six months later. We will absolutely continue to engage with landlords and encourage them to carry out inspections sooner rather than later, rather than waiting until the date on which the new requirements come into force. I am more than happy to extensively describe the other measures that the Government are taking—albeit perhaps on a different occasion, Mr Vickers—such as the £625 million that the Chancellor has just allocated to bring forward construction workers, or the various industry-led initiatives out there that we are supporting.

To conclude, it is not in dispute that far too many tenants still live in homes that are not well managed or maintained—we all know that from our postbags—or that they often struggle to secure adequate redress. We are taking action today to address this indefensible situation by ensuring that damp and mould hazards and all emergency repairs, whether they relate to damp or mould or any other hazards, are addressed within fixed timescales, and requiring landlords to meet standards of electrical safety. We will drive up the safety and quality of all social homes.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to increase housing delivery.

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

The Government’s plan for change includes a hugely ambitious target of building 1.5 million new homes in England in this Parliament. In the 12 months we have been in office, we have taken decisive steps to boost housing supply, including overhauling the national planning policy framework and introducing the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will further streamline the delivery of new homes, as well as critical infrastructure.

[Danny Beales]

It is welcome to once again have a Government who believe in house building. I thank the Minister for his comments. When I speak to house builders, one of the issues they raise with me is the performance of the Building Safety Regulator. Shovel-ready projects that have planning permission are delayed at gateway 2, and checks that should take a matter of weeks are taking months, if not years. What is the Department doing to manage the performance of the regulator, ensure it has the resources it needs, and hold it to account, so that we get spades in the ground as soon as possible?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the operation of the Building Safety Regulator, which, while essential to upholding building safety standards, is causing delays in handling applications for building projects, and is having an impact on new supply in London. I hope he will take comfort not only from the £2 million the Government allocated to the BSR in February, but from the targeted package of reforms we announced last month, including the establishment of a new fast-track process to reduce delays and strengthen leadership and governance.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

The Government promised to increase housing delivery through grey-belt, not green-belt, development. Grey belt was described as

“poor quality land, car parks and wasteland.”

However, since the new guidance was published, Hertsmere has been inundated with applications that simply seek to rebrand green belt as grey belt. The lack of clarity and the inconsistent application of the rules mean that such applications are hard to resist. Will the Minister provide greater clarity and tighten the rules before large swathes of Radlett, Bushey, Shenley, Potters Bar and Borehamwood succumb to urban sprawl?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. He cited the planning practice guidance we have issued, which has a very clear definition of the grey belt and the rules for it. When it comes to plan making, local authorities must take a sequential approach. On decision making for applications outside of local plans, he will know that we have imposed very strict laws to ensure viability assessments are not used on those sites. Where development comes forward and is judged to be appropriate by decision makers—and by the Planning Inspectorate in appeals—those golden rules will also ensure high levels of affordable housing, infrastructure and access to green space.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s bold and ambitious plan to deliver more housing, especially affordable and social homes, in Wandsworth. The council is already delivering homes, but of the 800 homes in its plan, only 50 are accessible for wheelchairs. How will the Government deliver more accessible homes, and will the Minister agree to raise the default standard to the M4(2) standard of accessibility and adaptation, so that everybody has the opportunity to live in a safe and accessible home?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I have a vague memory of certain parliamentary questions asking much the same, and I refer her to those answers. We want to ensure that all people have accessible homes. We are considering the M4(2) standard, and we will make announcements in due course about the accessibility of new homes in general.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

When the Minister has met major house builders, what have they told him about the chances of hitting the Government’s target of building 1.5 million new houses in this Parliament?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Those house builders have expressed their confidence, and their gratitude for the reforms that the Government have carried out. It is slightly peevish of the right hon. Lady, who stood for election on a manifesto that committed her party to 1.6 million homes, to say that our 1.5 million homes target is unachievable. We quite regularly hear from Conservative Members that we are concreting over every inch of England, but at the same time that we cannot meet our targets. We will meet that target of 1.5 million homes.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Lord knows who the Housing Minister is talking to, because time and again, developers have said that he cannot achieve his target of 1.5 million homes. As he knows, I have severe doubts about his ability to meet such unrealistic housing targets, and I suspect the Opposition will be proven right. However, if he does succeed, the quality of new homes must be maintained. Will he do what the New Homes Quality Board is calling for, and ensure mandatory board membership for developers of all shapes and sizes, and an empowered ombudsman, so that home occupiers are protected?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for that question. He is absolutely right that our target of 1.5 million new homes, which is extremely stretching—we have never said anything other than that—does not entail units at any cost. The design and quality of new homes and new places are incredibly important. He rightly cites the new homes code of practice, and we are giving consideration in the round to whether that can be strengthened—for example, whether it needs to be put on a statutory footing. In general, we want to drive up the quality of new homes in the places and communities we are creating.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Lady draws the attention of the House to an incredibly important point. The Government are clear that the house building sector can thrive only when there is fair and open competition. Where that is found not to be the case, it is right that the CMA acts decisively, as it has done in this instance by extracting £100 million for social and affordable housing from the seven house builders investigated. We are taking action to fix our broken housing system, as I have said, by overhauling the planning system, addressing our dysfunctional land market, and ending our over-reliance on a speculative model of development that produces sub-optimal outcomes and constrains housing supply. If she has evidence of any individuals being directly affected in the purchase of their home, I would be very grateful if she could bring it to my attention.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

4. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of reductions in council tax revenue from student houses in multiple occupation on local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

22. What plans she has to increase community involvement in the planning process.

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

The Government strongly encourage broad community engagement in the planning process, and we want to see greater public participation in the development of local plans in particular. We are currently exploring new ways to increase and enhance community engagement in the planning process, including by improving access to planning data through its digitisation.

[Harriet Cross]

I am sure the Minister agrees it is vital that local residents’ concerns are properly listened to, especially on major planning decisions. Having listened to many constituents in places such as New Deer, Kintore and Rothienorman who are facing huge amounts of energy infrastructure, I tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would have created a statutory duty of consultation for infrastructure in Scotland. In Committee, the Minister argued against it and said that the Scottish Government’s discretionary power was satisfactory. Will he please explain why the Government believe that a discretionary power, which my constituents fear will simply be ignored, provides meaningful engagement while the statutory right that I proposed would not?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I can do no better than to draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the extensive remarks that I made in the Bill Committee.

[Sarah Bool]

In Towcester, when the DHL development was going through planning, more than 1,100 residents submitted objections to the council, thousands signed petitions, I spoke on their behalf as their MP against the plans and locally elected councillors voted 11 to one against it at the strategic planning committee meeting, but it was ultimately approved on appeal. Residents, naturally, are losing faith in engaging in the system. The Minister referred in a written question to there being a more democratic plan-led system taking in larger numbers of voices. In our case, how many more residents would need to be involved to have an impact?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think that the hon. Lady—if I followed her argument—was speaking about objections lodged to an individual planning application. We are making no changes to that process. Residents all over the country will still be able to object to any planning application that comes forward. We are making sensible changes to improve the certainty and speed at which planning decisions will be taken, with a two-tier approach —a consultation is live at the moment to which she can offer input—but when it comes to local plans, which are a slightly separate issue, we are looking to encourage greater participation upstream. Local plans are the best means by which local communities can shape the development coming forward in their area.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

In Hartlepool, the Tees Valley Mayor’s development corporation has removed planning powers for large swathes of the town from all democratic control. In turn, much of the planning function has been outsourced to a private company with no connection to Hartlepool, which is ruling out any community involvement. Will the Minister look at curbing the powers of development corporations so that planning remains in the hands of democratically elected politicians?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I note my hon. Friend’s concerns in relation to the Tees Valley. In general, we are looking to streamline the powers given to development corporations—we took measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to allow them, for example, to shape transport in areas—but if he wants to write to me or Ministers to raise more of the specifics of that case, we would be more than happy to take a look.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Community support is always vital for development, and with 95% of planning applications already decided by officials under delegated powers, it is clear that that democratic voice can be missing. Can the Minister tell the House why, taking that in tandem with the devolution White Paper, which envisages abolishing around 75% of councillors who represent their local residents on planning committees in England, local communities do not deserve more of a say, rather than less, in the planning process?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We do want local communities to have more of a say, particularly when it comes to the development of local plans, which are, as I have said, the best means for local communities to shape development in their areas. When it comes to the national scheme of delegation, which is the point the hon. Gentleman is really driving at, he knows that as things stand every local authority across the country has its own scheme of delegation. There is a huge amount of variation there. There is good practice and bad practice, and—as we debated at great length in the Bill Committee—we think there is a strong case for a national scheme of delegation to improve certainty and the speed of planning decisions. He is more than welcome to respond to the consultation that is live at present.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

13. What discussions she has had with local authorities in Scotland on community regeneration funding.

--- Later in debate ---

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

16. What assessment she has made of the potential merits of allowing local authorities to end the right to buy in their areas.

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

The Government do not intend to abolish the right to buy, either nationally or by giving local areas discretion to do so. We want to ensure that council tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their social homes for many years can retain the opportunity to own their home. We are, however, progressing fundamental reform of the scheme to better protect much-needed social housing stock, boost council capacity and ensure that more social homes are built than lost.

[Gideon Amos]

My Somerset councillor colleagues have for decades steadfastly protected and managed our stock of council houses, which has declined through right to buy from tens of thousands a number of years ago to only 6,000 now. While I welcome the recent attention to this issue by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister, is it not time that communities decide for themselves whether to sell off council houses at all?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Although I respect the hon. Gentleman and his views, we have a principled difference of opinion on this matter. As I have made clear, the Government’s considered view is that long-standing council tenants should be able to buy the homes that they have lived in for many years. I hope, however, that the right-to-buy reforms that we have made and announced today—reduced maximum cash discounts, allowing councils to retain 100% of receipts and exempting newly built social homes from the right to buy for 35 years—will create a fairer and more sustainable scheme.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Government support selective licensing as a tool to tackle the impact of poor housing management on local communities. The general approval that we granted in December gives councils full powers to introduce schemes, regardless of their size. My hon. Friend’s own authority will have heard loud and clear his call for it to consider doing so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

T2.   Home ownership feels increasingly out of reach for many first-time buyers, particularly for young families who want to remain in the beautiful Scottish Borders. What can the Government do to ensure that house builders deliver more affordable family-sized homes in all parts of the United Kingdom so that local people have the chance to own their home in the communities where they were brought up?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman will know that housing is a devolved matter. When it comes to affordability, we are taking steps not only to boost housing supply significantly, as I have set out, but to ensure that more first-time buyers can get access, not least through the permanent mortgage guarantee scheme, on which the Chancellor will add more details in her Mansion House speech this week.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

T8.   The latest evidence shows that the gap between average wages and rent in my constituency of Poole is one of the widest in the country. Can the Minister explain how we will ensure that the new homes that we build will be truly affordable and not subject to excessive rent increases?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend will have noted the £39 billion allocated at the spending review to our new 10-year social and affordable homes programme, which, as the Deputy Prime Minister has made clear, we think will deliver about 300,000 affordable homes over its lifetime, with about 180,000 for social rent. He will also know that our Renters’ Rights Bill includes provisions that will empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

T3.  Two major reports—one from Shelter, which is coming, and one last week from Heriot-Watt University—have exposed something that I have observed myself in housing casework for many years, as a councillor and as an MP: people from some minority groups, even beyond the structural racism in society, experience worse outcomes and even direct discrimination from councils in regard to their access to housing. Will the Secretary of State commit to writing a formal response to me on the recommendations in those reports?

[Mr Speaker]

A “yes” will do.

[Matthew Pennycook]

If the hon. Lady writes to me about the issue, I will certainly respond to her.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

T9. Residents in Heather Gardens and Kett’s Meadow in Hethersett have seen a 60% hike in fees from the residential management group, supposedly for playgrounds that are fenced off and just dust. What action will the Government be taking to stop these rip-off practices and support my residents in South Norfolk?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend raises a matter that I know is of concern to hon. Members across the House. It is precisely to protect residential freeholders in Hethersett and other freehold estates across the country from unfair charges that we will consult in the near future on how we implement the consumer protection provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 relating to the payment of estate management charges.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

T6.   On that note, many of my constituents living on new freehold developments such as Mortimer Park in Driffield would like to see residents being given the power to strip those unaccountable estate management firms of their responsibility for shared space and let the local authority adopt that land. Is it the Government’s intention to legislate to make that possible?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman draws the House’s attention to an important point about freehold estates, and I direct his attention to the report by the Competition and Markets Authority on the matter if he wants to read further. There is a problem here: too many amenities and infrastructures are not being delivered to common adoptable standards, and therefore many local authorities rightly say that they do not expect to pick up the tab for bringing those amenities up to the relevant standard and then maintaining them. We have got to tackle both issues as we look to end the prevalence of these freehold estate arrangements going forward.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

In Suffolk Coastal, the housing crisis is no less severe than in other rural areas across the country, and my constituents are keen that future development builds in for nature. Will the Minister comment on what plans the Government have to ensure that we build in for nature, and specifically on the prospect of, and appetite for support for, swift bricks?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Although swift brick coverage is increasing, we want to drive up swift brick installation. As I made clear on Report of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, we are considering using a new sweep of national policies for decision making, to require swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings unless there are compelling reasons that preclude their use or would make them ineffective.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

T10. Will the Minister outline what new planning powers could be provided to local councils to ensure that my local communities in Broxbourne can say no to houses in multiple occupation—HMOs—where they are not wanted?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman—who I have great affection for, as we go through our tenure—is a highly experienced former councillor, and he will know that local authorities already have article 4 powers. If he has evidence that those powers are not proving effective, I would really like to have more information.

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the light of the Government’s determination to bring prosperity to coalfield communities like Doncaster, does the Minister share my desire for the fast delivery of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust industrial project? It is also important to transfer any potential funds directly to the CRT, so as not to delay any delivery with bureaucratic processes and bidding.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

My constituent Ryan from Carpenders Park wrote me with concerns about the lack of community spaces, especially alongside the Government’s housing targets. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government will ensure there are community spaces to support any new housing developments?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. He will forgive me if he knows this already, but we did strengthen the provision for infrastructure in our recent changes to the national planning policy framework. Beyond that, we want to strengthen the existing system for developer contributions—where infrastructure and affordable housing comes through planning agreements—so that local authorities can extract more public gain from that process.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

Cayton, a village in my constituency, could now become home to 2,500 new homes through the Government’s new homes accelerator. To ensure the success of that project, it is essential that we deliver the appropriate infrastructure, such as GP services, proper drainage and roads, all of which have not accompanied previous developments. What steps is the Minister taking to develop a coastal strategy to ensure that new developments for coastal villages like Cayton are delivered alongside infrastructure?

--- Later in debate ---

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Last week, nearly 3,000 people across Stafford borough were told at short notice that Homes Plus, one of our housing associations, is effectively scrapping the current housing waiting list. It also said that nearly 2,000 people no longer had a housing need, but it has not explained how it has come to that conclusion. People are confused, angry and scared. Does the Minister agree that this is unacceptable, and will he meet me to help me find a way forward for those who have been left in limbo?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will happily meet my hon. Friend about that concerning development. If she could write to me with the details in advance, that would be extremely useful.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is my understanding that South Hams district council is in an arguably more sound fiscal position than the neighbouring Plymouth city council. What can the Secretary of State say to reassure me that local government reorganisation will not mimic either a forced marriage or a bad marriage where the fiscally prudent one bails out the other?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

In reply to an earlier question, the Planning Minister said that he wanted to increase the number of people who engage in the preparation of local plans. He will know that even if that number was doubled, it would still be a small proportion of the local community. When applications are being considered, local communities want them to be decided and determined by local authorities with minimal central input. Will the Minister guarantee that local authorities will continue to have that power?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Under our proposals in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill for a national scheme of delegation, it will still be local planning authorities that make recommendations and decisions. As the hon. Gentleman will know if he looks at the consultation, all we propose is a two-tier system in which a set of minor applications go to expert local planning officers. A separate tier can go to a planning committee, where the chair of planning and the chief planning officer decide that that is the case. Again, I encourage the hon. Gentleman to respond to the consultation.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

We are seeing massive investment in the regeneration of Derby city centre, including the opening of a new entertainment venue and the reopening of our market hall, which is bursting with small and independent businesses. Regeneration also means ensuring that our city feels safe, welcoming and inclusive. Will the Minister tell us how the Department is working with the Home Office to ensure that our cities and towns are thriving and safe?

Colne Valley Regional Park: Protection

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Friday 11th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) on securing this important debate. She and I disagree on many aspects of politics and policy, but no one can doubt the strength with which she speaks on behalf of those she represents.

The Government recognise the vital role that the Colne Valley regional park plays in providing access to countryside and green space for the millions of people who live in close proximity to it. We appreciate fully that it is highly valued by local communities. We also recognise its importance for biodiversity; as the hon. Lady knows, the park contains part of one special protection area, part of one national nature reserve, 13 sites of special scientific interest and seven local nature reserves.

I assure the hon. Lady that I share her desire to ensure that the Colne Valley regional park is protected for current and future generations to enjoy, and I hope that I can reassure her today that the Government’s commitment to delivering the housing and infrastructure growth that our country so desperately needs is not at odds with safeguarding the park for future generations.

It might be useful for me to set out the protections already afforded by existing national planning policy. As set out in paragraph 7 of the national planning policy framework, the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of homes, commercial development and supporting infrastructure, in a sustainable manner. The framework makes clear that sustainable development should be pursued through both the preparation and implementation of local development plans and the application of policies in the framework.

Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives: economic, social and environmental. To support its environmental objective, the NPPF sets out that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity or geological value in a manner commensurate with their statutory status—as the hon. Lady has made clear, the Colne Valley regional park does not have such status at present—or their identified quality in the relevant development plan.

To support its social objective, the NPPF sets out strong safeguards to prevent the loss of open space, making clear that such space should not be built on unless there is clear evidence that it is no longer required; unless equivalent or better provision is secured in a suitable location; or unless development of the site is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.

I turn now to green-belt policy, an issue on which the hon. Lady has strong views which she has expressed forcefully in the past. 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. As the hon. Lady mentioned, the Colne Valley regional park occupies the “inner” green belt on the western edge of London; I am well aware of how important the designation is to its integrity and future.

It is important to note that this Government have not changed the five purposes of the green belt set out in paragraph 143 of the NPPF, and we do not propose to alter its general extent. Nor is green-belt policy altered, in any way, by provisions in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is currently in the other place. We did, however, act quickly to replace the piecemeal and haphazard approach taken by the previous Government to green-belt designation and release with a more strategic and targeted approach.

I emphasise that Ministers do not determine what, if any, green-belt land is released in any given local planning authority area. It is for local planning authorities themselves to determine whether exceptional circumstances justify doing so, and we expect them first to demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting identified need for development, including making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land; optimising the density of development; and working with neighbouring authorities to assess whether identified need might be sensibly accommodated elsewhere.

National planning policy and our recently published guidance on green-belt assessment are clear that release of, or development on, green-belt land should not fundamentally undermine the ability of the remaining green belt across the area of the plan from serving all five of the green-belt purposes. National policy makes it clear that, where it is necessary to release green-belt land for development, local development plans must take a sequential approach, first prioritising previously developed land, and then low-quality grey-belt land that has not been previously developed, before considering other green-belt locations.

Under our revised approach, the sustainability of green-belt sites must be prioritised, and local planning authorities must pay particular attention to transport connections when considering whether grey belt is sustainably located. It is because we recognise the value that the public places on the green belt that we have taken steps to ensure that any necessary development on land released from it must deliver higher levels of affordable housing, the provision of new green spaces or improvements to existing green spaces that are accessible to the public, and the making of necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure. Our 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 released through plan making or subject to a planning application.

Although the hon. Member for Beaconsfield did not mention it, I want to touch briefly on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is pertinent to the environmental issues that she raised. When it comes to development and the environment, we know that we can do better than the status quo, which too often sees both sustainable house building and nature recovery stall. As she will know, part 3 of the Bill will introduce a new nature restoration fund, which will unlock and accelerate development while going beyond neutrality to unlock the positive impact that development can have in driving nature recovery.

Environmental delivery plans, as proposed in part 3 of the Bill, will address any potential negative effects of development on protected sites and species, whether located in national parks, national landscapes or elsewhere. EDPs can be put in place only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the delivery of conservation measures is likely to outweigh the negative effects of development. Where that is not the case, existing environmental obligations, including those arising under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, will remain in place.

In addition, EDPs and the conservation measures they propose must be evidence-based and properly scrutinised before being put into place. EDPs may include back-up measures that can be deployed if monitoring shows that the environmental outcomes are not being delivered. Policy safeguards relating to the protection of national parks and national landscapes, including those set out in the national planning policy framework and relevant national policy statements, remain in place.

Having listened the hon. Lady’s contribution, I think that the bulk of her concerns stem from the fact that Colne Valley regional park does not have any statutory status. That is not something on which I can give her a commitment from the Dispatch Box today. She will know that, in other cases, such as the Lee Valley park, a specific Act of Parliament brought forward statutory status. However, I am more than willing to sit down with her and other hon. Members—I take the point that there is cross-party value attributed to the park—to discuss further how we can ensure that it is protected for current and future generations to enjoy. Although I have noted the concerns that the hon. Lady has raised, will reflect on them and look forward to that meeting, I am clear that appropriate protections are in place to safeguard the country’s parks and green spaces, and that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will unlock a win-win for the economy and nature.

Leaseholder Consumer Rights: Consultation

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Friday 4th July 2025 Written Statements

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

The cost of living remains a pressing concern for leaseholders across England and Wales. In addition to managing the costs of household bills and other essentials, many are struggling to cope with the additional financial strain placed on them by high and rising service charges that are all too often opaque in nature.

With a view to better protecting leaseholders, I am pleased to announce that the Government have launched a wide-ranging consultation on proposals to hold landlords and managing agents to account for the services they provide and the charges and fees they levy.

At the heart of the consultation are the measures contained in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 to improve fairness and transparency in the calculation and presentation of service charge demands. Once enacted, these will ensure that all leaseholders are issued with standard service charge documentation in a form that provides clear, detailed information about how their service charges are calculated and spent. The result will be service charges that are more easily challengeable at the appropriate tribunal if leaseholders consider them to be unreasonable.

Through the consultation, we are also seeking views on the measures contained in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 relating to landlords’ legal costs. By addressing the unreasonable practice where landlords are able to recover their litigation costs from leaseholders regardless of the outcome of a legal challenge, we intend to reduce existing barriers to justified challenges against poor practice.

We are also acutely aware of the ongoing impact of opaque and substantial building insurance commissions recovered from leaseholders through service charges. As part of the remediation acceleration plan announcement last December, the Government launched a public consultation on measures to prevent the imposition of such charges. It closed in February and we intend to set out next steps in due course.

Improving the fairness and transparency of service charges and rebalancing the legal costs regime will significantly strengthen leaseholder consumer rights, but we are using the consultation to seek views on proposals that extend beyond those reforms to the leasehold system already in statute as a result of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.

Specifically, we are inviting views on reform of the section 20 process that leaseholders must go through when a landlord wants to carry out “major works” funded by a service charge. We know that one-off, unexpected, and often very large bills for major works can place huge financial strain on leaseholders. Far too many receive little or no notice about such works and so have little time to obtain sufficient funds.

It is not in dispute that buildings must be properly maintained, but major works, such as repairing a roof or replacing a lift, should be properly planned for, with leaseholders as far as possible kept fully informed. The current system does not work for anyone, whether leaseholders, managing agents or landlords, and we are seeking views on how we can improve it to make it fit for purpose.

Through this consultation, we are also taking initial steps to strengthen the regulation of managing agents by introducing mandatory professional qualifications that will set a new basic standard that managing agents will be required to meet.

Managing agents play a key role in the maintenance of multi-occupancy buildings and freehold estates, and their importance will only increase as commonhold becomes the default tenure and existing leaseholders are empowered to exercise their right to manage, collectively enfranchise, or to convert to commonhold.

While we know that there is good practice in the sector, far too many leaseholders and residential freeholders suffer abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents. While further reform will be necessary to drive up the standard of service provided by managing agents and ensure they are made more accountable to leaseholders, the introduction of mandatory qualifications in England is an important first step to ensuring all agents have the knowledge and skills they need to do their jobs effectively.

The consultation also explores other ways in which the regulation of managing agents could be strengthened, including specific interventions recommended in the final report of the regulation of property agents working group chaired by Lord Best, such as giving leaseholders the power to switch and veto managing agents. We will continue to reflect on the various other recommendations made in the 2019 report.

Taken together, the various proposals outlined in the consultation will provide existing leaseholders with far greater rights and protections and will empower them to challenge poor practice and unreasonable charge and fees.

Given the complexity of property law and the wide variation of leases across millions of homes, it is important that we engage extensively through the consultation to ensure the smooth implementation of the proposals in question. As such, we want to hear from leaseholders themselves as well as all those involved in managing leasehold buildings.

Following the consultation, we intend to bring the various measures into force as quickly as possible. We also remain firmly committed to commencing the remaining provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 and to progressing the wider set of reforms necessary to end the feudal leasehold system for good, as set out in the written ministerial statement of 21 November 2024.

[HCWS780]

Social and Affordable Housing Renewal

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Written Statements

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

At the spending review, on 11 June 2025, we set out the main elements of our social and affordable housing investment strategy in this Parliament. Today, I am providing further detail in relation to a number of the announcements made, as well as providing clarity about future regulation on quality and safety and the right to buy.

Taken together, the grant funding support and regulatory certainty and stability that this Government are providing will enable registered providers to quickly ramp up investment in existing and new stock, and to kick-start a decade of social and affordable housing renewal.

The biggest boost to grant funding in a generation

At the spending review, we announced £39 billion for a successor to the affordable homes programme over 10 years, from 2026-27 to 2035-36. Our new social and affordable homes programme will give registered providers a decade of certainty over the capital funding they will have available to build new, more ambitious housing development projects. It is integral to delivering the Government’s commitment to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation.

I am today confirming the following details about the new social and affordable homes programme:

Given the priority that this Government accord to social rented housing, at least 60% of homes delivered through the programme will be for social rent. The remainder will be available for other tenures, including shared ownership, affordable rent and intermediate rent.

Up to 30% of the funding over the programme will be delivered by the Greater London Authority in London, with at least 70% available for the rest of England via Homes England, depending on the level of future bids.

The programme will not have numerical targets or ringfenced budgets for particular regions or types of home beyond the GLA’s portion, but we will ensure that established mayoral strategic authorities can set strategic direction for the programme in their area, and to support planning, we will set out up-front indicative spend per EMSA, subject to suitable projects.

The programme will not set numerical targets for particular types of homes, other than social rent, but will be designed with the flexibility necessary to support a greater diversity of social and affordable supply including council, supported, community-led and rural housing.

The new programme will continue to support regeneration schemes that provide a net increase in homes on a site and will allow a limited number of acquisitions.

The programme will allow bids for individual projects on an ongoing basis, and for strategic partnerships over the life of the programme, including bids for funds over the entire 10 years of starts, with homes completing after 2036 also eligible. A competitive bidding round for strategic partnerships will launch this winter, followed by later opportunities to bid.

Accurately forecasting long-term delivery is inherently challenging, but we believe that the social and affordable homes programme could deliver around 300,000 social and affordable homes over its lifetime, with around 180,000 for social rent.

We will set initial targets for Homes England and the GLA after receiving bids from registered providers, and will review these targets across the lifetime of the programme to maximise delivery. It is our intention to publish a full prospectus for the new social and affordable homes programme in autumn 2025 and open it for bids in the winter.

Rebuilding the sector’s capacity to borrow and invest in new and existing homes

To give registered providers, lenders and investors greater long-term certainty, we confirmed at the spending review that we will permit social housing rents to increase by the consumer prices index plus 1% each year from April 2026, and we doubled the length of the settlement from five to 10 years.

We also made it clear that we would give social landlords equal access to Government remediation funding schemes, providing over £1 billion of new investment between 2026-27 and 2029-30, and make available to them £2.5 billion in low-interest loans to support new development—alongside commercial lending.

To unlock the level of investment in new and existing social and affordable housing necessary to deliver on the Government’s ambitions, we committed to implement a convergence mechanism as part of the new rent settlement. The details of precisely how, and at what level, this mechanism will be implemented will be confirmed at the autumn Budget later this year, taking account of the benefits to the supply and quality of social and affordable housing, the impact on rent payers and the impact on the Government’s fiscal rules.

To inform policy development in this area, we will today publish a focused technical consultation on how convergence should be implemented, with options for this being capped at £1 or £2 per week. In combination, we expect these measures to significantly improve the capacity of registered providers, enabling them to borrow and invest in new and existing homes. We also expect that improved financial capacity will see registered providers reassess their position in respect of uncontracted and unsold section 106 units across the country. We encourage those house builders and registered providers that have not yet engaged with the Homes England section 106 affordable housing clearing service to do so.

Establishing an effective and stable regulatory regime

Alongside our commitment to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, the Government are determined to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing.

Registered providers are already investing billions into repairs, maintenance and improvements. To help them plan effectively for the future, we want to provide clarity as to the updated, modern standards needed to ensure that rented homes are safe, decent and energy-efficient.

We are therefore today launching consultations on a reformed decent homes standard (DHS) for the social and private rented sectors and on a new minimum energy efficiency standard (MEES) for social and affordable housing.

To support stakeholders in responding to the DHS consultation, I am publishing an interim impact assessment and the Government response to the consultation undertaken by the previous Government on extending a standard to the private rented sector.

In addition to consultations on a reformed DHS and new MEES, I am also confirming today that we will direct the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) this autumn to set new standards for the competence and conduct of staff who work in social housing. The new requirements will improve professionalism within the sector, ensuring that tenants receive a good service and are always listened to and treated with respect and dignity.

The new competence and conduct standard will come into force in October 2026. There will be a transition period after this date, giving providers additional time to comply with qualification requirements for senior housing managers and executives. Larger registered providers that own 1,000 or more units of social housing will have three years, and smaller providers that own less than 1,000 units will have four years.

We also intend to direct the RSH to introduce new social tenant access to information requirements for registered providers of social housing, including housing associations, to enable residents to request information about their housing management. From October 2026, providers will be required to proactively publish information about the management of their homes. From April 2027, they will be expected to provide tenants with access to information on request.

Finally, I am today announcing that we will be launching a £1 million resident experience innovation fund to support social landlords, tenants and other relevant organisations to work together to test and scale up innovative projects that aim to deliver better outcomes for social tenants.

Reinvigorating council house building

In order to better protect much-needed social housing stock, boost councils’ capacity and enable them to once again build social homes at scale, we need to further reform the right to buy. Following the reduction in maximum right to buy cash discounts announced at the autumn Budget 2024 and our decision to allow councils to keep 100% of right to buy receipts, we consulted late last year on reforms to deliver a fairer and more sustainable scheme.

Having analysed feedback to that consultation over recent months, I am today announcing further reforms to the right to buy. These include:

increasing the length of time someone needs to have been a public sector tenant to qualify for the right to buy, from three to 10 years;

reforming discounts so that they start at 5% of the property value, rising by 1% for every extra year an individual is a secure tenant up to the maximum of 15% of the property value or the cash discount cap, whichever is lower; and

exempting newly built social homes from the right to buy for 35 years, ensuring that councils are not losing homes before they have recovered the costs of building them.

We will legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to bring these reforms into force. More immediately, we will reform the receipts regime and extend existing flexibilities on spending right to buy receipts indefinitely. Councils will also continue to be able to retain the share of the receipts that was previously returned to HM Treasury. In addition, from 2026-27 we will permit councils to combine receipts with grant funding for affordable housing to accelerate council delivery of new homes.

We are also acting to restore the capacity of council workforces to deliver. Working with the Local Government Association, the Government have already established a new Association of Directors of Housing to help councils collaborate and share best practice. Today, I can confirm that we are launching the council house building skills and capacity programme, backed by £12 million of funding in 2025-26.

The programme will enable the Local Government Association to provide centralised training and guidance to councils to upskill their existing workforces and to expand its successful pathways to planning programme to help recruit graduates ready to undertake training to become qualified surveyors and project managers. The Department will also work with Homes England to support councils to boost their engagement with the new social and affordable homes programme.

A renewed partnership with the sector

Ending England’s acute and entrenched housing crisis will be a painstaking and laborious effort, requiring focus, energy and determination over many years. We know that it cannot be accomplished by central Government alone, which is why this Government have prioritised working in close partnership with the sector.

The measures announced over recent weeks demonstrate the Government’s commitment to providing registered providers with the grant funding support and regulatory stability they need to deliver. We now expect them to step up and do just that, so that together we kick-start a decade of social and affordable housing renewal.

[HCWS771]

Green-belt Development: Rayleigh and Wickford

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

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.