Social and Affordable Housing Capital Investment

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Written Statements

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

In the multi-year spending review later this year, the Government will set out the full details of a new grant programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. Alongside wider investment across the Parliament, this new programme will help deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation.

The Government have already allocated an additional £800 million in new in-year funding for the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. As a result of significant demand from housing providers across the country, this additional funding is already on course to be oversubscribed.

We know that there are a large number of housing providers who could progress new projects in advance of the new grant programme if the necessary funding were made available. We also know that providing greater funding certainty ahead of the forthcoming spending review will encourage more providers to come forward with ambitious projects and help drive up social and affordable housing supply in this Parliament.

The Government are therefore announcing today an immediate injection of £2 billion of new capital investment to support delivery of the biggest boost in social and affordable house building in a generation and contribute to our plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in this Parliament.

This new funding, which will be made available to housing associations and local authorities on the same terms as the affordable homes programme for 2021 to 2026, will act as a bridge to the future grant programme to be announced at spending review and thereby maximise rates of social and affordable house building in this Parliament.

The funding will deliver up to 18,000 additional new social and affordable homes by the end of the Parliament. The majority of that additional funding will fall in 2026-27, and all projects funded will need to have started by March 2027. A tail of funding will cover completions, with projects funded being required to finish by June 2029.

The Government encourage providers to come forward as soon as possible with bids for new ambitious projects, including those ready to commence quickly. We will ask Homes England, the Greater London Authority, and bidders to continue to prioritise homes for social rent in their proposed developments, in line with the Government’s firm commitment to support this tenure and the approach taken to recent in-year top-ups.

The £2 billion of new capital investment announced today will, in time, be supplemented with additional funding for 2026-27 and beyond. Full details of wider long-term and future grant investment will be announced at the spending review. Once the new grant programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme opens for bidding, the window to bid for the £2 billion of capital investment announced today will close and any unallocated funding will then be allocated under the terms of the successor programme.

[HCWS549]

Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 Draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. The draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations were laid before the House on 13 February. The draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025 were laid before the House on 25 February. Let me set out in turn the reasons why we are bringing each set of regulations forward, and what they will provide for, starting with the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations.

Planning is principally a local activity, but a well-established principle is that, in limited circumstances and where issues of more than local importance are involved, it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to make planning decisions. Recent experience, including the response to covid-19, has exposed that the existing route for securing planning permission on Crown land, namely the urgent Crown development route under section 293A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which was introduced in 2006, is not fit for purpose. Indeed, it is telling that it has never once been used. Furthermore, Departments have struggled to secure local planning permission for nationally important public service infrastructure such as prisons.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, passed by the previous Government in the last Parliament, made provision to address those challenges by providing two new routes for planning permission for Crown development in England. The first route, referred to as Crown development, is for planning applications for Crown developments that are considered of national importance. Such applications are to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate directly, instead of to local planning authorities. An inspector will consider and determine the application, unless the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government recovers the application to determine herself.

The second route is an updated urgent Crown development route, which will enable applications for nationally important developments that are needed urgently to be determined rapidly under a simplified procedure. Applications under the urgent route will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. Those new routes can be used for developments only where clearly justified. Provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act require that applications can be accepted by the Secretary of State only if she deems that the proposed development is of national importance and, in the case of the urgent Crown development route, urgent.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that I am a local councillor. Given what the Minister has outlined, will he give us a flavour of how local people can make representations, even if it is straight to the Secretary of State or the Planning Inspectorate? I am concerned that removing applications from local councils and putting them through the new routes he has described will make it harder for local residents to feel that their voice has been heard, even on important national infrastructure projects.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me deal with community engagement under both routes. With the Crown development route, community engagement will be a key part of the process. Communities will be fully engaged throughout. Much like an application submitted to a local planning authority, there will be mandatory consultation and publicity about the consultation for a minimum period of 21 days. That period will be 30 days if the development is one that requires an environmental impact assessment and is therefore an EIA development. That will enable members of the community to view and comment on the application.

We expect that the majority of Crown development applications will be subject to a public hearing. Those who made comments will be notified when that is to take place. Interested parties may attend the hearing if the inspector allows it. Only comments made during the consultation, the publicity period and the hearing that raise material planning matters will be taken into account as part of the decision-making process.

The local planning authority will be consulted and will have a role to play in publicising the application. It will need to place the application and associated documents on its planning register. Where PINS—the Planning Inspectorate—does not have a local presence, the local planning authority will be required to affix site notices during the mandatory period and to notify those owners or occupiers who adjoin the site. For urgent Crown development, the other route that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provides for, the local planning authority will again be consulted as part of the application. That is mandated by section 293C(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In the draft regulations, we have made provision about the consultation procedure.

While we appreciate the importance of community engagement, given the urgency with which decisions must be made, under the approach to consultation with the community in this process they will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In circumstances in which decisions need to be made very quickly, it may not be possible to conduct a meaningful public consultation and reach an urgent decision. I hope that satisfies the hon. Member for Broxbourne on the different types of community engagement under both routes.

The new routes, as I said, can be used only for developments for which it is clearly justified, and provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act require that applications can be accepted by the Secretary of State only if she deems that they are of national importance and, in the case of the urgent Crown development route, urgent. I made a written ministerial statement on 13 February that set out the principles under which national importance and urgency will be determined. When submitting an application, applicants are required to set out the reasons why they consider that the development is of national importance and, in the case of urgent Crown development, needed as a matter of urgency.

The draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations make amendments to primary legislation to reflect the two new Crown development routes. For instance, they amend references to planning permission set out in a range of pieces of legislation. They also remove references to the previous urgent Crown development route in section 293A of the Town and Country Planning Act, which now applies only in Wales. The instrument also sets the fee for an application for planning permission under both routes, set at the same fee, which would have been paid to the local authority.

Following the statutory instrument coming into force, a further suite of statutory instruments will be made through the negative parliamentary procedure. They will set the procedures for the two routes and make further consequential changes to secondary legislation to reflect their implementation. We have published the instruments in draft ahead of the debate, in order to provide proper transparency about how the routes will operate. I reiterate that the Government are committed to ensuring proper transparency to Parliament at every stage when the routes are used. When the matter was considered in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee, I stressed that point to the then Minister.

The following are the ways in which we want to ensure that proper transparency takes place. First, where an application under any of the routes is accepted, the relevant Members of Parliament will be sent a letter. That letter will include details of where the application can be viewed and the next steps. The letter will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Secondly, when a decision is made on whether to grant planning permission, the relevant Members of Parliament will be sent another letter. That letter will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Finally, on an annual basis, the Secretary of State will publish a report of all decisions taken under the routes. Taken together, those steps will ensure that Members in the other House are properly appraised of any applications that relate to their constituencies. It also means that both Houses of Parliament will be provided the opportunity to consider and scrutinise the general operation of the routes.

The second set of regulations we are debating make changes to the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. The changes will ensure that when development comes forward after it is granted planning permission through the Crown development route, such development can be liable to pay the community infrastructure levy if the local authority charges CIL in that area. In addition, under section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act, applicants can apply to the Planning Inspectorate, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, for a planning permission decision when an authority has been designated for poor performance. We are amending the CIL regulations to ensure that the levy can be charged on development that comes forward under this route if the local authority charges CIL in its area. That ensures that fair financial contributions to local infrastructure are made by such development.

Finally, some incidental and consequential amendments are made to the Town and Country Planning (Section 62A Applications) (Procedure and Consequential Amendments) Order 2013 to enable relevant information to be provided in relation to CIL where an application is made under section 62A.

To summarise, the regulations are important in ensuring a more timely and proportionate process for dealing with planning applications for Crown development in England. The Government are taking steps to ensure that the routes are used appropriately, and that there is full scrutiny of the use of the powers. The changes we are making to the CIL regime are also important to ensure that CIL can be charged on development in a consistent and fair way, even when the local planning authority is not the decision maker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, for his constructive tone. I also thank the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for Didcot and Wantage for their questions.

The shadow Minister asked which cases the Crown development route and the urgent Crown development route would be used for. I will discuss each route in turn because they will have different applications. It will ultimately be for the Secretary of State to assess on a case-by-case basis what is deemed nationally important. Obviously, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on specific schemes.

The Crown development route will most likely be used for HMG programme nationally important public service development. That would include but not be limited to new prisons or border infrastructure, to give just two examples. It may also be used for defence-related development, as PINS is able to put in place special procedures to handle information dealing with matters of national security. Special provisions exist whereby the Secretary of State may issue a direction limiting the disclosure of information relating to matters of national security of a premises through section 321 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Crown development route may also be used for particularly sensitive or significant development being brought forward by or on behalf of the Crown. Let me be clear: we expect only a few applications to be submitted through this route each year.

For urgent Crown development, it will again be for the Secretary of State to assess on a case-by-case basis what is nationally important and needed urgently on the basis of what has been submitted as part of the application. Again, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on specific schemes but we expect the urgent Crown development route to be used very rarely, where other planning application routes cannot be used to secure a decision quickly enough. It will be used only in cases where development needs to be put in place quickly, in a matter of days or weeks, and where the development is in the national interest. That may include, for example, medical centres, or storage and distribution for key goods and services in the event of a pandemic.

The shadow Minister asked what environmental protections are in place. We are maintaining important environmental safeguards in both routes, which are subject to existing environmental impact assessment and habitats regulations assessment requirements. For example, where development is considered EIA development, accompanied by an environmental statement, there will be a requirement to publicise the application and consult specific bodies for no less than 30 days. Environmental impacts will remain a key consideration in whether planning permission should be granted. In the Crown development route, we are ensuring that development being brought forward is also subject to mandatory biodiversity net gain—namely, the permission must secure a 10% increase in biodiversity value.

The shadow Minister, if I understood him correctly, raised transparency, as did other Members. As I set out comprehensively in the written ministerial statement issued on 13 February, both routes have important safeguards and transparency measures. That feature was not apparent at the time of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee, and I pressed the then Minister on that point. I have worked very hard—it was very important to me—to ensure that important safeguards and transparency measures are in place so that people will know the rationale for where these powers and routes are used, and what safeguards will apply.

Lastly, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage asked, I think, how we would define national importance and urgency, because there is a subjective element to that. The Government are obviously committed to a planning system in which decisions are made locally. Last night, we had a long discussion about local plans and planning committees on Second Reading of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but it is a well-established principle that in limited circumstances it is necessary for the Secretary of State to make planning decisions where planning issues are of more than local importance.

What is considered to be of national importance will be determined on a case-by-case basis. The Secretary of State will use the principles set out in the written ministerial statement that I mentioned when determining whether a proposal meets this bar. The Secretary of State will, in general, consider a development to be of national importance only if the development would involve the interests of national security or foreign Governments; contribute towards the provision of national public services or infrastructure, such as prisons and border infrastructure, as I mentioned earlier; support a response to international, national or regional civil emergencies; or otherwise have significant economic, social or environmental effects on strong public interests at a regional or national level. It will obviously be for the applicant to set out evidence as part of the statement accompanying the application that demonstrates that at least one of those principles has been met.

What is considered a matter of urgency will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Again, the Secretary of State will use the principles set out in the written ministerial statement. In these circumstances, the applicant will be required to provide a statement to accompany the application, setting out why they consider the development to be both nationally important and needed as a matter of urgency. The Secretary of State will accept applications through the urgent Crown development route only where the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed development meets both those conditions.

Furthermore, the Secretary of State will consider something to be needed urgently only where the applicant can demonstrate the need for an expedited planning process. To that end, the applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposed development needs to be made operational to an accelerated timeframe and is unlikely to be feasible using other application routes, including the Crown development route, and will need to evidence the likely consequences of not securing a decision within the accelerated timeframe. I hope that answers all the points raised by hon. Members.

The two new routes for planning permission that we seek to implement are necessary and timely, and these regulations represent a crucial step towards their delivery. The changes that we are making to the CIL regulations are equally important in order to maintain the integrity of the CIL charging regime. As I said, they will ensure that a clear and consistent approach is taken to the levy regardless of who the planning decision maker is. I hope that the Committee will welcome the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025. —(Matthew Pennycook.)

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. Constituencies such as his and mine that include those protected landscapes do not seem to have that considered or catered for in the housing targets, particularly the new ones that we have before us. Again, I am very keen to discuss with the Minister how we might address that.

On planning, we are very concerned about the national scheme of delegation, which will remove councillors’ right to vote on individual planning applications. If the Secretary of State does not believe that that is the case, I suggest that she reads clause 46 of her own legislation. This is particularly extraordinary considering that when Labour was in opposition, the former shadow Housing Minister said in a debate in this House on 21 June 2021 that the previous Government should

“protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 620.]

Clearly, the current Housing Minister is not doing that— he is doing the exact opposite through these rules—and he should be clear with the public about that, because sooner or later, that fact will hit home.

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

indicated dissent.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very happy to have a debate with the Housing Minister—he is welcome to intervene on me. I suggest that he reads clause 46 as well. Of course, it is also a fact that 14 Cabinet Ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary, all campaigned to block housing developments in their own constituencies. What hypocrisy!

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The point she makes is absolutely right and it applies equally to my constituency as to hers. In my constituency, the backbone of our economy is agriculture and food production. The Labour party used to say in its manifesto that

“food security is national security”

yet this Bill seeks to build all over the very land that our farmers in Buckinghamshire and across the country use to produce the very food that gives us national security.

I want to focus on the infrastructure implications from the energy sector. I entirely approve of transitioning to cleaner forms of energy production, but it is a point I have made in this House time and again, and I will never get bored of saying it, that it takes 2,000 acres of ground-mounted solar panels to produce enough electricity for 50,000 homes on current usage. That is before everyone has two Teslas—which is perhaps not the brand that people would choose now—on the drive. However, a small modular reactor needs just two football pitches to deliver enough electricity on current usage for 1 million homes. Why on earth in this country are we messing around with solar, destroying thousands of acres of food-producing land, when other clean technologies are out there that can clean up our energy and electricity production in a way that is kinder and gentler on our national fabric and rural communities?

When I hear the Secretary of State talk about, as she did in her opening address, protecting high-grade agricultural land, I take that with a large pinch of salt. That is because, in my constituency in Buckinghamshire, we have caught those paid exorbitant amounts of money to come and grade the land prior to a planning application deliberately testing the land in the headland of the field—the bit not used to grow crops or grass or to graze animals. Of course, they will always get a lower land grade by testing the headland. If the Government are serious about wanting to protect high-grade agricultural land, I would urge the Minister to look at measures he could take to ensure that the fertile part of the field is tested, not the headland.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Does the hon. Member accept that we have to keep the matter in perspective? Even under the most ambitious scenarios, solar farms would occupy less than 1% of the UK’s agricultural land. That is why the National Farmers Union president Tom Bradshaw stated in relation to the impact of solar projects on food security that it is important not to be “sensationalist”.

[Greg Smith]

The point the Minister makes is one that certainly in Buckinghamshire I would challenge. I do not think any Labour Members were there, but there was a good cross-party meeting a couple of weeks ago on the scale of solar projects coming into this country. That disproportionately affects rural communities, and this Bill seems to take against them in favour of the UK’s towns and cities.

On top of the stats I gave earlier on the efficiency of solar, we have had scientists—not just campaigners—come here to give clear evidence that, of all the countries in the world, only one is less suitable for solar than ours, and that is Iceland. The Government are not even making the case for a technology that is particularly suited to the United Kingdom, yet the Bill would just make it easier, and those who object to or challenge it on any level will just to have to go away, suck it up and take those projects in their backyard.

This Bill takes away local control, and for me, local control will always be the most important part of the planning process. Unlike those doing the desktop exercise from afar, the community know the fields that flood every single year, know the local factors that would impact a planning application, understand the local roads that would have to take the construction traffic and that get churned up every time a development comes along, and know how unsuitable they are. Local control is critical, and I urge the Minister, even at this late hour, to go back and think about whether what he wants to do is simply ride roughshod over local opinion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. It is why the Government should be honest with the public that, far from strengthening environmental protections, the Bill creates a direct avenue for developers to pay to do environmental damage and get around otherwise more stringent protection laws.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman was here in the last Parliament. Does he remember that, in their attempt to undo the problem of nutrient neutrality, the previous Government sought to disapply the habitats regulations entirely? Is that the approach that he would prefer we take?

[Robbie Moore]

The Minister gets to the nub of the issue in that the nutrient neutrality issue caused an absolute stagnation in housing development. Indeed, the Government want to give Natural England even more powers, which will lead not only to increased stagnation in development but to frustration for those who want development to take place. Many Members from across the House have referred to the £100 million bat tunnel and the development of HS2. Natural England raised that issue, yet the Government want to give that very organisation even more powers, which will lead to increased stagnation in development.

The Government may bring forward a Bill to create an avenue for more development, but this Bill will not achieve that given the environmental protection measures. In the light of the Government’s removal of the moratorium on onshore wind farm development, coupled with the provisions in the Bill, I fear for our protected peatlands, not only in the beautiful uplands of West Yorkshire but right across the county.

Secondly, I fear that the Bill will not create the speedy planning system that the Government hope it will. By placing the design and formulation of environmental development plans in the hands of Natural England, the Government have ceded much of their control over them. As a single-issue public body, Natural England operates with a very different interpretation of “reasonable mitigations” than the rest of the public when it comes to preserving nature—I have already referred to the £100 million HS2bat tunnel.

As developers, Natural England and environmental campaigners barter over the details of environmental development plans and lodge legal challenges against them, how will the Secretary of State speed up our planning system, as she is forced to sit on the sidelines of those negotiations and watch Natural England take a lead? She has created a Bill that hands more power to Natural England, not less, and removes her ability to ensure that infrastructure can be delivered at speed. The Government must be honest and up front about what they value.

Finally, I would like to raise another issue in the Bill which, in my view, moves from naivety to the realm of malice. Compulsory purchase orders are highly controversial at the best of times, but in another blow to our rural communities the Government have decided that landowners should not be paid the value of their land in full.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a real pleasure to close this Second Reading debate for the Government, and I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have participated in it. Not unexpectedly, it has been a debate of contrasts. On the one hand, we have had the privilege of listening to a large number of well-informed and thoughtful contributions from hon. Members who agree with the main principles of the Bill. In a crowded field, I commend in particular the excellent speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), for Northampton South (Mike Reader), for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy), for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis). Set against those, we were subjected to a series of contributions from hon. and right hon. Members who, while professing support in principle for the intentions of the Bill, nevertheless alighted on a range of flawed and in some cases spurious reasons why they oppose it.

I am saddened to say that among the most glaring examples of that approach was the speech made by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), whose party’s reasoned amendment was not selected. While I appreciate fully his need to manage the discordant voices on his own Benches when it comes to housing and major infrastructure, the arguments he made were both confused and disingenuous. This Government wholly reject his claim that the Bill will not result in the ambitious delivery of the infrastructure and housing the country needs. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that a party that declared in its manifesto only last year that it was committed to

“Increasing building of new homes to 380,000 a year”

should be getting behind this legislation, not seeking to block it. I sincerely hope that, even at this late stage, the Liberal Democrats will reconsider their position.

[Gideon Amos]

Does the Minister accept that it would be easier to support this Bill if it did not include clauses that provide the Secretary of State with the power not just to take some decisions away from planning committees, but to take all decisions away from planning committees, because that provision is completely unlimited in its scope?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is not the case, and there has been a huge amount of scaremongering when it comes to the provisions in the Bill that relate to planning committees. I will deal with that particular point in due course.

Among hon. Members who do support the main principles of the Bill, there were of course understandable differences of opinion. Some expressed their unequivocal support for each and every one of its provisions, others conveyed their broad support while arguing for specific changes to be made or further measures to be added, but all were in agreement that this legislation must progress if we are to streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, as the House as a whole ostensibly asserts that we must. Therein lies the crux of the issue and the reason, I must say candidly, for the cant at the heart of some of the speeches that we have heard.

We can all profess in principle our support for the ends—doing so is, after all, risk free—but what matters is whether we are prepared in practice to also will the means. When it came to housing and infrastructure, the previous Government were not willing to do so, hence the dissonance in their final years between their stated commitment to building more homes and their decision in practice to recklessly abolish mandatory housing targets and thereby torpedo housing supply in a forlorn attempt to appease a disgruntled group of their anti-housing Back Benchers. Thankfully, this Labour Government are prepared to do what it takes to deliver the homes and the infrastructure our country needs. The Bill is transformative. It will fundamentally change how we build things in this country. In so doing, it will help us to tackle the housing crisis, raise living standards in every part of the country and deliver on our plan for change.

During the five hours we have debated the Bill, an extremely wide range of issues has been raised. I have heard all of them and I will seek to respond to as many in the time available to me, but I will not be able to cover all of them. I will therefore deal with the main themes and issues that have been raised in the course of the debate. I will begin, if I may, with the various points made in relation to nationally significant infrastructure.

Members made a variety of points covering issues such as national policy statements and judicial review, but most of the contributions focused in on the changes the Bill will make to consultation requirements for nationally significant infrastructure projects. As the House will be aware, the NSIP planning regime was established through the Planning Act 2008 to provide more certainty on the need for nationally significant projects. In its early years, the system worked well. However, its performance has sharply deteriorated in recent years, at a time when the need for it has increased dramatically.

In 2021, it took, on average, 4.2 years for a project to secure development consent, compared with 2.6 years in 2012. The documentation, as has been referred to by a number of hon. Members, underpinning consents has been getting longer and in too many instances now runs to tens of thousands of pages. Alongside an increase in legal challenges, uncertainty about meeting statutory requirements has led to greater risk aversion and gold plating throughout the whole process. The costs of delays obviously increase the costs of projects, and those costs are ultimately passed on to taxpayers for public infrastructure and bill payers or customers for private infrastructure.

The measures in the Bill will provide for a faster and more certain consenting process, stripping away unnecessary consultation requirements that do nothing to improve applications or meaningfully engage communities. They will, to use the phrase used by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), ensure that the NSIP regime is firing on all cylinders. I want to make it clear that the measures in the Bill are not the limit of our ambitions on streamlining the NSIP regime. In particular, I noted the calls from several hon. Members to consider addressing the significant elongation of pre-application periods resulting from the way in which statutory procedures are now being applied. This is an issue to which the Deputy Prime Minister and I have already given a significant amount of thought, and I commit to giving further consideration to the case for using the Bill to address statutory requirements that would appear to be no longer driving good outcomes. I can assure those hon. Members that the Government will not hesitate to act boldly if there is a compelling case for reform in this area.

Many hon. Members touched on the nature restoration fund. We are fully committed to making sure development contributes to nature’s recovery, delivering a win-win for nature and the economy. We will be taking three steps to deliver on our new approach. First, responsibility for identifying actions to address environmental impacts will be moved away from multiple project-specific assessments in an area to a single strategic assessment and delivery plan. Secondly, more responsibility for planning and implementing strategic actions will be moved on to the state, delivered through organisations with the right expertise and the necessary flexibility to take actions that most effectively deliver positive outcomes for nature. Thirdly, we will allow impacts to be dealt with strategically in exchange for a financial payment, so development can proceed more quickly. Project-level assessments are then limited only to those harms not dealt with strategically.

To those hon. Members who raised concerns that the provisions will have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection of existing environmental law, I assure them that that is not the case, something attested to by the section 20 statement on the face of the Bill in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister. Our reforms are built around delivering overall positive outcomes for protected sites and species, and are the result of significant engagement across the development sector, environmental groups and nature service providers. That is why, at the Bill’s introduction, we saw a range of voices welcoming the new approach it brings to unlocking a win-win for development and nature.

The shadow Secretary of State raised concerns about how quickly we will be able to implement environmental delivery plans. We are confident we can get EDPs in place fast. That is why we have been clear that we want to see the first EDPs prepared alongside the Bill and operational for developers to use shortly after Royal Assent. We are also looking for opportunities to provide up-front funding so that we can kick off action in advance of need, with costs recovered as development comes forward, which will allow us to get shovels in the ground and unlock homes and infrastructure more quickly.

Lastly, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) raised concerns about the CPO powers given to Natural England. If we are going to be successful in delivering a win-win for nature and the economy through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, it is vital that Natural England has sufficient powers to deliver the conservation measures required. Compulsory purchase is just one tool, and we would expect Natural England to consider using such powers as a last resort, subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight, including ultimate authorisation by the Secretary of State.

More broadly, the nature restoration fund will provide opportunities for landowners to work with Natural England to drive nature recovery, improving our green spaces for generations to come. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a radical change. Many public bodies with statutory powers have compulsory purchase powers, including local authorities and—as he of all people should be aware—health service bodies, as well as some executive agencies, such as Homes England.

I want to touch on planning committees before concluding. Several hon. Members raised concerns over our plan to modernise them; indeed, some suggested that our reforms are tantamount to removing democratic control from local people. That is simply not the case. The shadow Secretary of State asserted that residents would lose the opportunity to object to a planning application, which is incorrect. People will still be able to object to individual applications in the way they can now.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

How is what the Minister is saying consistent with what he said on the Floor of the House on 9 December, when he said:

“the changes are designed to… focus the time of elected councillors on the most significant or controversial applications”—[Official Report, 9 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 673.]—

which he is going to dictate? Will he, at the very least, publish his draft regulations on what he intends through clause 46 alongside the passage of the Bill?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will address that specific point in due course. The proposals are entirely consistent; we do want to make changes to where planning committees can determine decisions, but local residents will be able to object to applications in every instance, as they can now.

Planning is principally a local activity, and this Government have made clear at every available opportunity that the plan-led approach is and must remain the cornerstone of the planning system. Local plans are the best ways for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their areas need.

[Alberto Costa]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am going to make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

We want more people involved in the development of local plans. The measures on planning decisions will simply ensure that the process of determining applications at a local level is more streamlined and efficient.

I have been a local councillor, and I have sat on planning committees, as I know many hon. Members have. We all know that there is significant room for improvement in how such committees operate. It is, therefore, disappointing to hear hon. Members portray what are sensible proposals for modernising the local planning system as a fundamental attack on local democracy when they are anything but.

Decisions about what to build and where should be shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. Local democratic oversight of planning decisions is essential, but it is also vital that planning committees operate as effectively as possible. Planning committees need to be focused on key applications for larger developments, not small-scale projects or niche technical details. The Bill will ensure they can play a proper role in scrutinising development without obstructing it, while maximising the use of experienced professional planners.

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will happily give way for the final time.

[Wendy Morton]

I would like to seek some clarity from the Minister on that: he says that local councillors will be able to scrutinise, but not actually stop—this is the point I want to probe—a large-scale planning application.

[Matthew Pennycook]

No; the right hon. Lady has misunderstood me. Planning committees will be able to scrutinise and make decisions on a series of applications. On a point raised by the shadow Secretary of State, the House should also be aware that we intend to formally consult on these measures in the coming weeks. Hon. Members will therefore be able to engage with the detail and precisely the type of question that the right hon. Lady raises, rightly, alongside consideration of the Bill.

[Gideon Amos]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not going to give way; I am going to make some progress.

I will briefly address CPO powers before I conclude, as a number of hon. Members raised concerns about our changes to the process. Let me be clear: these reforms are not about targeting farmers or any specific types of land or landowners. We want to reform the compulsory purchase process and land compensation rules to speed up and lower the costs of the delivery of housing and infrastructure in the public interest.

We have already taken action, fully implementing direction powers that provide for the removal of hope value from the assessment of compensation for certain types of CPOs, such as those facilitating affordable housing —provisions, I might say, introduced by the previous Government in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. We have published updated and more detailed guidance on the process to help local authorities.

This Bill will now go further, ensuring that the process for acquiring land with a direction is more efficient and that administrative costs are reduced, and we are expanding the power to remove hope value by directions to parish and town councils. We want to see these powers used and will work closely with local authorities to ensure that they have the support to take advantage of the reforms.

To conclude, I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I look forward to engaging with hon. Members across the House as the Bill progresses. A wide range of views have been expressed over the course of the debate, but there is clearly a broad consensus that when it comes to delivering new homes and critical infrastructure—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister says no, so perhaps he does not agree, but the status quo is failing the country and more importantly those who last year sent us to this place to do better.

The process of securing consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects is demonstrably too slow and uncertain and is constraining economic growth and undermining our energy security. The current approach to development and the environment too often sees both sustainable house building and nature recovery stall. In exercising essential local democratic oversight, planning committees clearly do not operate as effectively as they could, and local planning authorities do not have adequate funding to deliver their services.

The compulsory purchase order process is patently too slow and cumbersome, and development corporations are not equipped to operate in the way we will need them to in the years ahead. It is abundantly clear that the lack of effective mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning mean that we cannot address development and infrastructure needs across sub-regions as well as we otherwise might.

We can and must do things differently. That means being prepared to will the means as well as the ends. Fourteen years of failure have left the country with a belief that nothing works, that nothing gets built, and that Britain can no longer do big things. This Government refuse to accept the stagnation and decline we were bequeathed. We were elected on the promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this landmark Bill, we will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Housing Development Planning: Water Companies

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Lewell-Buck.

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this important and informative debate, and on not only clearly articulating a number of legitimate concerns about the role of water companies in planning for new residential development but eloquently outlining the plight of her constituents in the cases that she mentioned. In addition, I thank the other hon. Members who have participated in the debate and shared valuable insights and experiences from their own constituencies.

I know and appreciate the various concerns that have been raised about the issue, and I also recognise the strength of feeling. I hope that in my remarks I will convey both that the Government have already acted in numerous respects and that we are alive to the need to do more to address the fact that in many parts of the country the system is clearly not delivering the outcomes that we want to see.

A number of distinct issues were raised during the debate and I will seek to address as many of them as possible in the time that I have available. As ever, if I overlook any specific issues that hon. Members raised, I would be more than happy to find time to discuss them outside the Chamber, and to speak more widely to the group of hon. Members who are here today and others who have concerns about this issue.

I will start by talking about the principle of sustainable development, as set out in paragraph 7 of the national planning policy framework, which states:

“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 goes on to state:

“Planning policies and decisions should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions”.

It also says that sustainable development should be pursued both through the preparation and implementation of local development plans, and the application of policies in the framework. In short, the Government are clear that housing must come with appropriate infrastructure, including appropriate water infrastructure.

A number of Members mentioned sustainable drainage systems, including the hon. Member for North Shropshire. Hon. Members will know that the revised NPPF that we published on 12 December last year makes it clear that developments of all sizes should use sustainable drainage techniques when the development could have drainage impacts and should have appropriate maintenance arrangements in place. These are important changes to the NPPF that will mean that sustainable drainage technologies are taken up more widely in new development. We continue to explore whether more needs to be done, either through planning policy or by commencing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and a decision on the best way forward will be made in the coming months.

On a related matter, I appreciate that there are some instances of existing sewers not being able to cope adequately with new developments; we have heard a number of pretty troubling examples of that this afternoon. To avoid that issue, the planning practice guidance sets out that good design and mitigation measures should be secured during development, both through site-specific and non-site-specific policies on water infrastructure. For example, it suggests using planning conditions and obligations to ensure that development is phased and not occupied until the necessary waterworks have been completed. I would be very interested to hear from hon. Members who said that some local authorities are not using those conditions and obligations as to why that might be the case. However, I will give further thought to the issue in light of the various examples that have been referred to today.

The hon. Member for North Shropshire and other hon. Members rightly mentioned the role of local plans in delivering sustainable development. Planning is principally a local activity and the Government are clear that the plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of the planning system. We are determined to progress towards universal local plan coverage. As the Deputy Prime Minister and I have repeatedly made clear, we will not hesitate to use the full range of ministerial intervention powers at our disposal to that end.

A key function of local development plans is to guide development to the most suitable and sustainable locations and to ensure that the associated infrastructure requirements are addressed. As hon. Members are aware, water companies are under a statutory duty to provide new water and sewerage connections to residential properties, as well as planning to meet the needs of growth as part of water resource management plans, and drainage and wastewater management plans. The water resources planning guidance published by the Government set out how those companies should forecast demand for water based on existing customers and planned levels of household and non-household growth, with the number of planned developments being based on published local plans, but I note the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), about how the operation of that system might be improved.

Effective co-operation early in the plan-making process is essential to ensuring not only that housing and infrastructure need is appropriately planned for, but that they are aligned with each other. The national planning policy framework makes it clear that local planning authorities should collaborate with each other and with other public bodies, including infrastructure providers, to identify relevant strategic matters to be addressed, including providing for sustainable water supplies. I have heard and noted the concerns of hon. Members that, despite the Government’s very clear expectations in this regard, such collaboration is not always evident and I will reflect on the implications of that for national planning policy.

We are very clear that the statutory consultee system is not operating effectively. We have been told as much not only by house builders, but by local planning authorities from across the country. Hon. Members will be aware that the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister have imposed a moratorium on new statutory consultees. I also draw the House’s attention to my written statement on Monday setting out how the Government intend to reform the statutory consultee system to ensure it operates effectively, including consulting on limiting the scope of statcons to where advice is strictly necessary and removing entirely a limited number of them.

I have heard the calls made today—organised calls, I might infer—from Lib Dem Members to add water companies to the list of statutory consultees. I gently say to hon. Members that I do not think this is the panacea that they imply it is. Indeed, I think that doing so would risk allowing water companies to argue against the delivery of new homes, rather than focusing on their responsibility to ensure the appropriate infrastructure is in place at the outset. That is why it is important that, although water companies are not statutory consultees on individual planning applications, statute requires that they are consulted in the preparation of local plans. That is because strategic issues such as water capacity are best dealt with at a strategic level through the plan-making process, rather than through individual planning applications.

Ensuring that we take a strategic spatial planning approach to the management of water, including tackling pollution and managing pressures on the water environment at a catchment, regional and national scale, is a core objective of the ongoing independent review into the regulatory system of the water sector, launched in October 2024 by the UK and Welsh Governments. As I hope hon. Members are aware, the commission is expected to report by the second quarter of next year and I know hon. Members will engage with it.

The Government are acutely aware that the sustainable supply of water in some areas—for example, Cambridge and north Sussex—is an immediate constraint on growth and we are tackling that in various ways. For example, in those instances, we work closely with local authorities, regulators and water companies to find creative solutions to unlock growth and address environmental pressures. Our work in Cambridge to address water scarcity, for example, has already helped to unlock applications for over 9,000 homes and 500,000 square metres of commercial space, and similar initiatives are possible in other areas.

The hon. Member for North Shropshire and a few other hon. Members drew our attention specifically to section 104 agreements outlined in the Water Industry Act 1991. Developers and water companies can enter into these voluntary agreements, which, where they work, ensure that newly constructed sewers, first, are built to an appropriate standard and, secondly, become the responsibility of the local water company for maintenance once they are operational, but I have heard and note the critiques that have been made. If hon. Members will indulge me by putting to me in writing some of the cases that have been specified this afternoon, I would like to look into the matter further to see whether the system needs improvement in various ways.

As I have the time, I will speak briefly about two other issues: first, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Alongside targeted local interventions, the Government are taking steps to ensure that we can more quickly and effectively upgrade major economic infrastructure across the whole country, including water supplies. In last year’s Budget, the Government confirmed their commitment to delivering a new 10-year infrastructure strategy, providing more certainty and stability for the supply chain and helping to unlock private investment by setting out the Government’s vision, objectives and priorities for infrastructure over the next decade.

Additionally, hon. Members will know that yesterday we introduced our flagship Planning and Infrastructure Bill. One of the Bill’s five overarching objectives is to deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for critical infrastructure, including vital water infrastructure, through streamlining consultation requirements for nationally significant infrastructure projects, ensuring that national policy statements are kept up to date—hon. Members will know that some of them date back to 2012—and reducing opportunities for judicial review. I encourage and welcome the engagement of hon. Members from across the House as that legislation progresses.

[David Reed]

I hear the points that the Minister has made. Will he confirm that his Department is not going to make water companies statutory consultees in the planning process?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I cannot be clearer than I was in my written statement: the Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister have imposed a moratorium on new statutory consultees. We do not think that the system is operating effectively—as I said, local authorities and house builders are telling us as much. Water companies have a statutory role in the local planning consultation process, and they can provide their view on any application: not being a statutory consultee does not prevent them from doing so.

I want briefly to comment on water quality and pollution. Beyond the provision of water infrastructure, we are facing challenges in maintaining the quality of our water because of ever-increasing pressures from pollution, climate change and unsustainable practices. This Government are prioritising water quality as a key element of our environmental and public health agenda. Significant steps are being taken to address pollution, enhance infrastructure, and ensure clean and sustainable water sources for future generations. For example, as part of our efforts to create a plan-led system that is underpinned by a genuinely accessible and understandable policy framework, we intend to consult on and produce a set of national policies for decision making later this year. It will include policies on topics such as pollution, plan making, healthy and safe communities, and the delivery of homes, and how all of that interlinks. Further details will be announced in due course.

The Government are also working with farmers to reduce agricultural pollution. The Environment Act 2021, introduced by the previous Government, set a legally binding target to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment contribution from agriculture by at least 40% by 2038. That is why, alongside developing a new statutory plan to restore nature and meet these targets, we are enforcing key regulations, such as the farming rules for water, and have carried out thousands of inspections through the Environment Agency.

I underline that the Government expect sustainable development to be pursued both through the effective preparation and implementation of local plans and through the application of relevant national planning policy. As a Government, we have already taken, and will continue to take, steps to ensure that new housing developments have adequate water and waste water infrastructure as a matter of course. I have heard the concerns of the hon. Member for North Shropshire and other hon. Members about what more may be required to ensure that that is the case, and I assure all those who have participated in the debate that their concerns will be at the forefront of my mind as we continue to progress our planning reform agenda.

Statutory Consultee System Reform

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Written Statements

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

Statutory consultees play an important role in the planning system, providing expert advice and information on significant environmental, transport, safety and heritage issues to ensure good decision making. However, their involvement introduces additional requirements into the process of securing permission for some developments.

We need a planning application process which considers the correct statutory and technical issues in a timely and proportionate manner, enabling confident and timely decision making. It is therefore a matter of concern that local planning authorities and developers report that the statutory consultee system is not currently working effectively.

The concerns expressed by local planning authorities and developers in relation to the operation of the statutory consultee system are wide-ranging. They include statutory consultees failing to engage proactively; taking too long to provide their advice; reopening issues that have already been dealt with at the plan-making stage; submitting automatic holding objections which are too often subsequently withdrawn at a very late stage in the process; and frequently issuing holding responses that allow statutory deadlines to be met while seeking over-specified levels of information from developers over longer timeframes. The final advice that statutory consultees provide can also often seek gold-plated outcomes, going beyond what is necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms.

Where there is inconsistency in advice, or delays in the provision of final responses, there can be substantial uncertainty and delay for applicants. Local planning authorities and developers can also often exacerbate these problems, by providing inadequate or poor quality information, or through blanket and inappropriate referrals to statutory consultees. This diverts resource from supporting those significant applications which require statutory consultee expertise.

The Government are determined to return the statutory consultee system to meeting their goal of supporting high-quality development through the swift provision of expert relevant advice to inform decision making. It is essential that statutory consultees look to provide practical, pragmatic advice and expertise which is focused on what is necessary to make development acceptable. That is why on 26 January, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor announced a moratorium on the creation of new statutory consultees and committed to reviewing the existing arrangements.

Today, I am confirming to the House a number of steps we are taking to improve these arrangements in England: putting support for growth at the heart of the system; limiting the scope of statutory consultees to where advice is strictly necessary; reminding local planning authorities that they are able to proceed with a decision where advice is not provided on time if they have sufficient information to do so; establishing a new performance framework with greater ministerial scrutiny of the actions of statutory consultees; and ensuring the system has the right funding with the right incentives.

Ensuring the statutory consultee system supports economic growth

First, the Government are clear that the statutory consultee system must work in support of development and economic growth—reflecting the central place of these objectives in the Government’s plan for change. This principle must run through the actions of all those involved in the system, from local planning authorities—reflecting the economic growth policies set out in the national planning policy framework—to the statutory consultees themselves. In seeking advice and providing it, the goal should be to ensure that wherever possible good quality development can progress, drawing on the right expert input where necessary.

Scope of statutory consultees in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regime

Secondly, we want to limit the statutory requirement to consult to only those instances where it is necessary to do so, and remove gold-plating where advice and support can be provided through other means. This means looking at both the existing set of statutory consultees, and the specific application types on which they provide advice.

We will therefore consult this spring on the impacts of removing a limited number of statutory consultees. Our initial intention is that this will include Sport England, the Theatres Trust and the Gardens Trust. We continue to recognise the importance of the policy areas with which these organisations are engaged, and recognise their value to local communities. Access to culture is an important driver of local growth and access to open green spaces and playing fields is crucial to our ambitions to increase physical activity levels across the nation and deliver on our health mission. We remain committed to ensuring our playing field capacity is protected and extended. Our national planning policy framework ensures these interests are maintained in the planning system and there is an important, ongoing role for these organisations working with local authorities and developers on the development of local and strategic plans, and through the publication of guidance and advice.

In addition, we will review the range and type of planning applications on which statutory consultees are required to be consulted and consider whether some types of application could be removed, or addressed by alternative means of engagement and provision of expert advice. In some cases, this could be done through undertaking more effective strategic engagement at the local and strategic plan level, reducing the need for comments on individual planning applications, and increasing the role of standing advice. We will consult on these changes in the spring alongside the impact of removal of the organisations identified above, before taking forward any resulting changes in secondary legislation later this year.

Expectations on local planning authorities in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regime

Thirdly, and reflecting the focus on supporting economic growth, local planning authorities should limit consultation of statutory consultees to only those instances where it is necessary to do so. Local planning authorities must still consult with statutory consultees where there is a legislative requirement to do so, noting that if there is relevant and up to date standing advice published with respect to that category of development, then consultation is not required. Applications may need to be referred to particular statutory consultees outside of the statutory requirements where their expertise is required, given the nature of the development, but should not be referred where standing advice is sufficient.

However, routine and blanket referrals to statutory consultees outside the statutory requirements should not take place, as this creates unnecessary administrative burdens for both local planning authorities and the statutory consultee. Where a statutory consultee has not provided advice within the agreed period, the decision maker should consider whether they can make a decision in the absence of this advice.

Decisions should not be delayed in order to secure advice from a statutory consultee beyond the 21—or 18—day statutory deadlines unless there is insufficient information to make the decision or more detailed advice may enable an approval rather than refusal. The national planning policy framework sets out that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth, and timely decision making is in line with this objective.

In those limited circumstances where the statutory consultee is expected to provide advice on significant issues and it is necessary—for example, on safety critical issues—appropriate extensions to the 21 day deadline should be granted so that sufficient and timely information is available to inform the decision.

Performance of statutory consultees

Fourthly, the role of statutory consultees is to provide evidence of impacts and expertise in a timely manner so that the decision maker has all relevant considerations before them. This should be provided in the form of advice to the decision maker, and should not be framed as an objection to the development.

In circumstances specified through direction, a local planning authority may be required to consult the Secretary of State, including where they propose to determine an application against the recommendation of a statutory consultee. The Secretary of State may then direct the manner in which the application is determined, including calling in the application. As part of the review, we will consider existing directions and when such directions may appropriately be made in the future.

To support timely and effective engagement with the planning system, we will also institute a new performance framework. As part of this framework, an HM Treasury and MHCLG Minister will meet annually with chief executive officers of key statutory consultees in order to review their performance. We will work with all statutory consultees to develop action plans and key performance indicators to ensure that the service they deliver is effective, proportionate and timely. We will also explore where greater digitisation, improved guidance, and improved local authority training can support performance improvements.

Funding of statutory consultees

Finally, the Government recognise that statutory consultees need to be resourced adequately, and on a sustainable basis to enable them to support the Government’s growth objectives in full. We intend to develop a model to support this sustainable funding, while ensuring we are incentivising efficient and constructive engagement in applications, and in the planning system more generally—and we will set out further details in the coming weeks.

Taken together, these steps will help refocus the statutory consultee system on its core purpose: supporting development through the swift provision of expert relevant advice to inform decision making.

[HCWS510]

Green Spaces Bill

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for tabling the Bill, and for giving the House a chance to both consider and re-emphasise the importance of our shared green spaces. Parks and green spaces are an essential part of our local and social infrastructure, and the Government are firmly—

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

2. Whether the number of houses recommended by the new towns taskforce will be in addition to the housing targets set in the national policy planning framework.

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

Not least because we will only begin construction of the next generation of new towns towards the end of this Parliament, the Government have been clear that they will deliver over and above the targets produced by the standard method. We will, of course, keep under review how the taskforce’s forthcoming recommendations on new towns interact with housing targets across England.

[Blake Stephenson]

Communities in Mid Bedfordshire have always done their bit to take new housing, but continued pressure to build is chipping away at our beautiful countryside and the historical character of our towns and villages. Will the Minister assure communities such as mine that the new towns taskforce cannot hit us with a double whammy of house building?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The independent expert taskforce, chaired by Sir Michael Lyons, will be submitting its final report to us in the summer and, as such, we have absolutely no idea which locations it will recommend to Ministers for decision. We have been clear, as I have said, that our ambition is that new towns will contribute over and above the targets produced by the standard method, but obviously we want to make sure that the right incentives are in place to support proactive local authorities, such as his, coming forward with these large-scale new communities.

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

We know that future generations of older people are unlikely to have had generous pensions or even to have been homeowners during their working lives. Will the Minister therefore confirm whether housing targets will include specific reference to older people’s housing and the growing need for age-appropriate accommodation?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I would say two things to my hon. Friend. First, the older people’s housing taskforce recently reported, and we are weighing up its recommendations. We have also made clear through the national planning policy framework that we expect local authorities to take into account the types of tenure and homes that they need for their local areas, and local plans are the primary way that different types of housing for different demographic demographics should be brought forward.

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

3. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the Penistone line project.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What steps she is taking to help tackle increases in leaseholders’ costs.

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

The Government recognise the considerable financial strain that opaque and unfair fees and charges are placing on leaseholders across the country. As my hon. Friend will know, on 21 November last year, I made a written ministerial statement setting out the steps the Government intend to take to provide leaseholders with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes by implementing those reforms to the leasehold system already in statute. We will also progress the wider set of reforms necessary to end the feudal leasehold system for good.

[Rachael Maskell]

I welcome this Labour Government getting a grip on the feudal racket that enslaves leaseholders to ever-rising management fees and ground rents, making it impossible to pay and impossible to move. Will the Minister provide transitional arrangements to cap those costs while ensuring that all new developments—even developments that are soon to enter the planning stage, such as the one at York Central—can make the transition to commonhold as soon as the law changes?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government have no plans to cap service charges for tenants and leaseholders, given that would prevent necessary funds from being raised for legitimate purposes, but we do plan to tackle unregulated unaffordable ground rent provisions through legislation. As the White Paper published today makes clear, we want to make the process of converting to commonhold as easy as possible, and we will set out proposals in the draft leasehold and commonhold reform Bill, which is to be published later this year.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s announcement today of changes to leasehold and the introduction of commonhold, but thousands of leaseholders across the country are still crippled by both high service charges and failing delivery. I am sure that the inboxes of Members across the House are full of complaints from constituents, particularly in relation to FirstPort management company. What can the Government do to hold individual management companies accountable for the services they deliver to our residents?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we intend to bring into force this year the provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which is designed to drive up the transparency of service charges so that leaseholders can challenge them more easily if they consider them to be unreasonable. We intend to strengthen the regulation of managing agents, imposing minimum standards in relation to, for example, qualifications. I would say to any managing agent—and I know that Members across the House have been holding them to account—that they should improve their performance in the light of the changes coming forward in the near future.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me explain, as simply as I can, what we want to do. As the White Paper makes clear, we will ban the sale of new leasehold flats so that commonhold becomes the default tenure, and we will ensure that the process of conversion is as simple as possible so that those leaseholders in existing leasehold blocks who want to make that change can do so as simply as possible. But we have to ensure that those who do not want to make that change have the powers, rights and protections in relation to their homes that will give them the immediate relief that my hon. Friend talks about.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

What steps are the Government taking to help those leaseholders with doubling ground rents who now feel trapped and unable to remortgage or sell their properties without meeting the massive costs of changing their leases, which, as I know from personal experience, can amount to five-figure sums?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I well recognise the problem. As the hon. Gentleman will probably know, historically ground rents were nominal sums—often peppercorn sums—but over the past 20 years we have seen a very different system develop. We have made a commitment, which we will honour, to take action on unregulated and unaffordable ground rents through legislation, and we will provide further details in due course.

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

6. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on levels of non-domestic rates for pubs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

23. What steps she is taking to build more social housing.

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

The Government are committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. In our first eight months in office, we have announced £800 million in new funding for the affordable homes programme. This top-up will support the delivery of up to 7,800 new homes, with more than half being social rent homes. We will set out details of new investment to succeed the 2021-to-2026 programme at the spending review.

[John Slinger]

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. What measures will his Department consider to support councils that find themselves in viability negotiations with developers, who sometimes push down the quota of social homes and, indeed, affordable homes?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am aware of several schemes in my hon. Friend’s constituency that are having viability issues. Financial support is indeed available. While the £500 million of new in-year funding for the affordable homes programme announced at the Budget is already oversubscribed as a result of significant demand from housing providers across the country, the further allocation of £300 million, which we announced last month, will help ensure that more social and affordable homes are delivered. In the case that my hon. Friend describes, I would encourage both his local authority and local social housing providers to bid for that money.

[Mike Tapp]

I recently visited Aylesham village with Persimmon Homes in my constituency, and I was delighted to see the number of solar panels on roofs across the estate. What are this Government doing to ensure that, for new builds, including social housing new builds, we deliver solar panels on every roof, high levels of insulation, and charging points on driveways?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The previous Government, to their credit, introduced changes to the building regulations that came into force in June 2022, and under those standards, new homes are being built with high-quality insulation and electric vehicle charging points. Those standards also encourage the use of solar panels, or other forms of low-carbon technology, such as heat pumps. This Government intend to amend building regulations later this year, as part of the introduction of future standards that will set more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emission requirements for new homes.

[Steve Witherden]

The most recent data shows that nearly 11,500 people are stuck in temporary accommodation in Wales, unable to move on from homelessness due to a shortage of social housing and unaffordable private rents. Given the escalating need for affordable housing across the UK, what conversations has the Department had with the Welsh Government to urgently address this crisis and collaborate on quickly increasing the availability of social homes?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I understand well the pressures in Wales that my hon. Friend describes so eloquently. We know that increasing the supply of social homes is a cornerstone of the Welsh Government’s plans to prevent housing problems and homelessness. We speak regularly with our colleagues in the Welsh Government, and we will continue to work closely with them on our shared objective of getting more social homes built by councils and housing associations.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Building more social housing and affordable housing was a principal promise made by Leicestershire county council in the proposals for the Lutterworth East development. That development is subject to a call-in, so I do not want to go into any details, but I want to ask the Minister this very basic question. If a senior civil servant in the Department gives a commitment to an MP, to encourage that MP to drop an amendment to legislation, can the MP rely on the assurances given by that senior civil servant?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I note the question the hon. Member asks. We are grateful to all the civil servants who serve the Government for acting with integrity. The civil service code is clear that civil servants must act truthfully and cannot deceive or knowingly mislead Ministers or Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman has serious issues that he wishes to raise regarding civil servants, he can do so with the Department’s permanent secretary.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Chichester’s planning policy dictates that 30% of all homes in new developments should be social and affordable housing. However, we have recently noticed a worrying trend of registered providers refusing to take on contracts in smaller and medium-sized developments, and favouring larger developments. That is putting a lot of the social housing in Chichester at risk. What is the Minister doing to ensure that registered providers continue to take on smaller contracts in mixed-use developments?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We know that registered providers are facing real challenges when it comes to their capacity, or headroom, to take on additional section 106 units. The hon. Lady may be aware that we set up, through Homes England, a clearing service to try to better match developers with units that are not being picked up. We are giving lots more thought to what can be done in this area, and I am more than happy to speak to her about the options available to the Government.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

The building of more council houses throughout the UK is welcome news, especially in Ashfield, where we have 7,000 people on the waiting list. Does the Minister agree that when we are dishing these houses out, British-born, hard-working taxpayers should be prioritised?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I would say to the hon. Gentleman that they already are. There are very strict requirements in place when it comes to the allocation of social housing. As I am sure he knows well, local criteria can be imposed—I am not sure that his council has them in place—in terms of the amount of time someone needs to be resident in an area before they qualify for social rented housing.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Every day, another family contact my office because they are homeless, and they are placed in a hostel, with no functioning kitchen and no private bathroom, miles away from their children’s schools. I am sure that other hon. Members can say the same. What is worse is that the placements cost councils at least three times as much as permanent social homes. So-called affordable homes are of no use to these families at all. At the same time, new homes are being rejected by registered housing providers because the standards are not high enough. What are the Government doing to progress the future homes standard, so that the homes being built are not rejected by registered home providers, who say that the homes are not good enough for them, and will have to be retrofitted?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I understand the point the hon. Lady is making. I refer her to my previous answer. The Government intend to bring forward, through changes to building regulations, future standards that will increase the energy efficiency and carbon emission requirements on new build homes. That will give housing associations, in particular, that have got ahead of the changes and standards the comfort that they need to start adopting those units.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

10. What steps she is taking to help ensure that levels of funding to local government are sufficient to fund public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

15. Whether her Department is taking steps to ensure housing targets account for protected landscapes.

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

The Government are committed to maintaining strong protections for our protected landscapes. We are clear that the scale and extent of development within such designated areas should be limited, so that we are able to pass on their attractions and important biodiversity to future generations. National planning policy is clear that significant development within a national landscape should be refused, other than in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest.

[Edward Morello]

West Dorset desperately needs new housing that is actually affordable for local people, especially key workers and young families looking to get on the housing ladder, but 70% of West Dorset falls within a protected national landscape, formerly an area of outstanding natural beauty. Rigid housing targets could lead to inappropriate developments that undermine the character of this protected area. What discussions has the Department had with local authorities in Dorset on adjusting housing targets to reflect the constraints of the national landscape and our rural infrastructure challenges?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Local authorities use the standard method to assess housing needs, but they can show evidence of any hard constraints in their areas, including protected landscapes. Those will be assessed by the Planning Inspectorate to judge whether the plan is sound. We are clear that local authorities should explore all options to deliver the homes that their communities need, including maximising the use of brownfield land, working with neighbouring authorities and, where appropriate, reviewing their green belt.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

16. What steps she is taking to help people impacted by EWS1 fire safety certificates issued by Tri Fire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

T2. Many families in my constituency live in new housing estates where the developers have made their profits, sailed off into the sunset, and left the roads and services in an unacceptable state and unadopted. What steps might the Government be able to take to push local authorities like Northumberland county council into action to accept their responsibilities and adopt those estates?

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

I well recognise the situation that my hon. Friend describes, but I also recognise the reluctance of local authorities to take on substandard housing estates that have been built. We have decided to consult this year on options to reduce the prevalence of private management of estates of the kind he describes. We will also, importantly, implement new consumer protections for homeowners on private estates in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

T3. In Scotland, 10,000 children are currently homeless and record levels of children are in temporary accommodation. The number of social houses built by housing associations in Scotland is at its lowest level since Margaret Thatcher. Does the Minister agree that the SNP has taken Scotland in the wrong direction and that instead we need to see the bold action taken by this UK Labour Government to build more homes replicated in Scotland, with a Scottish Labour Government in 2026?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Last year, as the housing emergency took hold, the SNP Government cut £200 million from the affordable housing budget. It was only as a result of Labour’s record budget settlement that they were forced to reverse those cuts, but they are still not showing the adequate ambition that we need. The SNP Government must set out a real plan to reform planning and boost house building to meet their affordable housing targets.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

T9. In response to the minimum energy efficiency standards consultation for privately rented homes, landlord groups are saying that they would pass the cost of energy efficiency works on to tenants, despite that being the cost of bringing their properties up to basic minimum standards. Relying on council guidance that that should not happen is too weak. What additional measures will the Minister take to enforce that and ensure that it is private tenants—who are already at the greatest risk of fuel poverty—who will benefit, and not landlords?

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

T4. Many of my constituents face extortionate hikes in service charges while getting little in return, with repairs not being carried out, poor service and a lack of transparency and accountability from their managing agent, FirstPort. Can the Minister outline what the Government are doing to bring an end to the scandalous fleecehold system that is ripping off leaseholders across the country?

[Matthew Pennycook]

To add to the responses I gave earlier, we intend to take action to provide leaseholders with the transparency of standardised service charge invoices, so that they can better challenge unreasonable rent hikes. We also need to strengthen the regulation of managing agents, including those such as FirstPort that, as is clear from the feeling in the House, are not performing the necessary services for their residents.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Welcome though the hundreds of millions of pounds extra for adult social care in the Budget were, can the Secretary of State confirm that the cost of rises in national insurance contributions and the minimum wage will run into the billions, and that local authorities will in fact be worse off than they were prior to the Budget in tackling social care? Can she confirm that—yes or no?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The planning proposals for Laindon Road and Mountnessing Road in Billericay and for Noak Bridge were previously rejected because of the green belt aspect but are now being reconsidered under grey belt. Will the Minister urgently meet me, the Billericay Action Group and some of the local councillors to look at the issues around where grey belt is perhaps not being used in the way the Government originally intended?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Local authorities can be clear about how grey belt should be used because we released planning policy guidance last week to give them a better sense of where it is appropriate to be released and be brought forward for development.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

T6. Far too many renters get a terrible deal, living in cold, mouldy substandard homes and being charged eye-watering rents by landlords. I am proud of this Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill, but while legislation is welcome, too many are still paying extortionate prices for really shoddy properties. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the Government are taking more steps to make renting affordable again?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I assure my hon. Friend of that fact, and we are also succeeding where the previous Government failed, in that we are finally abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions. The Renters’ Rights Bill will empower tenants to challenge unreasonable within-tenancy rent increases. We also need to boost supply, which is why we set the hugely ambitious milestone, as part of our plan for change, of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in this Parliament.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

In the Lake district and the dales of Cumbria, average house prices are around 20 times average household incomes. Will the Minister try to tackle this issue by making sure that there is a specific and unappealable designation of social housing-only developments that national park authorities and local councils can enforce?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We want to see far greater use of rural exception sites in particular, and I am more than happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman—I think we have already planned to do so—to discuss short-term lets as well as this issue.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

T7. I have recently received a number of complaints from my constituents about leasehold managing agents. These include unacceptably long delays for repairs—[Interruption.]

[Phil Brickell]

These include unacceptably long delays for repairs and exorbitant costs at Greenmount Court in Smithills, despite spiralling fees, poor transparency and little to no communication from the agent. What steps is the Minister taking to deliver a fairer deal for existing leaseholders and to hold poorly performing managing agents to account?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We need to balance speed with care, because we will not make the mistake that the previous Government did and pass flawed legislation that requires us to fix it, therefore delaying reform for leaseholders. We will, as soon as possible, introduce the provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which will allow us, as I said, to bring in transparency around service charges to allow leaseholders to better challenge unreasonable increases, and we intend to strengthen the regulation of managing agents.

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

On 8 February, the Court—a grade II listed landmark in Chorleywood in my constituency—burned down in mysterious circumstances. I met the three local councillors—Councillors Cooper, Hearn and Reed—on Friday to discuss the matter. I am not asking the Secretary of State to comment on this specific case, but will she confirm that where listed buildings are destroyed without permission, there should be a presumption that they are rebuilt brick by brick to how they were before the destruction?

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

T8. At nearly every single one of my advice surgeries, leaseholders in Stratford and Bow have told me appalling stories of disrepair, high service charges and no accountability from management agents, after years of broken promises of reform by the Conservative Government. I am pleased about today’s announcement on leasehold reform for new builds, but will the Minister assure my constituents about what concrete action will be taken for existing leaseholders?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The publication of the “Commonhold White Paper” today marks the beginning of the end of the feudal leasehold system. We will succeed where the previous Government failed and bring that system to an end, but we are determined to provide immediate relief for leaseholders suffering from unreasonable and unfair charges at present.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I rise to gently follow up on a critical request for urgent help that I made in November. In September 2023, Kirklees council temporarily closed Dewsbury sports centre for safety reasons due to reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. The centre remained closed until 5 November 2024 when the council unilaterally decided to permanently close the centre without investigation. I raised the issue with the Secretary of State for DCMS and have written to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor for assistance. Will the Deputy Prime Minister facilitate an update for me on the issue?

Commonhold

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Written Statements

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

For far too many leaseholders, the reality of home ownership has fallen woefully short of the dream—their lives marked by an intermittent, if not constant, struggle with punitive and escalating ground rents, unjustified permissions and administration fees, unreasonable or extortionate charges, and onerous conditions imposed with little or no consultation. This is not what home ownership should entail.

We remain steadfast in our commitment to providing leaseholders with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes. Alongside the extensive programme of detailed secondary legislation that we are bringing forward to implement the remaining provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, we will further reform the existing leasehold system by legislating to tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rents, removing the disproportionate and draconian threat of forfeiture, acting to protect leaseholders from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents, and enacting remaining Law Commission recommendations on enfranchisement and the right to manage.

However, while we are working to provide leaseholders subject to unfair and unreasonable practices with relief as quickly as possible, we will not lose sight of the wider set of reforms necessary to honour our manifesto commitment to finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end.

The Government are determined to ensure that commonhold becomes the default tenure. To take a crucial step toward realising that objective, we are today publishing a “Commonhold White Paper” that sets out the proposed new commonhold model for home ownership in England and Wales.

Commonhold is a modern home ownership structure that is used widely around the world. It is not merely an alternative to leasehold ownership, but a radical improvement on it. At the heart of the commonhold model is a simple principle: the people who should own buildings, and who should exercise control over their management, shared facilities and related costs, are not third-party landlords, but the people who live in flats within them and have a direct stake in their upkeep.

In enabling flats to be owned on a freehold basis, commonhold ensures that the interests of homeowners are preserved in perpetuity rather than their value depreciating over time as it does under leasehold, and it transfers decision-making powers to homeowners so they have a greater say over how their home is managed and the bills they pay, as well as flexibility to respond to the changing needs of their building and its residents.

Unlike many other countries across the world that moved away from leasehold ownership structures long ago, flats here continue to be owned, almost universally, on a leasehold basis.

That is partly the result of the natural inclination to stick with the familiar, but also because there was more money to be made by selling leasehold flats through the significant additional income to be generated from leasehold homeowners. Yet the shortcomings of this form of home ownership are obvious and the case for decisive change is overwhelming.

Commonhold was introduced in England and Wales in 2004 through the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, but for a variety of reasons it failed to establish itself and is now out of date. Having learnt the lessons of that false dawn, it is now time to finish the job. Commonhold-type models are used all over the world. The autonomy and control that it provides for are taken for granted in many other countries. It can and does work and this Government are determined, through both new commonhold developments and conversions to commonhold, to see it take root.

As the White Paper makes clear, we intend to reinvigorate commonhold through the introduction of a comprehensive new legal framework based on the vast majority of the recommendations made by the Law Commission in its 2020 report. This new legal framework will be supplemented by a ban on the sale of new leasehold flats, so that commonhold becomes the default tenure.

We will consult later this year on the best approach to banning new leasehold flats so it can work effectively alongside a robust ban on leasehold houses, and we will seek input from industry and consumers on other fundamental points such as potential exemptions for legitimate use and how to minimise disruption to housing supply.

I know my ministerial colleagues in Wales share our desire to deliver these bold reforms and so we will continue to work jointly with the Welsh Government to ensure they apply across England and Wales.

[HCWS488]

Local Plan Making and Guidance

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Written Statements

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

Planning is principally a local activity. It is local plans that set out a vision and a framework for the future development of any given area, addressing needs and opportunities in relation to housing, the economy, community facilities and essential infrastructure—as well as a basis for conserving and enhancing the natural and historic environment, mitigating and adapting to climate change, and achieving well-designed places.

Local plans are the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development that their areas need and we know that areas with up-to-date local plans deliver more homes overall than those without one. For these reasons, the plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our planning system.

I am today updating the House on further steps the Government are taking to progress toward universal coverage of local plans and to realise the full potential of the planning reforms we initiated last year.

Responding to the 2023 consultation on implementation of plan-making reforms

While there are clear benefits to communities of having an up-to-date local plan, fewer than a third of local areas have one in place. That is partly the result of how inaccessible and cumbersome the plan-making process can be.

The current way of preparing plans is not optimised for community participation. Plans can be lengthy, hard to read and difficult for those without specialist planning knowledge to engage with. They also often take a long time to prepare, at least seven years on average, which means they can be out of date too quickly, and communities struggle to understand the many different consultation phases.

The Government want to make new local plans simpler to understand and use, so that communities can more easily shape them. We want them to clearly show what is planned in a local area—so that residents can more easily engage with them, especially while they are being drawn up. We want them to be prepared and examined more quickly to ensure they reflect current local needs. And we want them to make the best use of new digital technology, to enhance access and drive improved productivity and efficiency in the plan-making process.

Following detailed analysis of all the responses submitted, as well as extensive engagement with the sector, the Government are today publishing our response https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/plan-making-reforms-consultation-on-implementation/outcome/government-response-to-the-proposed-plan-making-reforms-consultation-on-implementation to the previous Government’s consultation on the new-plan making system. We intend to proceed largely as set out in that consultation, with necessary regulations, policy and guidance to be confirmed later this year.

Local planning authorities have also told us that they need clearer guidance and more practical tools to speed up plan-making. We are therefore launching today a new dedicated home for plan-making resources on gov.uk: “Create or Update a Local Plan” https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/create-or-update-a-local-plan This brings together all the essential tools and guidance councils need to quickly develop a local plan, underpinned by quality data. We will be adding more practical resources to this site over the coming months to help planners at all stages of the plan-making process.

Updates to green belt, local nature recovery strategies and effective use of land planning policy guidance

The Government are also revising planning practice guidance to support local planning authorities in their plan making.

We are clear that development must look to brownfield first, prioritising the development of previously used land wherever possible. However, we know brownfield development alone will not be enough to meet our housing need. That is why the revised national planning policy framework published in December 2024 included a new approach to the green belt, prioritising the release of lower-quality grey-belt land within it and introducing “golden rules” to ensure any green-belt development benefits communities and nature.

To ensure our green belt reforms are implemented effectively and to support a more consistent approach to assessing green belt land, we have today published new guidance https://www.gov.uk/guidance/green-belt for local planning authorities. This will support authorities with the production of local development plans whilst also making sure that planning applications and development on suitable grey-belt land can proceed in the short term in areas where up-to-date plans are not in place.

Guidance https://www.gov.uk/guidance/effective-use-of-land has also been revised today on making effective use of land setting out how to apply paragraph 125c of the NPPF. This gives substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, taking into consideration other policies including those relating to the protection of heritage assets when making decisions.

We have also published new guidance https://www.gov.uk/guidance/natural-environment#local-nature-recovery-strategies on local nature recovery strategies as part of updates to the natural environment and plan-making planning practice guidance. LNRSs are new strategies being prepared across England to agree priorities for nature recovery and propose actions in the locations where they will have the greatest impact for nature.

They will also provide valuable evidence for plan making and may contain information to support decisions on planning applications, so the updated guidance provides clarity on how local planning authorities can have regard to LNRSs in both the plan making and decision-making process. One of the 48 LNRSs has been published (West of England Combined Authority) and the other 47 are expected to follow during 2025.

Funding support for local authorities

Alongside the publication of the revised NPPF in December 2024, we announced funding https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/funding-to-support-local-authorities-with-the-costs-of-local-plan-delivery-and-green-belt-reviews-successful-local-authorities to support local authorities with the costs of carrying out green belt reviews. Eligible local authorities were invited to submit an expression of interest to request a share of this funding.

We are today announcing that 133 local authorities will receive £70,000 of pump- priming funding each to contribute towards the costs of carrying out green belt reviews in their areas. This will be paid to those local authorities shortly. We are keen to hear feedback from local authorities as to whether this is a sufficient level of funding and we will be reaching out to affected local authorities in due course.

We also want to help local authorities continue to drive forward their local plans whilst taking new policy into account. That is why on 14 February 2025 we announced new funding to support local plan delivery for authorities at regulation 18 stage. This is in addition to the funding for local authorities with plans at regulation 19 stage, announced in December 2024. Eligible local authorities are invited to submit an expression of interest form by 28 February 2025 to request a share of this funding, and we will announce which local authorities will receive both regulation 18 and regulation 19 local plans funding in due course.

Pathways to Planning funding

The Pathways to Planning programme provides local planning authorities with a pipeline of talented graduates, adding value to local authority planning teams and contributing to the sustainability of the planning profession. Almost 90 graduate planners started work through the programme last year, and the current recruitment process has seen more than 2,000 graduates apply.

The Government remain committed to enhancing the capacity and capability of local planning authorities. We are therefore allocating £4.5 million for the Local Government Association’s latest Pathways to Planning initiative to fund salary bursaries for new planning roles in councils. We are setting ambitious targets for the programme, where we are hoping to exceed the 300-planner target by the end of 2026. Local planning authorities can indicate their interest in a salary-funded role on the programme’s expression of interest form https://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=7uRi4U8FPEuNOXVSTKjy6Q3gBMH2WphCmXSUOX7QdS9UQkJQUUhRU05URUcxTkpQN0MxSTVaQVdURS4u and canlearn more about the programme here.

[HCWS480]

Affordable Rural Housing

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Olivia Bailey]

indicated assent.

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

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) on securing this important debate. She has only been in the House a relatively short time, but she has already established a reputation as a doughty champion of her constituency. Those she has the privilege of representing should be reassured by the fact that she has already assiduously conveyed their views and concerns to Ministers on a range of matters, including the one we are considering today. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) and others who have made contributions to the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire raised a number of distinct issues on the provision of affordable rural housing and I will seek to respond to as many of them as I can in the time available to me. Before I do, I would like to make some brief remarks about planning reform and the role of the planning system in delivering homes of all kinds and meeting identified need for affordable housing, as a means of providing some important context.

It is not in dispute in this Chamber, I do not think, that the Government have inherited an acute and entrenched housing crisis, or that significantly boosting the supply of homes of all tenures is essential to tackling it. That is why we acted decisively to overhaul the national planning policy framework last year, to revise the anti-supply changes made by the previous Government in December 2023, and to introduce a range of pro-growth measures that will enable us to build the homes and infrastructure our country needs.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) on securing this important debate. I think it is true that all of us would like to see more affordable housing delivered for our constituents, but does the Minister agree that top-down housing targets for all areas of the United Kingdom are not always suitable? I am thinking of my own constituency on the Isle of Wight, where on average we deliver 300 homes a year and are committed, through our local plan, to deliver 450. The Government are asking us to deliver 1,000. Does the Minister agree that there have to be some areas of the United Kingdom where the standard method does not apply?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We think the changes we have introduced and the revised standard method are appropriate. Every part of the country will need to play its part in achieving our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million new homes across the country. That is the scale of ambition we need commensurate with the crisis we face, and that crisis affects every part of England.

The Government believe in a plan-led system. It is through local development plans that communities shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their areas need. Local plans must remain the cornerstone of our planning system and we are determined to progress towards universal coverage. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire will appreciate that I am unable to comment on her local plan or how her local planning authority may interpret national planning policy due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process, but there is merit in me making some general comments on plan making in local authority areas that overlap with national landscapes, as is the case in her own area.

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government are committed to maintaining strong protections for our protected landscapes. We are clear that the scale and extent of development within such designated areas should be limited so that we are able to pass on their attractions and important biodiversity to future generations. National planning policy is clear that significant development within a national landscape should be refused, other than in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest, taking into account a range of considerations. That includes fully exploring the role of planning conditions and developer contributions to mitigate the impacts of development or support infrastructure provision as appropriate.

When it comes to plan making, local authorities are expected to use the revised standard method to assess housing needs. However, they are able to justify a lower housing requirement than the figure set by the method on the basis of local constraints on land availability, development and other relevant matters such as national landscapes, but also protected habitats and flood risk areas. Local authorities will need to consider these matters as they prepare their plans, but we expect them to explore all options to deliver the homes their communities need. That means maximising brownfield land, densifying available brownfield sites, working with neighbouring authorities on cross-boundary housing growth and, where necessary, reviewing the green belt. They are then expected to evidence and justify that approach to planning for housing in their local planning consultation. An examination of their approach will be scrutinised by a planning inspector to determine whether the constraints are justified and the plan is sound.

I turn to the focus of my hon. Friend’s remarks—namely, the case for supporting rural communities to build new homes for local people, and in particular for boosting the supply of rural affordable housing. The Government are committed to doing so, and it was a pleasure to have the chance to discuss this matter with my hon. Friend last month. It cannot be right that, as a number of hon. Members said, young people in particular are often unable to remain in the villages in which they grew up. That harms not only them and their families but the vibrancy and long-term viability of rural communities.

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

Does the Minister agree that the most important policies that we can look at in planning reform to deliver genuinely affordable homes in rural communities are a bold approach to land reform, the abolition of hope value and the reform of compulsory purchase orders to allow our local planning authorities to assemble the land that we need in our rural communities?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, we have already brought into force a discretionary power to disapply hope value in certain instances where a public interest test could be met. We are committed, through the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill, to bring forward further reform of the compulsory purchase process and compensation, so he can look forward to seeing more action in that area.

National policy makes it clear that local authorities should ensure that their planning policies and decisions respond to local circumstances and support housing that reflects local needs. That includes promoting sustainable development in local areas and ensuring that housing is located where it will maintain and enhance the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and flourish, especially where that will support local services. We also want more affordable housing in rural areas, as part of our manifesto commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. We have already taken steps to support the delivery of affordable rural housing. For example, our golden rules for green-belt development—which ensure an affordable housing contribution 15 percentage points above the highest existing affordable housing requirement that would otherwise apply to the development, subject to a cap of 50%—will unlock new affordable housing provision in a range of rural locations.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

Will the Minister say a few words about the massive change in our lifetimes? Doctors, policemen and teachers had houses owned by their local authority body, and they have now been sold. That pressure is continuing. Does he think we should go back to that to ensure that people can work in those sectors?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think the hon. Gentleman is making a wider point. I am not sure what specific legislative provision he is referring to in the past. There is a very clear place for ensuring we are building the right types of homes in all parts of the country, including homes that support key workers and other frontline public sector staff, and I am more than happy to discuss that matter with him outside the Chamber.

The Government have been clear that we want to look further at measures to support affordable housing in rural areas. That is why we asked a question on that issue as part of the consultation on reforms to the national planning policy framework last year. The responses we received are informing our ongoing work in relation to producing a set of national policies for decision making—national development management policies, as they were referred to under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Although I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire a firm date today, I can assure her and other hon. Members that we will consult on those policies in the spring, as promised, and I will update the House in due course.

My hon. Friend also knows that, since taking office, the Government have provided additional grant funding to support the delivery of affordable homes in all parts of England. At the Budget on 30 October 2024, the Chancellor set out details of an immediate one-year cash injection of £500 million to top up the existing affordable homes programme, which will deliver up to 5,000 new social and affordable homes. On 12 February 2025, the Government announced a further cash injection of £300 million to the existing affordable homes programme, which will deliver a further 2,800 new homes, more than half of which will be for social rent.

At the multi-year spending review this year, the Government will set out details of new investment to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. That new investment will deliver a mix of homes for sub-market rent and home ownership, with a particular focus on delivering homes for social rent. We know that delivering affordable housing in rural places can be especially challenging. There are particular challenges that come with the delivery of sites in rural areas, so that is one of the factors that will be taken into consideration in the design of the future capital investment programme, which will succeed the existing one.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire might also like to know that, to provide additional support for rural housing delivery in settlements with populations of fewer than 3,000 people, Homes England has developed a rural housing strategy and has dedicated rural housing champions in each of its operating areas.

My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the significant contribution that can be made by rural exception sites. As she is aware, these allow local authorities to address the housing needs of rural communities by creating sites where local residents, and others with a strong family or employment connection, can live in affordable homes and in perpetuity. Rural exception sites tend to be just outside village boundaries, where housing is not normally granted permission, so it is possible to create them even in the green belt or designated rural areas. We recognise the strong support for rural exception sites and the potential for strengthening this policy. That is why we made clear in our response to the consultation on the revised national planning policy framework that we are giving further consideration to how we can better support rural affordable housing, including through use of exception sites. That will include consideration of how we can drive greater uptake of rural exception sites and introduce a more streamlined approach. Again, I will set out details about our thinking in due course.

I will take forward this work with my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, including by considering the role that rural housing enablers play in supporting rural affordable housing. My hon. Friend mentioned a case in her own constituency. Again, I am afraid that I cannot give her any firm assurances in this debate in respect of ongoing funding because that is subject to the Government’s ongoing business planning, but I can assure her that we will provide an update at the earliest possible opportunity.

I want to briefly reference a couple of issues that hon. Members raised, as I have the time. The first is the problem highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire of developers and housing associations—in her case, Sovereign—selling off much-needed social and affordable homes in rural areas. She might like to know that when and if grant-funded homes are sold or part-sold, there is a system in place to recover Government grants through the recycled capital grant fund. That means that the cash value of the grant is placed in a fund to be used for further investment in new affordable housing supply. I am more than happy to discuss with her the specific issues with Sovereign in her own constituency.

Briefly, on short-term lets and the existing developer contribution system, Members across the House will know that we have debated this issue at length on various occasions. We are committed to taking forward the previous Government’s measures—a registration scheme for short-term lets and the abolition of the furnished holiday lettings scheme, which comes into force on 1 April—but we have been clear that that is not enough and we are giving very considered thought to what further powers local authorities need, in particular, though there is a balance to be struck, to deal with excessive concentrations of short-term lets that often deny local people not only homes to buy but, increasingly, homes to rent.

On section 106 contributions, we are reviewing viability and we are committed to strengthening the existing section 106 system, in lieu of taking forward the previous Government’s approach, which was an infrastructure levy. When taking those reforms forward, we need to ensure that local authorities are better able to negotiate at the point that those agreements are reached and are then able to ensure that developers honour the commitments that they make in those agreements, when struck.

In conclusion, I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire for securing this important debate, giving the House an opportunity to consider a range of important issues relating to affordable rural housing supply.

[Ben Maguire]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not—I am just winding up, I am afraid.

I hope that I have not only conveyed the Government’s firm support for delivering much-needed affordable housing in rural areas, but reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire and others that I am actively considering what further measures are necessary to ensure that we do so while balancing the need to ensure that development is sustainable and appropriate. I hope I can continue to draw on the insights provided by my hon. Friend and other colleagues, as the Government continue to develop their thinking in this area.

Question put and agreed to.