Large-scale Housing Site Delivery

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Written Statements

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

The delivery of significant numbers of large-scale housing developments in England is integral to driving economic growth and meeting the Government’s ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in this Parliament.

I am today updating the House on the progress that is being made to build out large sites across the country and to take forward the next generation of new towns.

The next generation of new towns

The post-war new towns programme was the most ambitious town-building effort ever undertaken in the UK. It transformed the lives of millions of working people by giving them affordable and well-designed homes in well-planned and beautiful surroundings. This Government will continue to invest in their regeneration, but we also remain committed to bringing forward the next generation of new towns.

In September 2024, we established an independent New Towns Taskforce and tasked the experts on it with identifying and recommending locations for new towns within 12 months. Over the past five months, the taskforce has made significant progress. Its nationwide call for evidence, which invited proposals for sites with the potential to accommodate large-scale new communities of at least 10,000 homes, attracted over 100 submissions from every region in England, demonstrating the enthusiasm that exists across the country to be part of this transformative programme.

Today, the taskforce is publishing an update on its work, setting out the vision and aims of the programme, as well as the unique benefits it would deliver and the lessons learnt from a comprehensive review of the three phases of the post-war new towns programme.

The Government have been clear that we want exemplary development to be the norm not the exception, so that more communities feel the benefits of new development and welcome it. We remain fully committed to creating high-quality, beautiful, and sustainable buildings and places.

We are therefore determined to ensure that the next generation of new towns are well-connected, well-designed, sustainable and attractive places where people want to live and have all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving mixed communities, including public transport and services like GP surgeries and schools.

The taskforce is also today sharing its emerging thinking on how best to meet these expectations, setting out what principles should guide the delivery of the kind of new large-scale communities we want to create through the programme. The intention is to begin a national conversation about what constitutes an ideal new town, and a series of engagement events will be held with the residents of existing new towns to secure their insight.

The Government are clear that public investment, leadership, and focus will be needed to kick-start the delivery of the next generation of new towns. However, our clear long-term objective is to ensure that the settlements brought forward under the programme pay for themselves through the value they create. This requires that the price paid for land reflects the costs of quickly and efficiently providing the infrastructure, amenities and affordable housing essential to the creation of high-quality places. We look forward to receiving the taskforce’s recommendations as to how this can be best achieved.

The taskforce will submit its final report to the Deputy Prime Minister and I in the summer, setting out its recommended locations for potential new towns, and its view on how best to fund and deliver them. The Government will then make decisions on the basis of those recommendations and begin the process of initiating the programme.

The spending review will confirm the Government’s plans to provide certainty for this transformative programme, demonstrating our commitment to bringing forward sustainable new communities and unlocking economic growth across the country. In the immediate term, an initial £15 million has been allocated for the next financial year, to enable early scoping work on new sites to begin, ensuring delivery can start as soon as ministerial decisions have been made.

New homes accelerator

Following its launch in July 2024, the new homes accelerator has been working with national and local partners to speed up housing delivery on a series of large sites across the country.

These include seven sites that were previously announced, namely Liverpool central docks, Northstowe, Worcestershire Parkway, Langley Sutton Coldfield, Tendring Colchester Borders garden community, Stretton Hall, and Biggleswade garden community, which together have the potential to deliver more than 28,500 homes.

Through intensive engagement with other Departments and statutory consultees as a convener and broker, the accelerator has also helped progress a number of other sites with the capacity to deliver more than 20,000 homes.

The call for evidence that the accelerator launched last year identified 350 sites, with a combined potential delivery pipeline of approximately 700,000 homes, as requiring some form of support to progress.

Today, the accelerator is announcing that it will focus attention on three new sites: Frome Gateway regeneration area in Bristol, south of Cayton in Scarborough, and Beam Park in London. Together, these have the potential to deliver more than 7,400 homes.

The new homes accelerator is also providing £3 million of grant funding to local authorities for site-specific support. This will be supplemented by the ongoing direct advice provided by its dedicated team of built environment specialists. We are also announcing £1 million of funding to key statutory consultees and £2 million of funding to the Building Safety Regulator to accelerate processing of applications.

Regeneration funding

To further increase the supply of new homes, I am today announcing several new investments. These include confirming £29.6 million from the brownfield infrastructure and land fund to unlock 1,000 new homes in Broadford City Village; announcing £1.5 million to support a joint venture between Manchester city council and private partners to deliver a new district in Manchester Victoria North; and £20 million towards remediating small council-owned brownfield sites, as part of the brownfield land release fund.

[HCWS452]

Crown Land: Planning Permission for Development

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Written Statements

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

Planning is principally a local activity, but it is a well-established principle 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 introduced in 2006, is not fit for purpose, and it is telling that it has never once been used.

I am therefore confirming today that the Government will implement two new routes by which Crown bodies can apply for planning permission for development on Crown land in England, as legislated for through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.

The first route, referred to as the Crown development route, will allow planning applications for Crown developments which are considered of “national importance” to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate directly instead of to local planning authorities.

Allowing such planning applications to be determined in this manner will allow for a more timely and proportionate process. Applications taken through this route will still be determined on the basis of their planning merits, with due consideration of local and national planning policy, and local communities and local planning authorities will still be fully engaged throughout the decision-making process and their views taken into account.

This process will be led by an independent planning inspector, with the inspector usually taking the decision, with provision for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to make the final decision where deemed appropriate.

The second route, an updated urgent Crown development process, will enable applications for “nationally important” development that is needed “urgently” to be determined rapidly under a simplified procedure. Applications under the urgent route will be submitted to, and dealt with directly by, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, and Local Government.

The Government believe that it is vital to ensure these routes are in place, and it is our sincere hope that it will remain a matter of cross-party consensus that where circumstances warrant it, decisions on nationally important development by the Crown can and should be made appropriately at the national level.

However, as I argued in opposition during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, it is imperative that such powers are used only where necessary, and that appropriate safeguards to their use are put in place. Where they are used, I also want to ensure there is transparency not just with those involved, but with Parliament. In implementing these routes, we have been careful to account for both points, which I will address in turn.

First, these new routes can only be used if the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government considers the proposed development from a Crown body to be of “national importance”. To this end, all applications must be accompanied by a statement setting out why the development is considered to meet that criteria.

The Secretary of State will in general only consider a development to be of national importance if, in her opinion, the development would:

involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments;

contribute towards the provision of national public services or infrastructure, such as new prisons, defence, or border infrastructure;

support a response to international, national, or regional civil emergencies;

or otherwise have significant economic, social, or environmental effects and strong public interest at a regional or national level.

For urgent Crown development, the Secretary of State must in addition be satisfied that the development subject to the application is genuinely needed as a matter of urgency. The Secretary of State will only consider this to be the case where the applicant can demonstrate the need for an expedited planning process. The applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposed development will need to be made operational to an accelerated timeframe that is unlikely to be feasible using other application routes, including Crown development, and will need evidence of the likely consequences of not securing a decision within the accelerated timeframe.

Secondly, where these routes are used, the Government are committed to ensuring proper transparency at every stage. This will take the form of three distinct steps:

First, where an application is accepted by the Secretary of State, the relevant Members of Parliament will be notified at the same time as the applicant and the relevant local planning authorities. A notification will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and will include details as to where the application can be viewed and the process that will follow.

Secondly, at the point of decision, and again at the same time as the applicant and relevant local planning authorities, the relevant Members of Parliament will be notified of either the grant or refusal of planning permission, and this letter will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

Thirdly, on an annual basis, I will publish a report of all decisions taken under these routes, including a link to the decision letters, which again will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

I am confident that, taken together, these steps will ensure Members are properly appraised of any applications being considered through these routes that relate to their constituencies, and will provide the House as a whole with the opportunity to consider and scrutinise their general operation. The Government will keep these steps under review as the routes begin to be used.

Finally, with regards to implementation, I have today laid draft regulations which make consequential amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and other primary legislation, as well as to planning application fee regulations, to reflect the two new Crown development routes.

These regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, enabling Parliament to debate them. To support scrutiny ahead of parliamentary debates, I will publish in draft the regulations setting out the procedures for both routes, which will be laid following parliamentary approval of the affirmative regulations. Our aim, subject to parliamentary approval, is to bring both routes into force in April 2025. Further guidance will be published on the operation of the two routes closer to implementation.

[HCWS454]

Social and Affordable Housebuilding and Supported Housing: Next Steps

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Written Statements

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

Further support for social and affordable housebuilding and next steps on supported housing

England is in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis. The detrimental consequences of this disastrous state of affairs are now all-pervasive. We have a generation locked out of homeownership; 1.3 million people languishing on social housing waiting lists; millions of low-income households forced into insecure, unaffordable and far too often sub-standard private rented housing; and 160,000 homeless children living in temporary accommodation.

Among the most important causes of the housing crisis is a failure over many decades to build enough homes of all tenures to meet housing demand and housing need. That is why the Government’s plan for change includes an ambitious milestone of delivering 1.5 million safe and decent homes in this Parliament.

We are also determined to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation. Today, I am announcing further support for the affordable homes programme and the local authority housing fund, and outlining the steps the Government intend to take to raise standards and better regulate supported housing.

Affordable homes programme

We will set out details of new investment to succeed the 2021-26 affordable homes programme at the spending review later this year. This new investment will deliver a mix of homes for sub-market rent and homeownership, with a particular focus on delivering homes for social rent.

In October 2024, we announced £500 million in new in-year funding for the affordable homes programme. As a result of significant demand from housing providers across the country, that additional funding is already oversubscribed.

I am therefore pleased to announce that the Government are allocating a further £300 million to the affordable homes programme. This will support the near-term delivery of more social and affordable housing, delivering up to 2,800 new homes with more than half being social rent homes.

Local authority housing fund

In addition to further funding for the 2021-26 affordable homes programme, I am announcing a £50 million increase to the third round of the local authority housing fund (LAHF 3). This takes the total funding for this round of the programme to £500 million, alongside about £30 million of existing funding being reallocated.

LAHF provides funding to local authorities to help them deliver better-quality temporary accommodation and to support UK commitments to those on Afghan resettlement schemes who are fleeing persecution. The fund’s third round, which we confirmed in July 2024, has had high levels of interest from local authorities, with over 150 taking part. In total, LAHF 3 will deliver more than 2,700 homes by 2026.

The majority of the additional £50 million allocated will be used to procure better-quality temporary accommodation so that local authorities can appropriately support local families in need of housing.

We recently invited councils to express an interest in delivering additional housing through LAHF, and we will be contacting those councils shortly to confirm the allocation of both the additional and reallocated funding.

Supported housing

While there are many excellent supported housing providers undertaking crucial work to help vulnerable people get back on their feet and improve their lives, there are still significant numbers of unscrupulous providers who fail to provide high-quality accommodation to their tenants and a minority of rogue exempt accommodation operators who exploit gaps in the existing regulatory regime to profiteer.

The impact of poor-quality, non-commissioned exempt accommodation on vulnerable individuals can be devastating, whether it is the physical and mental consequences of living in squalid conditions, the risks that arise from the absence of effective supervision and safeguarding arrangements, the money gouged from hard-up residents through service charge costs that are ineligible for housing benefit purposes, or simply the inability to sustain an exempt accommodation tenancy, or to move on from one, because of a lack of care or support.

This Government are determined to improve the quality of accommodation in the supported housing sector and assisting local authorities to drive up standards in their areas. That is why we are committed to implementing the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023.

We are today announcing that on 20 February 2025, we will publish a consultation on a number of the regulatory reforms contained within it. These include proposals for national supported housing standards and a locally-led licensing regime to give local authorities the powers they need to effectively manage the supported housing markets in their areas.

We are committed to taking a sensible and proportionate approach to the introduction of these planned reforms and we look forward to receiving feedback through the consultation from good providers, local authorities and residents to ensure we get things right.

[HCWS447]

Growth Corridor Strategy

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Written Statements

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

I am today updating the House on the Government’s plans to supercharge growth in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and the high-potential sectors within it, as part of our ambitious plan for change.

The Oxford-Cambridge region is already home to world-leading universities and globally renowned science and technology firms. It has the potential to become one of the most innovative and economically dynamic areas in the world, but numerous constraints, from inadequate transport connections to a lack of affordable housing, prevent it from realising its true potential. This Government are determined to do what is necessary to drive sustainable economic growth in the region to the benefit of local communities and national prosperity.

The Chancellor has today announced the appointment of Lord Patrick Vallance as a champion for the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. His extensive experience across life sciences, academia and Government makes him ideally suited to identify and maximise growth opportunities in the region. He will work with me and other Ministers to ensure the corridor makes a significant contribution to kick-starting economic growth.

Working with local partners, Peter Freeman and the Cambridge Growth Company are progressing the development of an ambitious plan for delivering high-quality sustainable growth in Cambridge and its environs. Their work will continue in earnest.

In greater Cambridge, the benefits of decisive Government intervention are already evident. As a result of close working with local authorities and regulators, the Environment Agency has lifted objections to development in the area, paving the way for 4,500 additional homes, new schools and new office, retail and laboratory space to be built.

The Government welcome the University of Cambridge’s proposal for a new flagship innovation hub in the centre of the city, which will attract global investment and foster a community that catalyses innovation. The Chancellor has today also confirmed the prioritisation of a new Cambridge cancer research hospital as part of the new hospitals programme, bringing together Cambridge University Hospitals’ cancer services, with researchers from AstraZeneca and Cancer Research UK.

To ensure we can realise Oxford’s full potential, we intend to take forward a new growth commission to explore how we can best unlock and accelerate nationally significant growth for the city and the surrounding area. The commission builds on the Government’s commitment to making Culham in Oxfordshire the country’s first AI growth zone as part of the Government’s AI opportunities action plan. This is the Government’s modern industrial strategy in action.

Across the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, we are demonstrating our commitment to investing in the delivery of major transport infrastructure and public services to boost the region’s economic prosperity and contribute to national economic growth. The Government are:

delivering the acceleration of phase 2 of East West Rail, connecting Oxford to Bedford from 2030. The full new railway to Cambridge will support vibrant new and expanded communities. We have already received 18 submissions for large-scale new developments within the corridor, each of which will be considered by the new towns taskforce;

moving quicker at Tempsford to deliver an east coast main line station three to five years earlier than planned, which will link services directly to London in under an hour;

committed to upgrading 10 miles of the A428, improving journeys between Milton Keynes and Cambridge; and

unlocking £7.9 billion investment in the next five years for water companies, by agreeing their water resource management plans. This will improve our water infrastructure and provide a foundation for growth and includes nine new reservoirs, such as the new fens reservoir serving Cambridge and the Abingdon reservoir near Oxford.

We will continue to update Parliament on the work of the Government in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor.

[HCWS396]

Rural Housing Targets

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I note your stricture on the two minutes at the end, Ms Jardine. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair.

I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate. I also thank him for so clearly articulating his concerns about the implications of housing targets for his constituency. As he might expect, I take issue with a number of the arguments he made, for reasons that I will come to, but no one can be in any doubt as to his commitment to forcefully representing the views of those he represents. I also thank the shadow Minister and other hon. Members for their contributions in what has been a thoughtful and well-informed debate.

I must make it clear at the outset that I am unable to comment on individual local plans or local planning applications, or, for that matter, on how individual local planning authorities may interpret national planning policy. That is due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process and the potential decision-making role of the Deputy Prime Minister. I can and will, however, make general comments as they relate to the various matters raised, and I will touch on each of the three specific points raised by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire in his opening speech.

I do not think any Members present would dispute that England is in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis, and we have heard several arguments to that effect. The crisis is blighting the lives of not just those at the sharp end in temporary accommodation, but the many families out there desperate to buy a first home of their own. It is also hampering economic growth and productivity, and consuming ever-larger amounts of public money in the form of the rapidly rising housing benefit bill.

The crisis has many causes, but among the most important is a failure, over many decades, to build enough homes of all tenures to meet housing demand in both rural and urban areas. The Government are absolutely determined to tackle it head on, which is why our plan for change commits us to an ambitious and stretching—I have never been anything other than candid about the fact that it is incredibly stretching—milestone of building 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. I gently say to the shadow Minister that it is not enough to will the ends; we have to will the means as well. That is why we have instituted various reforms to date, and we are planning more.

Planning reform is integral to meeting that manifesto commitment, which is why we have already overhauled the national planning policy framework to reverse the anti-supply changes made by the previous Government in December 2023, and to introduce a range of measures that will enable us to build the homes and infrastructure that the country needs.

We 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 that their area needs, and those plans must remain the cornerstone of our planning system. However, we are clear that local decisions must be about how to meet housing need, not whether to do so at all. That is why we have restored mandatory housing targets, as the manifesto on which we stood and won a decisive victory last July committed us to doing. That means that local authorities must use the standard method as the basis for determining housing requirements in their local plans.

However, we made it clear that a mandatory method is insufficient if the method itself is not adequate to meet housing need. That is why our revised NPPF implements a new standard method for assessing housing needs, which aligns with our ambitions for 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. We think that the new standard method strikes the right balance. Indeed, we adjusted it from the proposals we consulted on last July in response to significant feedback from experts, developers and local authorities across the country, much of which pressed us on the fact that the formula we consulted on was not sufficiently responsive to affordability demands. The revised NPPF that we published on 12 December contains the adjusted method.

The new method better responds to affordability pressures by using a higher affordability adjustment in its calculation. That recognises the importance of housing affordability in assessing housing needs, and helps direct more homes to where they are most needed and least affordable. It also provides greater certainty to the sector through more stable and predictable housing numbers compared with the previous approach, which, as the shadow Minister will know, relied on out-of-date demographic projections and unevidenced and arbitrary adjustments.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire raised a specific concern about how the standard method translates into local plan making. Although local authorities are expected to use the standard method to assess housing needs, 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, 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 that 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.

[Damian Hinds]

Does the Minister accept the point that local councils do not want to end up in legal proceedings? They can cost an awful lot of money, and there is an awful lot of weight placed on knowing that the plan is sound. A council takes a risk by deviating from the standard method. Yes, the guidance says that it can deviate as long as it can prove—well, I am genuinely not sure what the guidance says, but whatever it says is not totally clear to people. It leaves a great deal of nervousness that deviation would leave councils exposed to potentially very high costs, which are ultimately borne by local people. Could the Minister look at clarifying the advice on how one can deviate from the method?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will reflect on the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raises about the clarity of the guidance, but local planning authorities can and do prepare, develop and submit local plans, arguing that those constraints exist and that their housing requirement should therefore be lower than the standard method indicates. They are expected to evidence and justify that approach to planning for housing in their local plan consultation. Ultimately, at plan examination, that will be scrutinised by a planning inspector to determine whether the constraints are justified and whether the plan is sound.

The right hon. Gentleman and others mentioned the balance between rural and urban housing targets. We recognise that the targets we introduced are ambitious and mean uplifts in many areas. However, we believe that the significant and entrenched nature of the housing crisis in England means that all areas of the country, including rural areas, must play their part in providing the homes that their communities need. That will enable us to deliver 1.5 million homes.

I strongly reject the idea that, through the new formula, we are reducing the number of houses that need to be built in urban areas. The new formula directs housing growth to our large urban areas. It does not do so on the basis of an arbitrary 35% urban uplift like the one the previous Government applied to the 20 largest cities and urban centres. Instead, across all city regions, the new standard method increases targets by an average of 20%, and through it housing growth is directed towards a wider range of urban areas—smaller cities and urban areas, as well as the core of large cities. We think that is a better method by which to proceed.

Several hon. Members mentioned the green belt. The manifesto on which the Government were elected was clear that the green belt has an important role to play, and that a number of its intentions, including preventing urban sprawl, have served our towns and cities very well over many decades. The Government will always look to brownfield first; ours is a brownfield-first approach. We took measures in the revised NPPF last year to strengthen that approach to brownfield land. We are consulting on a brownfield passport to make it easier to prioritise and accelerate delivery on brownfield land.

We have also been very clear that there is not sufficient land on brownfield registers across the country, let alone enough that is viable and in the right location, to build all the homes we need, so we need to take a different approach to the green belt to ensure that it better meets the needs of the present generation and future generations. Our changes are intended to ensure that we go from the haphazard approach to release and development under the previous Government—plenty of green belt was released haphazardly—to a more strategic and targeted approach that ensures that, where we are releasing the green belt, we release the right parts of it, such as lower-quality grey-belt land, and that golden rules apply so that communities have the quid pro quo of sufficient affordable housing, access to nature and good infrastructure.

[Andrew George]

On greenfield development, whether it be in the green belt or outside it, rural housing developments often take place in green locations. In the light of that, will the Minister ensure that the Government strengthen local authorities’ ability to use the rural exception policy? We would rather pay 10 times agricultural value than 100 times agricultural value, because we cannot deliver affordable homes on land at that price.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will come on to rural exception sites, but the hon. Gentleman draws attention to an important point. Under the revised NPPF, it will be for local authorities to make these decisions and conduct green-belt reviews to identify the grey-belt land in their areas. The Government will provide guidance and support with the methodology, but ultimately local areas will make these decisions through the reviews they carry out. We have ensured that the sustainability of sites in the green belt is prioritised. No one wants isolated and disconnected development, which is why our policy asks local authorities to pay particular attention to transport connections when considering whether grey belt is sustainably located.

I want to touch briefly on infrastructure. The Government recognise that providing the homes and jobs we need is not sufficient to create sustainable, healthy places. Our communities also need to be supported by an appropriate range of services and facilities, as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire made clear. National planning policy expects local authorities to plan positively for the provision and use of shared spaces, community facilities and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments, taking into account local strategies to improve the health, social and cultural wellbeing of all sections of the community.

The revised NPPF also includes changes intended to ensure that the planning system supports the increased provision and modernisation of key public services infrastructure such as health, blue light, library, adult education, university and criminal justice facilities. Local authorities should use their development plans to address the needs and opportunities for infrastructure. They should identify what infrastructure is required and how it can be funded and brought forward. Contributions from developers play an important role in delivering the infrastructure that mitigates the impacts of new development and supports growth. The Government are committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide appropriate, affordable homes and infrastructure. We will set out further details on that matter in due course.

Before winding up, I want to touch on housing targets and national parks. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire knows I am well aware of the concerns about housing targets in his constituency and the particular challenges of setting those targets for East Hampshire, given the boundary overlaps with the South Downs national park. As part of our package of reforms in December 2024, we set out further guidance for local authorities on that very matter, and we provide flexibility in policy for those areas when calculating housing needs and setting targets.

The right hon. Member knows that this is primarily related to the availability of appropriate data for those areas. Officials in my Department regularly engage with officials from the Office for National Statistics and other stakeholders on a range of matters, including the data and statistics available to make decisions on housing needs. We will continue to do so as we drive forward our planning reforms. Although we expect all areas to contribute towards our housing ambitions, we recognise the unique role of national parks. That is why national policy is clear that within national parks, new housing should be focused on meeting affordable housing requirements and supporting local employment opportunities and key services.

We expect rural exception sites to come forward wherever possible. Policy helps local authorities meet the local housing needs of rural communities, enabling local people, those with a family connection or those with employment connections to live locally and help sustain thriving places. We want to go further in this regard to better support and increase rural affordable housing. We sought views on this issue specifically as part of the NPPF consultation last summer. We are committed to considering further measures to support affordable housing in rural communities as part of the work that is under way to produce a set of national policies for decision making next year.

I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire once again for giving the House an opportunity to discuss these matters and other hon. Members for taking part. If anyone has particular constituency concerns, I am more than happy to meet them, but I appreciate their putting their views on the record in this debate.

National Infrastructure Planning

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Written Statements

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

Sustained economic growth is central to the Government’s plan for change. It is the only way to increase the prosperity of our country and improve the living standards of working people.

Building and upgrading the right economic infrastructure—whether that be electricity networks, public transport links, renewable energy projects, roads, or water supplies—is essential to achieving that growth and delivering the Government’s long-term missions. Yet when it comes to infrastructure delivery, Britain today performs poorly against comparator countries. That needs to change.

That is why the Government moved quickly last year to lift the ban on onshore wind and expand the scope of the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime, enabling laboratories, gigafactories and data centres to be directed into the process. Last week, the Prime Minister announced plans to speed up the conclusion of legal challenges against development consent orders, including committing to legislate to ensure that meritless claims are given only a single permission attempt to seek a judicial review.

Yesterday, the Government published two interlinked working papers: the first, from His Majesty’s Treasury, set out the Government’s plan for their 10-year infrastructure strategy, which will be published alongside the spending review in June; the second, from the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, detailed our legislative proposals to streamline the consenting of critical national infrastructure—proposals which, subject to further work and the views expressed in response to the working paper, will be taken forward through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Copies of these documents will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

The proposals in the latter paper are intended to help deliver the commitment that the Government made in their plan for change to determine applications for at least 150 major infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. This target is more than the total number of decisions made under the NSIP regime since it was introduced in 2011, and nearly triple the 57 decisions made during the previous Parliament. Delivering this ambitious commitment will require decisive action on several fronts.

We are not, however, starting from scratch. The NSIP reform action plan, published in 2023, laid the foundations for a better, faster, greener, fairer, and more resilient NSIP regime. The action plan was broadly welcomed by infrastructure developers and communities, and the implementation of many of its proposals is already under way. These include enabling public bodies to recover costs for their services, and the provision of new services on the part of the Planning Inspectorate to enhance its advice to applicants and fast-track examinations.

We now want to move further and faster—which is why our working paper outlines legislative proposals to deliver two key objectives: clearer and stronger national policy; and faster decisions under the NSIP regime. With respect to national policy statements, the working paper confirms that the Government will implement recommendations from the National Infrastructure Commission to require that each NPS is updated at least every five years. This is essential given that some NPSs, such as those for waste water and hazardous waste, have not been updated for over 10 years.

The working paper also proposes a faster process for amending NPSs to reflect legislative changes, changes to current Government policy or relevant court decisions that have taken place between five-yearly updates. Both measures will ensure that national policy better reflects the Government’s priorities and provides stronger guidance to decision makers determining applications in line with the current national interest.

When it comes to ensuring faster and more consistent decisions under the NSIP regime, the paper outlines four proposals. First, we want to protect the consultation process while making it less burdensome. The time taken for applications to complete the pre-application stage has grown from 14.5 months in 2013 to 27.9 months in 2021, in part as a result of increased consultation and re-consultation on project proposals. Prescriptive statutory requirements and uncertainty about meeting them make developers cautious, resulting in gold-plating, which delays projects and confuses communities.

Our proposals seek to rebalance and improve the quality of consultation, with the aim of closing down issues and reducing the examination burden for all parties by:

clarifying the requirements around consultation;

introducing a new duty on all parties to identify and, where possible, narrow down any areas of disagreement during the pre-application stage;

revising requirements around the contents of consultation reports to reduce their length and make them more accessible; and

removing the requirement to consult ‘Category 3’ persons during the pre-application stage.

This also responds to the concerns raised by the NIC and stakeholders, and brings the statutory consultation requirements in the NSIP regime closer in line with other parts of the planning system.

Secondly, we want to further support the building of infrastructure after a development consent order is granted. The paper seeks views on how to ensure the system returns to the ‘one-stop shop’ it was originally intended to be, with more consents, licences, and permits granted in parallel with a DCO. We know that seeking these permissions post consent can delay construction by six to 18 months. Our paper invites contributions on whether this can be tackled through stronger guidance, or if an alternative model of seeking a ‘deemed consent’, replicating the approach of deemed marine licences, would have merit. We also outline proposals to streamline the process applicants need to follow to make factual corrections, or more substantive amendments to a DCO.

Thirdly, we consider ways to make the NSIP regime more flexible, so that it can accommodate the complexity and volume of projects expected over the coming years. Building on feedback received from infrastructure stakeholders in response to our NPPF consultation, we propose to amend the Planning Act 2008 to allow the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), to consider on a case-by-case basis if a project would be better determined via an alternative consenting route. This will enable projects which would otherwise be unviable due to disproportionate planning requirements to be brought forward, while in turn ensuring that the capacity of the NSIP regime is reserved for those projects that truly merit it.

One of the original objectives behind the NSIP regime was to enable all major projects across different sectors to follow a uniform consenting process. This has broadly been achieved; providing greater certainty for applicants on what are often one-off, unique and once-in-a-generation schemes is why the regime is widely supported by industry.

However, given the volume and complexity of projects set to come forward over the course of this Parliament, our paper explores whether the NSIP regime is sufficiently flexible to deliver robust and swift decisions in all instances. The paper outlines three examples where rigidity of process may be holding back better consenting outcomes, and seeks views on how best to address these concerns. It invites views on whether the best means of introducing greater flexibility would be via a general ‘process modification power’ to be used on a discretionary case-by-case basis; or whether it would be more appropriate to make a series of specific changes to tackle known issues via amendments to the Planning Act 2008, changes to secondary legislation or improvements in guidance.

Fourthly, we outline plans to increase the reach of statutory guidance in the system, to enable greater clarity over expectations for those involved in the consenting process, and to support implementation of our changes, particularly those linked to consultation.

Finally, the working paper also sets out our proposals for amending and updating existing transport consenting regimes to support quicker delivery of transport projects that are consented via the Highways Act 1980 and the Transport and Works Act 1992.

We look forward to receiving views on the proposals set out in the working paper, and to working with all those with an interest in streamlining the delivery of major national infrastructure.

[HCWS390]

Holocaust Memorial Day

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Holocaust Memorial Day.

It is an immense privilege to open this important debate on behalf of the Government. As hon. Members will know, 80 years ago this month, soldiers of the Soviet 60th Army of the First Ukrainian Front opened the gates of Auschwitz-Birkenau. That infamous camp has become the symbol of the Shoah and is synonymous around the world with terror and genocide more widely. Its distinctive railway tracks that led almost directly to the gas chambers, as well as the chilling words over the gate of the Auschwitz I main camp, “Arbeit macht frei”, are instantly recognisable, as are the piles of shoes, suitcases and other personal effects—the only remnants of the more than 1 million Jewish men, women and children from every corner of Europe who perished at the site.

Almost all the deportees who arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau camps were immediately selected for death in the gas chambers. It is estimated that the SS and police deported at least 1.3 million people to the complex between 1940 and 1945. Of these, the camp authorities murdered 1.1 million.

On Monday, world leaders will gather at Auschwitz-Birkenau to mark the 80th anniversary of its liberation. The United Kingdom will be represented by His Majesty the King. Mala Tribich MBE, Holocaust survivor and sister of the late Sir Ben Helfgott—may his memory be a blessing—will also attend. The number of those who survived the Shoah is dwindling, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker. Those who remain with us grow ever frailer. As a result, this is likely to be the last gathering of Holocaust survivors.

Eighty years ago, the US 3rd Army 6th Armoured Division liberated Buchenwald, the largest concentration camp on German soil. General—later President—Dwight D. Eisenhower, wrote afterward:

“I have never felt able to describe my emotional reaction when I first came face to face with indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency.”

Eighty years ago, British forces liberated concentration camps in northern Germany, including Neuengamme and Bergen-Belsen. They entered the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, which was about 45 km from Hanover, in mid-April 1945. Some 55,000 prisoners, many in critical condition because of a typhus epidemic, were found alive. Within three months of liberation, more than 13,000 of them had died from the effects of malnutrition or disease. BBC journalist Richard Dimbleby famously described the scenes of almost unimaginable horror that greeted him as he toured Belsen concentration camp shortly after its liberation.

Bergen-Belsen began as a prisoner of war camp, and was used for Jewish inmates from 1943 onwards. It is estimated that 70,000 people died there. Richard Dimbleby was the first broadcaster to enter the camp and, overcome, broke down several times while making his report. The BBC initially refused to play the report as it could not believe the scenes he had described. It was broadcast only after Dimbleby threatened to resign. The images from Belsen—emaciated figures lying half-dead on open ground in freezing weather, while thousands of corpses were bulldozed into great pits—are excruciating to see to this day. Some of the first-hand witnesses simply cannot bring themselves to speak of it. It haunts them to this day.

Over the decades, Holocaust survivors, many of whom experienced Belsen or Auschwitz, have shared their testimony, but 80 years after the Holocaust, their numbers are dwindling, and soon these first-hand witnesses will no longer be with us. The remarkable Lily Ebert MBE died aged 100 at home in London last October. Her life after Auschwitz showed that even in the face of unspeakable evil, the human spirit can triumph. She emerged from the darkness to bear harrowing witness, but also to rebuild hope with future generations. May her memory be a blessing. Henry Wuga, aged 100, and Bob Kirk, aged 99, who both came to the UK on the Kindertransport, died in 2024. Both men dedicated their lives to Holocaust education. The impact that Lily, Henry and Bob had on young and old cannot be overestimated, and highlights the importance of first-hand testimony.

Both because of the alarming rise in anti-Jewish hate in recent years, and because those who survived are now in their 80s and 90s, it is essential that as a country, we do more to preserve the memory of this unique act of evil and those who perished in it. It is also imperative that we continue to educate future generations about what happened, both as a mark of respect to those who were lost and those who survived, and as a warning about what happens when antisemitism, prejudice and hatred are allowed to flourish unchecked.

Some 27 years ago, former Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson decided to establish an international organisation that would expand Holocaust education worldwide. He asked President Bill Clinton and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to join him in that effort. Persson also developed the idea of an international forum of Governments interested in discussing Holocaust education, which took place in Stockholm from 27 to 29 January 2000. The forum was attended by representatives of 46 Governments, including 23 Heads of State or Prime Ministers, and 14 Deputy Prime Ministers or Ministers.

The declaration of the Stockholm international forum led to the establishment of Holocaust Memorial Day on 27 January, and the foundation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. This year, the UK had the privilege of holding the chair of the IHRA, and it continues to have an excellent reputation in the field of Holocaust remembrance and education, and tackling antisemitism.

We are fortunate in the UK to have organisations such as the Holocaust Educational Trust, led by Karen Pollock CBE, and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, led by Olivia Marks-Woldman OBE. The Holocaust Educational Trust, which has worked with Holocaust survivors for decades, is well aware of the increasing frailty of survivors, and that there will come a day when we no longer have living witnesses. That is why it has recently developed, with the support of the Government, Testimony360—a free digital education programme that combines digital eyewitness testimony with virtual reality, revolutionising access to survivor testimony and providing an invaluable opportunity for students learning about the Holocaust.

The UK took on the presidency of the IHRA in 2024, with the world on the cusp of significant change in Holocaust remembrance. Within a few short years, Holocaust survivors will move from contemporary memory into history books. How we remember is a matter of debate, but different views coalesce around three headings: landscape, archives—including testimony—and objects. Our presidency has successfully strengthened all three under the general title of “In plain sight”. This title is a reminder that the Holocaust did not happen in dark corners but in broad daylight. Jewish men, women and children suffered persecution in the full view of their neighbours—indeed, often by their neighbours. Laws discriminating against Jews and depriving them of rights and property were passed openly by legislatures. The attempted destruction of the Jewish people and their culture was not conducted in secret, but brazenly and openly.

Our presidency was also keen to engage young people, through our remarkably successful “My hometown” project, which invited schools across IHRA member countries to look at what happened in their hometown during the Holocaust. Schools in former occupied countries, and those receiving victims of Nazis and their collaborators, produced original and moving projects. Schools participated from as far afield as Argentina, Greece, Canada and Poland, alongside other member countries, including the UK.

Projects ranged widely in their subject matter. One focused on the influence of Holocaust survivors fleeing to Argentina on the music of Argentinian tango. In Nottingham, an amazing teacher, Domonic Townsend, from the Nottingham University Samworth Academy, worked on a remarkable project. The school houses a specialist provision unit for deaf children. Alongside the Nottinghamshire Deaf Society, Domonic created the first Holocaust-specific sign language lexicon for accessing Holocaust education, to empower our young children to access that education in an inclusive way. I urge all hon. Members to watch the video on YouTube. It is truly inspiring.

The UK presidency also worked with the Association of Jewish Refugees on our legacy project, the Holocaust testimony portal, which pulls together for the first time testimony from UK Holocaust survivors and refugees who made their home in Britain. This includes testimony from the AJR Refugee Voices initiative, the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, the Shoah Foundation and many more archives. Hopefully, more archives—particularly the smaller, more specialised ones—will join in the coming months. The portal allows users to find in a single place the testimonies of individual survivors across the decades.

To commemorate the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, we have developed with the AJR the digital project “80 Objects/80 Lives”, a collection of one-minute clips featuring 80 objects from filmed testimonies of British Holocaust survivors and refugees. The objects represent the personal histories and experiences of Jewish Holocaust survivors and refugees before, during and at the end of the second world war. Objects such as a teddy bear, a doll, a watch or a spoon take on special meanings; a passport stamped with the letter J, a yellow star, and a bowl from Bergen-Belsen are bittersweet remnants of a lost world.

Eighty years after the Holocaust, we sadly still contend with Holocaust denial. Some forms of denial are less common, and in some states it is now illegal and punishable under the law, but the forms that Holocaust denial can take are ever-changing. It once referred to those who claimed that 6 million Jews were not murdered, and that there were no gas chambers whatsoever; today, these outright deniers are few and mostly relegated to the fringe. The problems we face today are more complex and more subtle, and are often nuanced and difficult to identify. However, that does not render them less dangerous, or the need to challenge them less compelling. After all, we are living in an age when facts are routinely disputed, and disinformation and misinformation are rampant. This presents a real and present danger for Holocaust education, remembrance and research.

It has been a long process even for democratic countries to confront their own problematic histories. It was only in 1995 that the French Government accepted responsibility for the deportations and deaths of more than 70,000 Jews, and that Austria finally dispelled the myth of being Hitler’s “first victim” and made amends to Austrian Nazi victims.

We have all watched the misinformation emanating from Russia that tries to justify the war in Ukraine as “denazification”, but across eastern Europe fascist leaders of the past who were involved in the persecution of Jews but who fought communism are shamefully being rehabilitated and, in some cases, given public honours. Lithuania’s Genocide and Resistance Research Centre decided that the leader of the Nazi-allied Lithuanian Activist Front is worthy of such honours. Hungary’s Government built a new museum that would tread lightly on the role of local collaborators. Even in Romania, which has done so much to confront its own problematic history, the Church is canonising religious leaders who were known for their wartime antisemitism.

Other forms of distortion have come about more quietly. Following a UN recommendation, dozens of countries now mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day with special programmes and educational initiatives. This is a real achievement, but it has brought with it a universalising of the Holocaust and its meaning. There are, however, general lessons on how hatred and intolerance can lead to discrimination, exclusion and even mass murder, and the need to be open to asylum seekers fleeing for their lives.

Yet with growing frequency the essential story of the Holocaust—the pernicious spread of antisemitism, the widespread indifference and the genocidal murder of a third of the world’s Jewish population—is obscured or ignored. It is as though antisemitism is no longer a problem, and Jews are no longer threatened. Surely this cannot be the message that Holocaust commemoration carries with it. We must guard against the watering down of Holocaust Memorial Day. It is a day when central to all our commemorations should be the murder of 6 million Jewish men, women and children.

Today, Holocaust denial and distortion move instantan-eously across social media platforms and are amplified by algorithms that drive anger and division. Sadly, the alarming resurgence of antisemitism since 7 October 2023 shows how the hate of the past is still with us. Today and every day, we stand in solidarity with the Jewish community at home and abroad.

The theme for Holocaust Memorial Day 2025, “For a better future”, is particularly timely, because remembrance without resolve is a hollow gesture. Even as we remember the past, we must be ever vigilant about the present and future. That is why we have a duty to remember, and why the new Holocaust memorial and learning centre at the heart of Westminster is so important in keeping alive the memory of those murdered during the Holocaust.

Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention the long-awaited ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that began on Sunday 19 February. As part of the agreement, we saw the release of three of the Israeli hostages who were taken from their homes and from a music festival on 7 October, and the release of hundreds of Palestinians. One of the hostages was British citizen Emily Damari, who has now been reunited with her family, including her mother Amanda, who never stopped her tireless fight to bring her daughter home. We wish all three hostages the very best as they begin the road to recovery after the intolerable trauma they have experienced.

Yet while we rightly welcome the ceasefire deal, we must not forget about those who remain in captivity under Hamas. We must now see the remaining phases of the ceasefire deal implemented in full and on schedule, including the release of the remaining hostages and a surge of humanitarian aid into Gaza. Hopefully, these first tentative steps will lead to a lasting solution, with the people of Israel and the Palestinians living side by side in peace. The UK stands ready to do everything it can to support that hope for a permanent and peaceful solution. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

19. What steps she is taking to ensure that not-for-profit freeholders are accountable for their management practices.

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

By the end of this Parliament, this Labour Government will have finally brought the feudal leasehold system to an end. On 21 November, I made a detailed written ministerial statement setting out how the Government intend to honour that manifesto commitment, including the steps we will take to implement reforms to the system already in statute.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Every week my constituents in Poole, many of whom are retired, contact me with their concerns about the leasehold properties they live in. They are worried about excessive service charges, unfair ground rent, and exit and event fees. Can the Minister reassure them and me that the Government will tackle those problems once and for all, and will do so as a matter of priority?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I sympathise with the plight of my hon. Friend’s constituents. With regard to service charges in particular, we know that opaque and unaffordable charges are putting leaseholders and tenants across the country under immense strain. The Government are committed to improving service charge transparency and making it easier to challenge unreasonable increases. In the coming months, we intend to consult on how the provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 relating to service charges and legal costs should be enacted, with a view to bringing those measures into force as quickly as possible thereafter.

[Sarah Hall]

Many of my constituents cannot afford to buy their freeholds under the current leasehold legislation. When does the Minister think the legislation to ensure that leaseholders can enfranchise easier, cheaper and quicker will come into force?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I fully appreciate the desire of my hon. Friend’s constituents to take advantage of the provisions in the 2024 Act that will make it cheaper and easier for existing leaseholders in houses and flats to buy their freehold. Unfortunately, we discovered on assuming office that the previous Government had passed the Act with a number of specific but serious flaws that prevent certain provisions, including those relating to enfranchisement valuations, from operating as intended. We need to fix those flaws through primary legislation, and we intend to do so at the earliest possible opportunity.

[Anna Dixon]

Earlier this month, together with about 40 Labour MPs, I met the managing director of FirstPort. I raised the case of 90-year-old Tom, who lives in a retirement complex in Bingley in my constituency. Like many of the residents whose stories we shared, he has been hit by extortionate service charges that have risen way above inflation. Does the Minister agree that stronger regulation of managing agents is needed to protect pensioners like Tom and others in leasehold flats from unaffordable housing costs?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are very much aware that some managing agents provide a very poor quality of service to people like Tom and leaseholders across the country. Managing agents play a key role in the maintenance of multi-occupancy buildings and freehold estates, and their importance will only grow as we transition towards a commonhold future. As such, we have made it clear that we will strengthen the regulation of managing agents to drive up the standard of their service, and we are considering carefully the recommendations made in Lord Best’s 2019 report on regulating the property agent sector.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

Residents of a housing development in Maidenhead bought their properties 10 years ago on 99-year leases. Now they are coming to sell their flats, they are faced with a charge of £15,000 to £25,000 each to extend their lease so that the new owners can get a mortgage. What will the Minister do directly to help those residents?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In terms of lease extensions, there are provisions in the 2024 Act that will provide some assistance to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. As with other parts of that Act, those provisions, in many cases, require a detailed programme of secondary legislation. In some specific circumstances, we cannot switch on the provisions until we have made the fixes through primary legislation that I referred to in answer to a previous question, but we are working at pace. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him about what we are doing in this area.

[Dr Pinkerton]

Residents living in Mytchett Heath, a retirement community in my constituency, have reported the regular and repeated withholding of invoices, excessive insurance charges and £107,000-worth of maintenance without any supporting rationale. All of this adds up to a 70% increase in service charges since 2020. What is the Minister doing to ensure that not-for-profit companies such as Cognatum Estates, which is, to be very clear, not a social landlord, are held to account? Will he accede to a meeting with me and residents of Mytchett Heath and other Cognatum leaseholders to understand the challenges and anxieties they face?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In addition to the measures I have set out, we intend to proceed with implementing the service charge transparency provisions of the 2024 Act so that residents in all tenures can more easily challenge unreasonable increases. I think complaints about not-for-profit freeholders can be made to the housing ombudsman. I am more than happy to hear more from the hon. Gentleman about the particular circumstances of this case and give him further advice.

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

I thank the Minister for his reassurance to leaseholders, but what message does he have for freeholders, such as the residents of the Wolds View development in Driffield, who are trapped at the mercy of an unaccountable management company? Will he legislate to protect not just future homeowners but those currently stuck in these contracts?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are determined to end the injustice of fleecehold entirely, and we will consult next year on legislative and policy options to reduce the prevalence of such arrangements. We remain committed to protecting residential freeholders on existing estates from unfair charges. Similar to my previous answers, we need to implement the 2024 Act’s new consumer protection provisions and bring those measures into force as quickly as possible. That is our intention.

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

4. If she will make it her policy to introduce a new planning use class for second homes.

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

The Government recognise that excessive concentrations of second homes impact on the availability and affordability of homes for local residents to buy and rent, as well as on local services. From April, councils will be able to charge a council tax premium of up to 100% on second homes but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we do not think this is enough. We are considering what additional powers we might give local authorities to enable them to better respond to the pressures they face.

[Tim Farron]

I am encouraged by the Minister’s reply. Towns and communities in my constituency, such as Coniston, Hawkshead, Pooley Bridge and a whole range of other beautiful places, have so many second homes that up to 85% of properties are not lived in for most of the year, meaning that the very survival of those communities is under serious threat. The Government have done a number of things, including talking about short-term lets being a separate category of planning use. However, will the Minister agree to look at also making second homes a separate category of planning use so that we can prevent these beautiful places from becoming ghost towns?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the previous Government consulted on making short-term lets a different use class, but did not consult on second homes becoming a use class. As part of our wider consideration about the additional powers we might give local authorities, I am more than happy to have a conversation with him. I understand that the pressures in his part of the world are particularly acute because of both second homes and short-term lets.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

5. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the UK shared prosperity fund on local communities in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

14. If she will take steps to support social housing providers to fund houses made available under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

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

I recognise that social housing providers need support to build their capacity and make a greater contribution to affordable housing supply, including via section 106. To assist in that, we have proposed a new five-year social housing rent settlement and permitted councils to keep all their right-to-buy receipts.

[Mr Betts]

I know that my hon. Friend is committed to increasing the provision of social housing. In the past few years, most social housing has been provided through section 106 agreements. According to the National Housing Federation, thousands of houses around the country are available but cannot be purchased under section 106 agreements because registered social landlords simply do not have the resources. I am sure that he is aware of that problem, but does he have any plans to deal with it and bring those houses, which are badly needed, back into use?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government certainly recognise the ongoing challenge posed by the reduced appetite of registered providers of social housing to buy affordable homes delivered under section 106 agreements. As I hope my hon. Friend is aware, the Homes England section 106 affordable housing clearing service was launched back in December alongside the revised national planning policy framework, with the aim of supporting buyers and sellers of section 106 homes to find each other more effectively. We are calling on all developers with uncontracted section 106 affordable homes, as well as providers and local planning authorities, to engage proactively with that new service. We will consider what further measures may be necessary to address the problem, informed by data from that service.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Private developers in my constituency have obligations to build social homes under section 106, and they are ready to do so. The difficulty they face is that there is no social landlord available to take those units. When I raised this issue with the Deputy Prime Minister in October, she said that she was aware of the problem and was working to tackle it. Will the Minister update the House on the progress made?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman heard my previous answer, but I have just made it clear that we acted on 12 December to establish a matching service. I would advise him to ask the developers whether they have taken advantage of that service. We want to learn lessons from the data that comes out of it to see whether we need to take further steps. We think that the matching service will allow registered providers and developers trying to offload section 106 units to come together to see if agreements can be reached.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

16. What plans her Department has for local government reorganisation in Devon.

--- Later in debate ---

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

In December 2024 we published a revised national planning policy framework, following extensive consultation. We are also making progress on developing our planning and infrastructure Bill, which will be introduced in the coming months.

[Mary Glindon]

A constituent of mine is endeavouring to prevent her neighbour from building an extension that would affect the rights of access set out in her restrictive covenant. She was initially quoted £80,000 to £100,000 to take the neighbour to court. Such costs make civil law inaccessible to ordinary people. Will the Minister consider looking at ways that restrictive covenants can be brought into the planning process as a material consideration?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am sorry to learn of the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent. Legal restrictions on properties are not usually treated as material planning considerations; the planning process only addresses whether the development is acceptable in planning terms. Material considerations must relate to a planning purpose such as the character or use of the land. If my hon. Friend wishes to write to me with further details on this, I will endeavour to explore it further.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

In Gosport we are facing a massive increase in our housing numbers, and planners are putting in applications to build across the very last green spaces, in the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, which already has air quality issues and overstretched local infrastructure. We do have an abundance of disused military sites, however, so what priority is the Minister giving to encourage development on brownfield sites rather than eating up the last remaining green fields in areas such as Gosport, which are already overdeveloped?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government have a “brownfield first” approach to development. We strengthened that approach in the recently revised national planning policy framework. We also published last year a brownfield passport working paper to explore further ways in which we might prioritise and accelerate the release of brownfield land. On plan making, we are asking local authorities to take a sequential approach—brownfield first, densify those brownfield sites if possible and work cross-boundary where possible, and only then explore grey belt release and greenfield release in extremis. We are in conversation with Departments across the board about how we can best optimise the use of public sector land across all Departments.

[Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

T2. Constituents of mine in High Green were told that a social housing repair project for their home would take 12 weeks. The project has now been ongoing for 64 weeks, with contractors leaving the works in a disgraceful condition. I welcome the Government’s boost to the building of more social housing and the extra £350,000 of homelessness funding announced for Sheffield this week. How does the Minister plan to empower local authorities to ensure that contractors deliver social house building and repairs to a high standard and on time?

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

All social housing tenants deserve to live in decent homes, to be treated with fairness and respect and to have their problems quickly resolved. Under the Regulator of Social Housing’s safety and quality standard, housing associations and councils must provide an effective, efficient and timely repair service for their homes, including setting timetables for completion and clearly communicating with residents. As my hon. Friend knows, we will also introduce Awaab’s law and a new decent homes standard to set the minimum quality that social homes must meet.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Recently, a 1-acre site in Corfe Mullen in my constituency was sold. It was a house surrounded by lots of beautiful gardens, and I think the House can see where this is going. The neighbours raised the alarm that the trees were going to be taken down. They flagged it with the council, which did not see a problem, and a week later, in the dead of night, the developers brought chainsaws and destroyed every bit of nature on the site. Will the Minister commit to bringing forward legislation to auto-protect trees above a particular size or age in their planning reforms, so that developers do not get away with environmental vandalism?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Protections are already in place, but if the hon. Lady wishes to write to me with further details of that particular case, on which I do not have the full information to allow me to comment now, I will endeavour to look into the matter more carefully and to provide her with a full response.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

T3. More than 600 households across Luton are living in temporary accommodation, with families scattered across hotels and bed and breakfasts waiting for homes to become available. The previous Government’s inaction on housing has made that painful wait even longer. It takes nearly a decade for a four-bedroom property to become available in Luton. Can the Secretary of State outline what steps she is taking to shorten waiting times and increase social housing stock for people in Luton North?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

T7. I recently spoke to Chris Dodson, a local thatcher in Sawtry, who raised with me the shortage of thatching straw, and particularly long straw thatch. With Historic England insisting that grade II listed properties should use like-for-like materials in replacements and the chance of listed building consent to change from straw to water reed unlikely to be granted, will the Minister confirm what the Government are doing to ensure that thatchers are not hindered by the current guidance and the shortage of thatching straw?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I confess that that is a question to which I do not have the answer. The Government intend to amend building regulations later this year as part of the introduction of future standards, and it sounds like this issue, which I think came up in the debate on a private Member’s Bill on Friday, is one that we need to consider. I am more than happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman and have a further discussion about it.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

T6. Last week I met a young dad at Derby City Mission who had been sleeping rough until he used its Safe Space night shelter. He was then able to move into one of its bedrooms, and he had just been informed that there was a home for him to move into: another step towards having somewhere his son can visit him next Christmas. Will the Minister consider whether that stepped model could be used to help more rough sleepers become ready for permanent accommodation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

There are issues in such cases, particularly around the data that is available, and we are in conversation with the Office for National Statistics about that. I am more than happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss it further.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

T8. Residents in Oakwood, which is part of the city of Derby, are concerned about the impact that potential development on the last field adjoining Chaddesden wood would have on the rich biodiversity of this designated local nature reserve. What steps are Ministers taking to ensure that we meet our much-needed housing targets while protecting nature and historic woodlands?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Ancient woodland and ancient and veteran trees are already strictly protected in national planning policy, while tree preservation orders safeguard individual trees or groups of trees of particular value. It is for local planning authorities to apply the protections effectively as they have principal responsibility. I am more than happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

My constituents, particularly in Great Glen, have just experienced devastating flooding. Under the last Government, we opened up the flood recovery framework so that they could get grants to protect themselves. When will they be able to access that money under this Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

Will the Government look at redefining affordable housing in national policy so that it is pegged to average local income rather than at the whim of an overheated housing market?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We did make changes to some of the definitions around affordable housing in the recently revised national planning policy framework, by separating out the definition of social rent, but I hear the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I will certainly bear them in mind as we develop policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The Planning Inspectorate has overturned the democratic decision of Walsall council and decided to allow a battery energy storage system to go ahead at Chapel Lane in my constituency, a green-belt site in a historical open space. As this creates a dangerous precedent, will the Secretary of State clarify whether we will see more of this under her new policies on the grey belt?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Lady will appreciate that we cannot comment on live or concluded decisions, as to do so would prejudice them. Our policy on grey belt and on how grey belt is released is set out in full in our response to the NPPF consultation.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Recently, I visited the Royal Mail delivery office in Huyton. Posties spoke to me about serious problems with low-level letterboxes, including bad back and joint issues and an increase in bad dog attacks. One postie even showed me scars across his hand from a dog attack. Will the Minister meet me, the Communication Workers Union and posties to discuss the matter in regard to new builds?

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Matthew Pennycook]

Not least with a view to making myself the most popular Member of the House, I will happily do so.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

On Friday, I met the leader of Wiltshire council, who asserts that the way the Government have calculated the distribution of compensation between in-house and commissioned services means that Wiltshire has not fared well in the local government settlement that was announced on 18 December. Will the Minister meet me so that I can better understand the thinking and relay it back to the leader of my council?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Many residents of West Suffolk who live in new build homes put up with management companies that fail to do the basic things expected of them, from sorting out roads and planting trees to maintaining shared spaces. They often pass the buck to the developers, who pass it back again. What plans have the Government to get to grips with these cowboy companies?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I made clear in a previous answer, we remain committed to protecting residential freeholders on these estates from unfair charges. This year, we will consult on implementing the consumer protection provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which will cover up to 1.75 million homes subject to those charges. We intend to bring the measures into force as quickly as possible. I am more than happy to discuss the matter further with the hon. Gentleman.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, there are 160,000 children in temporary accommodation, and in many cases the definition of “temporary” is being stretched to breaking point. Does she agree that the Government’s homelessness strategy needs to look specifically at the outcomes for children who have experienced long-term or repeated spells in temporary accommodation?

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

The New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill—the sunshine Bill—received a sunny disposition from all sides of the House among the private Members’ Bills we debated on Friday. In the upcoming uprating of building regulations, will the Housing Minister confirm that solar generation will be part of the requirements for all new houses?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government’s position was set out in some detail on Friday when I responded to the debate on the private Member’s Bill. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I am in conversation with the promoter of that Bill, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), to shape the design of the future standards that we are bringing forward.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

In Scotland, we have record levels of children living in temporary accommodation without a home to call their own. Some 10,000 children have been left homeless on the SNP Government’s watch. The SNP is taking Scotland in the wrong direction. Does the Secretary of State agree that Scotland needs a new direction and a Scottish Labour Government in 2026?

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

Suffolk has a huge flooding problem. Part of the problem has been driven by overdevelopment in low-lying rural areas. In her steps to reform the planning system—as well as building more houses, which I totally accept we need to do—can the Secretary of State promise to force councils and developers to properly account for flood risk, ensure that developers are held accountable to residents when developments are badly impacted by floods, and ensure that housing targets favour homes built in dense urban areas?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have made clear, we are prioritising development on previously developed brownfield land wherever possible, and we encourage local authorities to look to that option in the first instance. We have made changes to the NPPF to clarify flood risk and issues that relate to it. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will be more than happy to look at the specifics in his area in more detail.

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Let me start by sincerely thanking the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for introducing the Bill, for the constructive spirit in which he has engaged with me on it, and for his laudable efforts outside the Chamber—including his efforts as a local councillor, before coming to this place—to promote the further growth of solar power. I know it is a cause that he cares about, and his passion and commitment were evident in his opening remarks. I also thank all the other Members who have spoken this morning for their thoughtful and well-informed contributions. It has been a wide-ranging debate and the quality has been high—although the same cannot be said, I am afraid, for many of the puns that have been made throughout.

The Government are extremely sympathetic to the intention behind the Bill, namely to significantly boost the deployment of rooftop solar. That aim is clearly shared widely across the House, and for good reason. Self-generation and consumption through solar PV panels not only decreases emissions and delivers bill savings for householders, but provides security from fluctuations in wholesale electricity prices. As solar technology becomes more efficient and affordable, installing panels during construction is increasingly more cost-effective than retrofitting, a point that many Members touched on. The Government are, therefore, in complete agreement with the hon. Gentleman that solar energy has an integral role to play in improving the energy efficiency and reducing the carbon emissions of new homes.

However, we cannot support the Bill today. That is because the Government already 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 emissions requirements for new homes. The new standards will ensure that all new homes are future-proof, with low-carbon heating and very high-quality building fabric. Not only will they help us to deliver our commitment to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, but they will reduce bills, tackle fuel poverty, grow skills, foster diverse job markets and make Britain energy secure.

Let me make this absolutely clear to the House and to those watching our proceedings: solar energy will have an extremely important role to play in these standards. The Government’s reservations about the Bill are not related to its objective; rather, they stem from recognition that the regulatory landscape being dealt with is incredibly complex and that we must take great care to get the technical detail right. My officials and I are working to develop the technical detail of the solar standards we intend to implement, with a view to ensuring that they are both ambitious and achievable. Our concern is that passing primary legislation that does not strike that balance correctly could have adverse effects, including on housing supply, the construction industry and local authorities.

Although the Bill is not inherently flawed, we are not convinced that it is the most appropriate means of proceeding, for reasons I shall set out shortly. None the less, the hon. Member for Cheltenham has done the House a great service by providing hon. Members with a valuable opportunity to debate this important issue. In the time available to me, I will try to give the House a sense of some of the practical challenges we have been wrestling with as we develop and refine our emerging proposals, and how they speak to potential weaknesses in the Bill.

As hon. Members will be aware, in December 2023 the previous Government published the future homes and buildings standards consultation, setting out proposals on what new standards should entail. The consultation closed in March last year. Over 2,000 responses were received, and some of the most detailed feedback the Department received related to the options set out in respect of solar. The hon. Gentleman has, I know, amassed a not inconsiderable amount of technical expertise when it comes to rooftop solar systems, and he has consulted with industry stakeholders, so he will be acutely aware that setting environmental standards for new homes is not something that Government can do in isolation. To succeed, we must take industry with us, and crucially, we must also ensure that the standards we set are achievable on all sites across the country.

While it is certainly not dictatorial, the expert feedback to the consultation as well as our ongoing work with the industry-led future homes hub, where we have been considering matters such as design flexibility, has been invaluable in shaping the Government’s thinking on what future standards should look like and how they should be implemented. The feedback to the consultation we received drew attention in particular to a number of practical considerations, which we believe it is essential to take into account when determining the precise role of solar in the new standards. I shall touch briefly on three, to illustrate the sort of practical issue my officials and I have been weighing up as we develop the forthcoming new standards, and in so doing give the House a sense of why we feel the Bill may not be the right way to achieve the objective we all share.

The first consideration relates to the ground floor area requirement. As hon. Members know, the future homes and buildings standards consultation set out two options for new homes; both included very high-quality building fabric and a heat pump. The first option also included several additional elements, notably solar panels equating to 40% of the ground-floor area. While respondents were very supportive of the inclusion of solar panels, widespread concerns were raised about the proposed level of solar coverage, which many argued would be virtually impossible to achieve on certain types of home—for example, those with dormer windows.

Clause 1(2) of the Bill sets out a requirement for the same level of solar coverage as was proposed in the consultation. Having thoroughly explored the evidence submitted during the consultation process, the Government have concluded that this level of ground-floor area coverage, rather than just being challenging for a small proportion of new supply, is simply not feasible for many new homes. Importantly, our concern is that setting a requirement at this level in law would result in a significant number of homes needing to apply for an exemption to the standards, which in turn could cause unmanageable workloads in local authorities, lead to significant bottlenecks in housing supply, and ultimately reduce the speed at which rooftop solar on new homes is rolled out.

Determining exemptions is by no means a trivial task. Solar panel systems must be designed carefully for each individual house, taking into account features such as roof shape and pitch, roof lights and dormers. As such, determining the number of solar panels a roof can reasonably accept is a technical design exercise for which many local planning authorities are simply not resourced to carry out in large numbers. Furthermore, any regulation would need to have an enforcement mechanism to deal with instances where unscrupulous developers simply did not comply. The Bill does not address that point, and again, we fear it could end up being another burden that will fall on overstretched local planning authorities. Alive as we are to these unintended consequences, the Government are determined to take an approach that is both ambitious and technically feasible so that widespread exemptions are not necessary.

The second issue relates to the timeframe for introducing the changes. Clause 1(1) stipulates that solar PV will be mandatory on new build homes from 1 October 2026. While that may seem some way into the future, the design and specification of new housing developments is typically set some considerable time prior to construction. As a result, the Bill’s proposed commencement date could risk a significant increase in costs and delays to housing delivery, as developers are forced to rapidly redesign, including sites already in train.

It is important to bear in mind that those in the industry cannot properly prepare for the new requirement until they have access to the final regulations and accompanying statutory guidance. Preparing the regulations and said guidance is not an insignificant task. They need to be drafted and consulted upon, with the consultation open for at least 12 weeks to align with standard protocol and to permit industry sufficient time to respond to such significant proposals.

Following the consultation, the regulations and guidance will need to be finalised and passed using the affirmative resolution process. It is therefore unlikely that the full detail will be available to the construction sector until the end of this year at the earliest, giving the sector only a few months to redesign and get supply chains prepared. These issues are particularly pertinent for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are less equipped to respond quickly. By potentially compressing this period to meet the proposed deadline, housing sites that are already under way may become unviable, leading to wasted investment, a negative impact on housing supply and disruption to numerous local communities across the country—outcomes that I am sure Members will agree we must try to avoid.

The third and final issue relates to transitional arrangements. Government typically minimise the disruption associated with the introduction of new building regulations by setting out associated transitional arrangements. These arrangements determine the limited conditions under which a building can be built to the previous standards. That gives industry time to adapt to new standards and allows work that is already under way to be completed without major disruption. When the 2021 standards were introduced, a six-month period was allowed between laying the regulations and the standards coming into force, followed by a 12-month transitional period. That meant the regulations were laid on 15 December 2021, with the transitional period ending on 15 June 2023.

This Bill does make provision for the Secretary of State to put in place transitional arrangements. However, our reading of the Bill is that those arrangements cannot contradict or override its main premise that new homes built from 1 October 2026 must be fitted with solar panels. As a result, we are concerned that there may not be sufficient time for appropriate transitional arrangements to be set. We believe it is vital that they are set, given that the construction sector typically plans ahead by at least two, if not three or even more, years. Providing merely a matter of weeks between publishing such significant legislation and its taking effect would not be realistic or fair, in our view.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I have been listening carefully to what the Minister has said. Does he agree that a vote on Second Reading is a vote on the principle of the Bill, and the objections that he has been raising are micro, technical ones? Does he not agree that the urgency of the climate crisis and the immense benefits associated with solar PV mean that he should stop raining on the parade of this Bill and give us the opportunity to vote on photons?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Lady makes a fair challenge, but the Government do not intend to proceed on the basis of primary legislation. She might find that the primary legislation route is ultimately slower than the way in which we intend to introduce the future standards later this year. Speed is absolutely an issue we are grappling with, but I gently challenge the idea that this private Member’s Bill is the fastest way to proceed, even leaving aside the points I have raised, which I do not consider to be minor or technical.

In contrast, the future homes standards consultation sets out two options for transitional arrangements, which we believe are far more robust. The first option involves a six-month period between the laying date of the regulations and the regulations coming into force. The second option involves a period of up to 12 months. That approach to transition will ensure that as many homes as possible are required to meet the new standards in a way that is structured and achievable.

It is our responsibility to ensure that the standards we set for new homes are ambitious, but also technically feasible and deliverable, as I have said. For the reasons I have set out, and others that I have not covered today, we believe that forthcoming future standards, developed as a clear and coherent response to the 2023 consultation, are a more appropriate and arguably faster means of achieving the Bill’s aims, which we fully share with the hon. Member for Cheltenham.

[Nesil Caliskan]

Reflecting on the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) about industry using excuses to push back on delivering homes, can the Minister give assurances that in their efforts the Government will push ahead with renewable energy, particularly solar, and do everything they can to ensure that industry and housing companies do not use viability as an excuse not to deliver the many new homes that we need?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am afraid that the time to go into it is not available to me, but I would mention the Government’s intention to revise viability guidance this year to strengthen the section 106 developer contributions system rather than implementing the infrastructure levy that the previous Government devised. In lots of different respects, this Government are absolutely ensuring that developers are held to the commitments they make, and, as she will know, we gave significant weight to the benefits of renewable and low-carbon energy proposals more generally in the NPPF.

As I was saying, maintaining consistency with the established direction of travel is vital. There is a history of environmental standards being committed to and then withdrawn by previous Governments, which has understandably left industry reluctant to invest in preparing for new standards. However, since its announcement in 2019, the future homes standard has become a world-recognised framework, giving industry time to develop the necessary supply chains, skills and construction practices, and many developers are already building to higher standards in anticipation of its roll-out. Introducing conflicting legislation at this stage could create significant confusion and risks reversing the confidence and momentum that we have worked hard to establish.

Let me reassure the House that it is our firm intention to legislate for future standards later this year, as I have made clear, and to increase rooftop solar deployment significantly as a result. I understand that hon. Members and industry will need more details about what the standards will entail before they can arrive at a judgment as to their efficacy. Although we need to take the necessary time to get that right, my intention is to set out further details as soon as I am able—in the not-too-distant future, I hope.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I understand that 1.5 million Germans live in flats that have solar panels on their balconies. Will the Minister consider that as an option, in both new and retrofitted housing, as he looks at this important work?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I said, we will set out further details on the new standards in the not-too-distant future.

I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Member for Cheltenham for introducing this commendable Bill. Although the Government cannot support it for the reasons that I have given, we very much agree with the sentiment and ambition that have motivated it, and I recognise and appreciate all the dedicated work that I know he has put into it. For that reason, and assuming that he is willing, I would very much welcome an ongoing dialogue with him as the Government progress our work on the new standards, so that he has an opportunity to build on the important contribution that he has made in introducing this legislation, and to work closely with me and my officials prior to the introduction of our legislation so that his work and the views he has developed are properly incorporated and taken into account. On that basis, and given the widespread consensus on the objectives of the Bill, I hope that he will not seek to divide the House on its Second Reading.

Green Belt: Basildon and Billericay

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) on securing this important debate on the green belt in his constituency. While I disagree with many of the views he has just set out, I acknowledge the strength of feeling, and in particular his views on the emerging Basildon local plan.

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, this Government take a “brownfield first” approach to development. To that end, we made targeted changes to the national planning policy framework in December to place even stronger emphasis on the value of brownfield redevelopment, and to clarify that proposals for development on such land should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused by them. With a view to informing future policy development, we also published a brownfield passport planning reform working paper in September, setting out a series of proposals designed to prioritise and fast-track building on previously developed urban land wherever possible. None the less, we know that there are simply not enough sites on brownfield registers across the country to deliver the volume of homes that we need each year, let alone sites that are viable and in the right location.

That is why, in our first month in office, we consulted on a new approach to the green belt to support local planning authorities that face acute housing and development pressures in meeting their needs. I reiterate that the Government attach great importance to green belts and remain committed to preserving them. Green belts have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least by checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another.

The Government have not changed the five purposes of the green belt set out in paragraph 143 of the national planning policy framework, and do not propose to alter its general extent. Instead, our reforms provide for a more strategic approach to green belt land designation and release, allowing us to move away from the previous Government’s approach to the green belt, which was to allow land within it to be released regularly, in a haphazard manner, and often for speculative development that did not meet local housing need. As a result of our changes to national planning policy, local authorities must take a sequential approach to releasing land to meet their housing need: brownfield first, followed by low-quality land in the green belt, and only then higher-performing land. To identify low-performing sites, we have incorporated into the NPPF a definition of grey belt land that reflects the fact that there are areas currently designated as green belt that contribute little to it by way of aesthetic, public access or ecological value.

To ensure that local authorities are well equipped and supported to implement our policy changes, we will provide grant funding totalling £14.8 million to support authorities with green belt reviews, and we intend to provide further guidance in the near future to support a consistent approach across the country to grey belt designation. I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that his local authority is identifying swathes of grey belt land, given that we only published our precise definition of grey belt land on 12 December. I shall be interested to hear how Basildon council is progressing its green belt view based on that definition.

Because the Government recognise the public value provided by the green belt, we have ensured that where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed on land released from it through plan preparation or review, or on green belt sites subject to a planning application, it will be subject to new “golden rules”, ensuring the delivery of high levels of affordable housing; the provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public; and, importantly—I noted the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on the subject—the making of necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure.

[Mr Francois]

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

[Matthew Pennycook]

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

[Mr Francois]

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

[Matthew Pennycook]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Holden]

Will the Minister reflect on the concerns I have raised, and that have been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) in previous debates, about the huge changes we face locally with devolution? Who will be accountable for local plans when the council that is ramming them through will not even exist in the near future? There is real concern that this is like a hit job being done on our local communities.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s point. That will depend, of course, on the state of the local plan and what point it is at—whether it is at regulation 18 or 19—and where it is moving forward, but I recognise the point about interaction of the local plan development process with the proposals set out in the English devolution White Paper. There is also a related concern, which I have spoken to the right hon. Gentleman about on a previous occasion: the Government are very clear that we want to see universal coverage of strategic planning across the country, and we will be asking sub-regions across the country to come together to produce spatial development strategies. That may address concerns in his part of the country and others by ensuring that they consider whether cross-border co-operation might ensure that housing growth happens in a planned and more sensible way, rather than every local authority attempting to meet its need within its own confines.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that this Government inherited what I consider to be a frankly appalling situation in which less than a third of local planning authorities have an up-to-date local development plan. That is not a sustainable basis for a plan-led system, and that is why we have set out an expectation that every local planning authority must have a local plan. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman’s involvement in the affairs of Basildon council is a relatively recent development, but he will know that some of the pressures of unplanned development that the authority is experiencing will be because the current local plan was adopted in 1998, making the authority one of a very small number without a Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 plan in place. That reinforces the point that getting a local plan in place is the most effective protection against speculative development. Where plans are not up to date, or where local planning authorities are not delivering the homes that their communities need, it is right that development can come forward from outside the plan, but we want to see more plan-led development across the country.

The new council leadership has acted to address the failures of its predecessors by bringing forward a new local plan. I have registered the right hon. Gentleman’s views about it. Local residents will obviously, through consultation, be able to feed in their own views about that emerging local plan, but we think it is important that it comes forward, whatever form it finally emerges in. It is a sad reflection of the predecessors in that authority that the previous Government had to intervene to ensure a new local plan timetable was produced in December 2023. As the council continues to work on the emerging plan, we expect it to explore all options to deliver its housing targets, including maximising the use of brownfield land; considering the densification of sites, where appropriate; working with neighbouring authorities, as I said, as we move towards that emerging universal strategic plan coverage; and, where necessary, having considered fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified development needs, reviewing its green belt.

To conclude, I thank the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay for bringing this important matter to the House. I note the concerns that he and the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford have raised, and I look forward to engaging with him further on how best we can meet housing need in full in his constituency.

Question put and agreed to.