Colne Valley Regional Park: Protection

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Friday 11th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I turn now to green-belt policy, an issue on which the hon. Lady has strong views which she has expressed forcefully in the past. The Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and in preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another. As the hon. Lady mentioned, the Colne Valley regional park occupies the “inner” green belt on the western edge of London; I am well aware of how important the designation is to its integrity and future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leaseholder Consumer Rights: Consultation

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Friday 4th July 2025 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HCWS780]

Social and Affordable Housing Renewal

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Written Statements

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

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

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

The biggest boost to grant funding in a generation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Establishing an effective and stable regulatory regime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reinvigorating council house building

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A renewed partnership with the sector

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

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

[HCWS771]

Green-belt Development: Rayleigh and Wickford

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Francois]

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

[Matthew Pennycook]

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

National Housing Bank and National Housing Delivery Fund

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Written Statements

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

I am today updating the House on further steps the Government are taking to deliver our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in this Parliament.

National Housing Bank

To accelerate house building across England, we intend to establish a new, permanent national housing bank to act as the Government’s investment arm.

Established as a public financial institution, and operating as a subsidiary of Homes England, the new bank will deliver a long-term financial return for the Government, drawing on the approach taken to the national wealth fund. The bank will deploy finance in line with the Treasury’s financial transaction control framework, which will ensure long-term value for money.

By giving Homes England greater autonomy and freedom to flexibly deploy loans, equity and guarantees, the new bank will support additional housing development and reinforce our ongoing efforts to reform the housing market.

Today’s announcement sets out an initial allocation of £16 billion of new financial capacity for the bank—comprising £10.5 billion of investment capital and £5.5 billion of contingent liability capacity that can be used to deploy housing guarantees. The £10.5 billion investment capital package includes £2.5 billion of low-interest loans for social and affordable housing providers to further boost their capacity to invest in new developments.

The bank will offer a broad range of products, including direct lending to SMEs to help them to grow, equity investments to support new platforms that can bring new capital into housing, and guarantees to leverage private investment into complex development projects.

The bank will build on Homes England’s impressive track record of investment. Since October 2016, the agency has deployed over £9.6 billion of capital through existing investment programmes, working alongside delivery partners to attract an estimated £48 billion of private sector investment into the vehicles it supports. This investment will deliver or unlock over 600,000 homes.

The detailed investment strategy for the bank—which will form a key part of Homes England’s overall strategy – will be developed in the coming months and agreed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and HM Treasury. Subject to the development of that investment strategy, our current estimates are that, over the lifetime of the initial £16 billion investment allocation, the bank will support the delivery of over 500,000 homes in all parts of the country and of all different tenures, create hundreds of thousands of job opportunities in the construction sector, and leverage in an additional £53 billion of additional private investment.

The national housing bank will work closely with mayors and local leaders to develop integrated packages of financial support to deliver on the housing and regeneration priorities of local areas, alongside wider land and grant funding. Following this announcement, MHCLG and Homes England will engage mayoral strategic authorities to agree an approach that works best for the needs of each place.

MHCLG will work with the Mayor of London to establish a City Hall developer investment fund—supporting London’s ambition to build over 80,000 homes per year, and support housing regeneration around London Euston. We will also extend the successful Greater Manchester housing investment fund, which has supported over 10,000 homes since 2015.

The creation of the national housing bank will not change the delivery of Homes England’s existing investment programmes or impact arrangements for customers with help to buy loans provided by Homes England.

I must make clear that Homes England is not currently designated as a public financial institution. However, the Government will designate a subsidiary of Homes England as a public financial institution once established in line with the Government’s financial transaction control framework. MHCLG, HM Treasury and Homes England will work together to agree the changes to Homes England that are needed prior to establishing the bank.

The name “national housing bank” is provisional and will undergo all normal regulatory approvals before the bank is established.

New capital grant funding for investment in infrastructure and land

In many cases, Government grant funding is critical to making large-scale, complex and transformational housing regeneration and infrastructure projects viable. That is why, alongside the intention to establish the national housing bank, we are announcing £5 billion of new capital grant funding for infrastructure and land.

This additional grant funding will be administered by a new, single national housing delivery fund that will complement investment from the national housing bank. This fund will be fully operational from 1 April 2026.

MHCLG and Homes England will work with mayors and local partners to understand priorities for this investment and will set out further detail on funding later this year.

[HCWS712]

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore]

That is exactly why I am so frustrated by the intent of the Government’s Bill. It gives Natural England more compulsory purchase powers, more funds through environmental delivery plans, and an ability to scrutinise and, indeed, to dictate to landowners how their land or farm may be utilised. That is wrong, especially when, as I say, a farmer farming in my constituency of Keighley could be subject to a CPO as a result of a development elsewhere in the country.

The Government and I absolutely disagree on the right to use CPO, and I really struggle with the expansion of section 14A orders, which will allow an acquiring authority to discount the hope value of a seized property. Property rights matter, because they are the foundation of our society. If the state chooses to use its powers to confiscate the property of a law-abiding person, stipulates how that land must be used, and then tells the landowner how much they are entitled to receive, that is wrong—in my view, it is an absolute theft of private property. So-called hope value is not a capitalist trick, a racket or unfair; it is simply the true market value of the property. That is why I fundamentally disagree with the purpose of the Bill, which entails the Government’s stipulating that hope value must be disregarded over and above the agricultural value that is to be paid. It should not be the law that decides the value of something; it should be down to negotiation and the market.

That brings me to fairness. Although I admire the Government’s aspiration to increase development, the Bill is fundamentally flawed on the issue of fairness, because it takes away the property rights of landowners—the very landowners who will have been encouraged by their local authorities to put forward their land to be zoned as part of a local plan, and encouraged through a service level agreement process to have their land zoned for housing, employment or whatever it may be. As a result of this piece of legislation, the local authority, or indeed Natural England, will have the ability to compulsorily acquire the land not at market value, but at agricultural value.

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

The powers to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and which his amendment seeks to remove— I will come on to speak about it in more detail—were set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he voted for that Act? He voted for these powers.

[Robbie Moore]

But the Government are going way beyond that and giving more powers to local authorities and, indeed, Natural England. If the Minister has gone out and spoken to anyone in the agricultural world, he will realise that trust in Natural England is shot, yet the Government are giving it more powers to compulsorily acquire land and then effectively dictate to our farmers and landowners how their land is to be managed. I am not in favour of that. That is why I urge the Government to consider my new clause 127 and amendment 153. It is frustrating that, despite this issue being raised in Committee, the Government have not given it due consideration, and I therefore urge them to rethink their position.

Section 14A orders represent an attempt to run roughshod over our landowners. We can debate the merits of that approach, but we must start by calling it out for what it is. This Bill extends the section 14A powers to parish councils and Natural England, and applies the cut valuation of occupier’s loss, which is a separate payment meant to reflect the disruption to the occupier, not the loss of an asset. That is exactly why I wholeheartedly support Opposition new clause 42, which would increase the occupier’s loss payment from 2.5% to 7.5% of what is paid for the land. It adds to my frustration that the valuation will be based on the agricultural value, not the market value.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella]

I thank the shadow Minister for his question. Let me take the case of the disused railway in my constituency. It is not in public ownership any more, and it is fragmented. We can fund as many feasibility studies as we want to invest in cycling infrastructure, but an incidental green space is not used by landowners at all. If we compulsorily purchased such land—obviously we would offer compensation—we could have high-quality cycling infrastructure that would link up villages to the major towns, so that people can attend GP appointments, schools and so on. The paths are also off-road—away from our gridlocked roads.

Development must come with green and wild spaces, not just tarmac and bricks. That is why I strongly support new clause 114, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), which would ensure that development corporations include green space provision in all new developments. Green spaces are not a luxury; they are essential for mental health, biodiversity, wildlife, flood prevention and community cohesion. Like green spaces, playing fields and recreational facilities are fundamental for the development of grassroots sports and for youth opportunities, and therefore I support amendments 88 and 89 of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).

We also need serious, measurable action on climate. Development corporations are being handed significant powers, yet the Bill fails to guarantee that they are delivering in line with the UK’s climate targets. That is why amendment 151 is so important. It would ensure that the Secretary of State publishes a report on whether development corporations are meeting their legal duties on sustainable development and climate change. With so much at stake, we need transparency and accountability built into the system.

Finally, we need new homes that are genuinely affordable, warm and built to high standards. In Stratford, many families and young people are priced out of their own community. It is not enough to build houses; we must build the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure, green spaces and recreational and sports facilities that create communities.

I urge the Government to back these amendments and take this opportunity to deliver a planning system that is fair, sustainable and community led.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is a pleasure to respond to what has been a thoughtful and, largely, well-informed debate about a piece of legislation that is, to quote the shadow Minister, “groundbreaking”. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon. Can I take the opportunity to thank the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), for their robust but civil and fair approach to scrutiny in Committee?

I want to respond to the key amendments and the arguments that have been made this afternoon. Among other reforms and interventions, the Government are clear that significantly boosting our housing supply requires a renewed focus on building large-scale new communities across England. Development corporations are vital vehicles for delivering large-scale and complex regeneration and development projects. The Bill creates a clearer, more flexible and more robust framework to ensure that they can operate effectively. While there is clearly widespread support across the House for the effective use of development corporations where appropriate, a number of amendments have been tabled that seek to impose specific requirements on them.

New clause 114 in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington would ensure that development corporations include provision for green spaces in new developments. The Government absolutely agree that delivery of large-scale development and regeneration projects must include the provision and stewardship of green space, which has a wide range of benefits, including supporting health and wellbeing, climate mitigation and adaptation, and biodiversity and wildlife.

We do not believe that the new clause is necessary to deliver on these objections. First, development corporations have a strong track record of providing suitable green space. Ebbsfleet development corporation, for example, has a target for the delivery of parks, open spaces and recreation areas, providing almost 15 hectares of parks in recent years, and this year aiming to provide around 10 hectares of new parks and open spaces.

Secondly, development corporations that take on local plan-making powers are already subject to national planning policies, including those concerning green infrastructure. This means that where development corporations take on local planning authority powers, any planning decisions made should be informed by the national planning policy framework, which, as hon. Members will be aware, is a material consideration when determining planning applications.

As the House will know, the NPPF sets out policies to encourage the provision of green infrastructure and outlines that plans should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, making sufficient provision for the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including green infrastructure. The NPPF also sets out that planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision that plans should seek to accommodate. It is the Government’s view that the duty proposed in this new clause may unhelpfully constrain some development corporations—for example, where development corporations are designated specifically for the redevelopment of smaller commercial spaces.

On the stewardship of green spaces, each development corporation has a designated oversight authority, which is either the Secretary of State, a mayor, or local authorities, and it is for them to set specific frameworks for stewardship arrangements. Although I commend the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for once again highlighting this important issue, I hope that with the explanation I have provided he will agree to withdraw his amendment.

I turn to the reforms to compulsory purchase in the Bill, which are designed to improve the CPO process and land compensation rules to enable more effective land assembly through public sector-led schemes. New clause 127 and amendment 153 tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) would repeal section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961. Let us be clear: the amendments propose to repeal a power introduced by the last Conservative Government, in which the hon. Member served and in which he voted for the specific piece of legislation containing the power.

The power allows acquiring authorities to take forward certain types of scheme by compulsory purchase and to pay a reduced value for land where it will deliver clear and significant benefits and is justified in the public interest. The hon. Member’s amendments do not seek, as proposed in the Bill, to limit the extension of the power to parish and county councils or to the use of compulsory purchase powers as they apply to Natural England. The amendments seek to repeal a power contained in a piece of legislation that he voted for, and it is frankly embarrassing to listen to him try to explain that sharp U-turn.

To support the delivery of the housing and infrastructure that this country desperately needs, we must make better use of underutilised land across the country. We know that many local authorities share this objective, but their plans are often frustrated by unrealistic compensation expectations on the part of landowners. This can result in significant amounts of developable land remaining unused and overpriced, with the result that the building of homes, transport links and schools becomes prohibitively high.

[Chris Hinchliff]

In the debate today, Conservative Members have robustly defended the principle of paying landowners the uplift from the current-use value to the value that land would have with planning permission. Given how Winston Churchill said such unearned increments in land are “positively detrimental” to the general public, are they not attacking their own best traditions?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a shame that the Conservative party has seemingly changed its view. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State said, “Yes, that’s right. We’ve changed our view. It was a bad piece of legislation.” Many provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 were some of the best introduced by the previous Government. There is lots in the previous Government’s record that Conservative Members should rightly feel embarrassed about; these powers are not among that. Far from removing that power, we want acquiring authorities to use the power. For that reason, we cannot possibly accept the hon. Member’s amendment.

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) suggested that market value would not be paid for such land in compulsory purchases. Will the Minister confirm that the amount paid in compulsory purchases is the market value for the existing use of that land?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Liberal Democrat spokesman tempts me to stray beyond the specific measures in the Bill and how that power can be used. We are clear and have recently issued guidance about how that power can be used.

That leads me helpfully to amendments 68, 88 and 89, which would expand the LURA power in question. Sympathetic as I am to the more frequent removal of hope value from the assessment of compensation, the use of the relevant power must be proportionate and justified in the public interest so that it does not fall foul of article 1 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights. Seeking to expand the use of the power beyond that test and apply it much more widely is problematic for that reason. I cannot accept the amendments on that basis.

However, I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) that use of the direction power can be sought on mixed use schemes that include sports or recreational uses, but within those schemes there must be education provision, health provision or affordable housing provision to justify the use of the power in the public interest. On that specific point, and to respond to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I confirm that clause 104 does not extend the LURA power to other uses or social objectives; it merely enables parish and town councils to make use of the existing power.

[Munira Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not give away any more. I want to bring our remarks to a close because, as hon. Members are aware, there is a statement to follow our proceedings on the Bill.

I turn to new clause 85, which would change the lost payments regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973. To be clear, lost payments are an amount of compensation paid to eligible claimants to reflect and recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused by CPOs. They are an additional payment to compensation claimable under the Land Compensation Act 1961 for the market value of land or property taken by compulsory purchase. The new clause would allow claimants to claim compensation for the market value of their interests twice, and result in over-compensation being paid. That would be disproportionate. It would also run counter to the established, overriding principle of equivalence in compensation law where a person subject to compulsory purchase should be left no better or worse off in financial terms after an acquisition than they were before. On that basis, we cannot accept the new clause.

I will touch briefly on new clause 42 in the name of the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), regarding loss payments. It would introduce a change to the loss payment compensation regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973, increasing the amount that occupiers of buildings or land subject to a CPO would be entitled to and placing them on an equal footing with owners. As we discussed at some length in Committee, the Bill already achieves in part what the hon. Gentleman is seeking in the new clause as it increases the loss payment compensation due to occupiers of buildings and land.

The purpose of loss payments is to reflect the inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase. It is occupiers, rather than investor-owners, who bear the greater burden in that respect: they are the ones who will need to close or relocate their businesses. Loss payments are a separate head of claim from compensation paid for land taken under compulsory purchase. The Bill rebalances loss payment compensation to allow occupiers to claim a higher amount and landowners to claim a lower amount. We believe that the rebalancing of loss payment compensation in favour of occupiers is the right approach and will benefit, for example, groups such as tenant farmers, for which Opposition Members have made a case in this afternoon’s debate. On that basis, I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment and I request that the hon. Member does not press it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It has been a real privilege to take this crucial piece of legislation through the House—“groundbreaking legislation”, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), described it earlier. I thank everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage. I thank my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for her unwavering support throughout the Bill’s passage; I thank the Department’s Bill team, led by Alex Bush, for their prodigious efforts over many months; I thank my consistently excellent private office, including its head, Grace Doody, and my brilliant private secretary Gabe Allason; I thank the Clerks, Chairs and parliamentary counsel for facilitating the Bill’s progress; I thank the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee; and I thank the hon. Members on both sides of the House who provided valuable input and challenge, today and at earlier stages.

This landmark Bill will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth, and deliver on the promise of national renewal. It is critical in helping the Government to achieve their ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England during the current Parliament, to making planning decisions on at least 150 major economic infrastructure projects, and to supporting the clean power 2030 target and transforming Britain into a clean energy superpower.

As the House will know, the Bill will deliver five key objectives. First, it will deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for nationally significant infrastructure projects. This is a crucial part of the Bill. Upgrading our country’s economic infrastructure—electricity networks, clean energy sources and public transport links—is essential to basic services and a growing economy. The Bill makes a number of changes. It will ensure that national policy statements are kept up to date by providing for a reflective amendment process so that the Government can quickly make minor policy changes or factor in legal impacts.

Secondly, the Bill adopts a more strategic approach to nature recovery that will unlock a win-win for development and the environment. As we discussed at length yesterday, the status quo is not working. It is not working for development, and—let me be clear—that is because constraints such as nutrient neutrality are stifling development and disincentivising planning applications across the country, which is having an impact on house builders, particularly small and medium-sized house builders. We need to remove those constraints. The status quo is also not working for the environment: all too often, the site-by-site process of assessment and meeting obligations is not driving nature recovery. Instead of retaining that suboptimal status quo, we want to take forward a new strategic approach across wider geographies, ensuring that Natural England presents plans that go beyond offsetting harm to driving nature recovery as well as unlocking development.

Thirdly, the Bill will improve certainty and decision making in the planning system. There has been widespread support for the measures on mandatory training for local councillors and on fee localisation. Local planning authorities, which we know have been hard-pressed in recent years, will be able to set their own fees and ensure that more of the burdens that they face in processing applications can be covered by those fees. The House has welcomed that.

We have taken the decision to introduce a national scheme of delegation. I appreciate that that is controversial, but we think it is an absolutely necessary means of introducing more certainty and clarity into the decision-making process. We have launched a technical consultation on the measure, and I urge hon. Members from across the House to engage with the detail of that consultation. I think that when they do so, they will understand that a category of planning applications should be delegated to expert local planning officers. However, with the agreement of the relevant chair of the committee and the lead planning officer in the authority, it will always be possible for the most serious and controversial applications to come before elected members, just as it should be the case that they take decisions on the most significant applications.

Fourthly, we are unlocking land and securing public value for large-scale investment. Today we have debated changes to development corporations, which will play an essential role in driving the delivery of more large-scale communities across this country, and we have discussed CPO powers. We want to see those CPO powers, including the very important CPO reforms passed by the previous Government, which I am sad to hear the Conservatives regret they passed—the shadow Secretary of State said very clearly from the Dispatch Box that it was a mistake. We think those powers are useful, and we want to see their application taken forward. The Bill makes targeted changes to those powers to ensure that they can be used by parish and county councils and, when it comes to nature recovery and the production of environmental delivery plans, by Natural England in certain circumstances.

Fifthly, the Bill introduces effective new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning. We must do planning on a larger than local scale if we are to get the best outcomes, and the Bill introduces new spatial development strategies. These are not big local plans; they are higher-level strategies for different sub-regions of the country to come together and decide, in co-operation, the most appropriate places for housing growth and the best way for infrastructure to be delivered across those areas. In response to feedback, we made a series of targeted changes in Committee: we are removing the statutory pre-consultation requirements from the NSIP regime, which we know are driving perverse outcomes, and we have introduced targeted improvements to the nature restoration fund and a new funding mechanism for statutory consultees.

When it comes to delivering new homes and critical infrastructure, the status quo is patently failing the country and the British people. We can and must do things differently, and this Bill will enable us to do so. It is transformative. It will fundamentally change how we build things in this country and, in doing so, help us to tackle the housing crisis and raise living standards in every part of the country. This Labour Government were elected on the promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this Bill, we will do just that. I wish Baroness Taylor and Lord Khan all the best with progressing the Bill in the other place, and I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Chinese Embassy Development

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government what assessment she has made of the United States Government’s national security concerns regarding the proposed Chinese embassy development at Royal Mint Court.

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

This Government are committed to the probity of the planning process at all levels to ensure robust and evidence-based decision making. The process includes a role for planning Ministers in deciding on called-in planning applications and recovered appeals, so I hope that the House will appreciate why I cannot comment in any detail on specific planning applications at the Dispatch Box. That said, it may be helpful to Members if I set out the process that these cases follow.

The application referred to by the right hon. Member was considered to meet the published call-in policy set out in the October 2012 written ministerial statement, so it will be determined by Ministers. The application is not yet with the Department. All decisions that come before Ministers are subject to examination by an independent planning inspector, usually through a public inquiry. The planning inspector then provides an evidence-based recommendation, and set out their full reasons for that recommendation. The inspector’s report considers the application against published local, regional and national planning policy, which is likely to contain a wide variety of material planning considerations; in this case, those are likely to include safety and national security.

A public inquiry was held on this case between 11 and 28 February, at which interested parties were able to put forward evidence and make representations. Should any further representations be made that raise material planning considerations before the decision is made, they will also be taken into account. At all times, the decision will be dealt with in line with the published propriety guidance on planning casework decisions. The right hon. Member will be aware that the Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary made a joint representation to the Planning Inspectorate ahead of the start of the inquiry. That will be taken into account, alongside all other relevant matters. Once the planning inspector’s report and recommendation is received, the case will be determined by a planning Minister, who will come to a decision based on material planning considerations.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The US Government, and today the Dutch Parliament, have expressed concerns about sensitive cables under Royal Mint Court. Beijing has a recent history of cutting cables and confirmed infrastructure hacks, including embedding malware capable of disabling all that infrastructure. Surprisingly, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology said on television yesterday that this issue is “in the planning process” and could be managed. Will the Minister correct the record? The planning inquiry has concluded, and no changes at all can be made to the Chinese planning application.

I remind the Minister that the application contains nothing about cabling. Indeed, the Chinese have rejected only two requests by the inquiry—requests to which he referred; they were made by the Government, in the letter from the Foreign and Home Secretaries. That is despite Ministers regularly saying that the letter should “give those concerned comfort.” Rerouting the cables would, we know, cost millions, if the Government are even thinking about that, so I ask the Minister: why did the Government strongly deny, rather than tell this House about, the presence of the cables until the White House actually confirmed it?

Chinese state media have reported that the UK has given assurances to the Chinese that the UK would allow the development, no matter what. Indeed, The Guardian newspaper reported in 2023 that the Chinese would not apply again unless they were given governmental assurances. Can the Minister confirm, or even deny, any of this? Speaking as one of those in the Chamber who have been sanctioned by China, I see this as Project Kowtow. There has been one denial after another, and one betrayal after another. No wonder our allies believe that this Chinese mega-embassy is becoming a walk of shame for the Government.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Member for those questions. I hope he will appreciate, not least because of the quasi-judicial nature of the role of planning Ministers in the planning process, that I cannot comment on the details of the application. As I have said, no decision on the case has been made, and the case is not yet before the Department.

The right hon. Member mentioned cables, but it would not be appropriate to comment on any specific national security issue. On whether the Chinese embassy issue was raised during UK-US trade talks, again it would not be appropriate to comment on the details of those talks. Suffice it to say that we do not recognise the characterisation set out in The Sunday Times article, in which that was referenced. It is important to emphasise that only material planning considerations can be taken into account in determining this case. As I say, I cannot comment in any detail on such a case, and this case is not yet before the Department.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I understand that the Minister cannot comment on this case, or any individual case, but national security is of the utmost concern to everybody in this country and in this Chamber. When an application comes before the Secretary of State, and in granting applications from foreign Governments, will national security be a material concern for the Government?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I made clear in responding to the initial question, the inspector’s report considers the application against published local, regional and national planning policy, which is likely to include consideration of a wide variety of material planning matters. In this case, that is likely to include safety and national security.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this very important urgent question. Question after question, and letter after letter, the Government have consistently treated Parliament with complete disregard on this matter. They have stonewalled legitimate inquiries about national security, ministerial discussions and warnings from security bodies. I get that the Minister is compromised, in that he has a quasi-judicial responsibility here, but his colleagues in the Home Office and the Foreign Office do not, and they could answer these questions.

As the Government know, their own cyber-security experts, Innovate UK, have warned about the threat to the City of London from the embassy. The Wapping telephone and internet exchange is surrounded on three sides by the new embassy, and there are fibre cables carrying highly sensitive information running beneath the site. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology said yesterday that these matters could be dealt with in the planning process, but the inquiry has ended, so they cannot. If the Government are considering moving the cables, how many millions of pounds of public money will that cost? I recently sent yet another cross-party letter to the Prime Minister, signed by 59 parliamentarians, urging him to pause and reconsider. Since then, the US and Dutch Governments have both sounded the alarm.

Have MI5 and GCHQ been able to submit their own warnings to the planning inspector? Does the inspector have access to unredacted plans of the embassy, which the Chinese Government have refused to make public? Have the Government assessed the potential sinister uses of the secret basement in the so-called cultural exchange building? What discussions have taken place with the Bank of England, given its role in cyber-security regulation in the City? Why will the Government not follow the example of the US, Australian and Irish Governments, who vetoed similar embassies that threatened their national security? The Government are on the verge of making a decision that will lead to a huge risk that will persist for decades. Will they change course before it is too late?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate that the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks were written before he listened to my response, but I could not have been clearer about the fact that no decision has been made on this case and no application is yet before the Department—[Interruption.] It was a question. He is pre-empting a decision that has not been made, on a case that is not before the Department. I have been very clear that, should any further representations be made that raise material planning considerations—they may, in this case, relate to safety and national security—before a decision is made, these will be taken into account. But again, as I said to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), on matters of security it would not be appropriate for me to comment. On specific issues such as cables, it would not be appropriate for me to comment. Planning Ministers have a quasi-judicial role in the planning process and, as I have said, the case is not yet before the Department.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Minister can understand the sensitivity of how we all feel about this. China has a track record of aggressive state-backed espionage. Surely this country cannot afford to make a massive underestimation of the risk, should this go ahead as expected. Experts warn that there could be the foreign leverage of signals, interception and monitoring of sensitive Government and corporate communications. To what extent can individuals make representations, because everyone is extremely concerned that such a massive and historic building was sold some years ago? This is pre-empted. This is how China works: it plans years ahead. We cannot not say anything in this House; we must comment on what we see. Please, understand that we must.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do understand the strength of feeling conveyed by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members when it comes to the People’s Republic of China. The Government are taking a consistent, long-term and strategic approach to managing the UK’s relations with China, rooted in the national interest. We will always protect our national security and keep the country safe, but those are separate issues from this specific planning application. I understand why she does so, but she tempts me to speculate—again, as I have said—on a decision that has not been made, on a case that is not yet before the Department.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for submitting this urgent question.

The potential approval of the Chinese super-embassy sends precisely the wrong signal at a moment when we should be pushing the Chinese Government hard on human rights abuses and their repression of the people of Hong Kong, both in that city and right here on our streets. Notwithstanding the risk of interception of sensitive comms at the site, Hongkongers and Uyghurs are deeply worried about what it might mean for China’s expanding surveillance capacity here in the UK. In March, alongside other Opposition Members, I spoke at the protest in front of the proposed site. I say the same thing to the Minister as I said that day: the Government must block it. Taking into account the scale of opposition, both domestically and by our allies, will the Minister confirm that representations made in this place will be considered as part of the planning approval process? If I may, I will also ask: considering that the original timetable for the China audit to be published has now passed, will the Minister tell the House when they expect finally to present it?

[Matthew Pennycook]

On the audit, the hon. Gentleman’s final point, the relevant Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), has confirmed that that will be coming before the summer. He raises two very distinct issues and I must treat them separately. On human rights, we stand firm, including against China’s repression of the people of Xinjiang and Tibet. Human rights issues are raised every time FCDO Ministers meet their Chinese counterparts. On the application specifically, he asks me a very direct question. Should any further representations be made, by Members or other interested parties, that raise material planning considerations that need to be taken into account in a decision, they will be taken into account and they will be considered before a decision is made.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

Earlier this year I spoke at a huge demonstration outside the proposed embassy site, which was attended by thousands of British Hongkongers who fear that the hands that throttled their freedoms in Hong Kong are reaching into our society, too. I understand the Minister’s point and the limitations on what he can say on the issue at this time, but this is not just a matter of national security; does he understand that it is also a matter of personal security for many of our constituents, given the increase in transnational repression emanating from Beijing?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend has been a vocal advocate for the Hong Kong community in his constituency and across the country. We will stand with and support members of that community; we have a long, shared history with Hong Kong, and many people from Hong Kong have made the UK their home in recent years. Again—I must emphasise this point, and I will continue to do so as questions on this come in—that is a distinct and separate issue from the planning application that will, in due course, come before Ministers in my Department.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) today; I spoke before him at the rally to which he refers. Those of us who have been sanctioned—I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are among our number—are particularly conscious of the effect that the Chinese state has on our country. Do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, honestly believe that the Minister thinks that the Chinese would look at this proposal in the same way? Do we in this House honestly believe that something threatening our economic security, as highlighted by the Americans and the Dutch, should go through a bureaucratic planning process, with no ability to vary it, because, frankly, them’s the orders? I do not think that is the way China would do it, and it is certainly not the way we should do it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It is a very clever question, but it is the Minister who is responding.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Gentleman’s views on China are well known, and he knows my views on China, too—we have discussed the matter in the past. He raises two distinct issues. On sanctioned parliamentarians, let me take this opportunity to make it clear that the sanctions are completely unwarranted and unacceptable, and this issue will remain a priority under this Government. The Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor have raised their case at every meeting with their counterparts, including with President Xi at the G20 in November and Foreign Minister Wang Yi in February. The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to comment on the Chinese planning system. I am very glad that we have a different and more robust system than the People’s Republic of China.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment on individual planning applications from the Dispatch Box, but when I speak to Hongkongers in my constituency, they are seriously concerned about the risks that come with transnational repression and that might come along with the creation and construction of this embassy. When I was speaking with Hongkongers in my constituency last week, on the 36th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre—something that can be commemorated in Leeds, but not in Hong Kong—they were seriously concerned that those with £100,000 bounties on their heads might be more at risk now because of the construction of this embassy. I appreciate that the Minister’s portfolio does not necessarily cover this, but what assurances can he give on behalf of the Government that if such an embassy is built, we will do everything in our power to protect those from Hong Kong who have made the UK their home?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope hon. Members will appreciate why I will not comment on hypotheticals, again, on a decision that has not been made on a case that is not before the Department. I have made it very clear that we stand with the Hong Kong community. The Minister with responsibility for Asia and the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), met members of the Hong Kong community in this country, along with my hon. Friend the Security Minister. We will stand by them.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary have all had recent, high-level interactions with Ministers of the Chinese Communist party—the Chinese Government. Has the Chinese embassy been brought up in any of the meetings with those Ministers, and have those Ministers in any way corresponded with the Minister’s Department on the Chinese embassy application?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details of any talks—

[Sir James Cleverly]

I was not asking for details.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Gentleman is asking for details, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment. On the particular issue of whether representations have been made, as I made clear in answering the initial question, the Home and Foreign Secretaries made a joint representation to the Planning Inspectorate ahead of the start of the inquiry, and that will be taken into account alongside all other relevant matters.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

From a response to a freedom of information request, which I have with me, we now know that just two protests at the Royal Mint Court site in February and March this year required the deployment of nearly 600 officers in total, including 101 in February and 485 in March. The FOI request reveals that the cost of policing these two protests alone amounted to £345,000. This is a staggering use of resources for a site that is not yet operational, and it reflects the serious concerns among the Hongkonger, Tibetan and Uyghur diasporas in the UK. These are communities that fear that the embassy will become a hub for transnational repression. What assessment have Ministers made of the cost implications of this proposed development on policing, and will they commit today to rejecting this super-embassy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not going to commit to rejecting an application that has not yet come to the Department and, as I keep saying, where a decision has not been made. I have made it clear that we understand the concerns of members of the Hong Kong community and others about the potential—I make clear that it is a potential—approval of this application. When it comes to police resourcing, all I can repeat is that only material planning considerations can be taken into account in determining the case.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I think we can all agree that we would like a decision to be made in this case that does not encourage the Chinese Government to think that we are a soft touch. Let us try another tack. National security is going to be taken into account as part of this planning decision. I ask the Minister this hypothetical question: if there is only a 1% chance that the granting of this planning application causes some detriment to our national security, would it not be better to take a risk management approach and put the embassy somewhere else?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman invites me, again, to consider a planning decision that has not been made, on a case that is not yet before the Department. I am clearly not going to set out from this Dispatch Box the decision-making process that planning Ministers in my Department might take to the application once it is submitted.

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

Given the serious concerns about national security, can the Minister confirm that his Department has consulted on this issue with UK and allied intelligent agencies, including those of the USA? Can he say whether a full national security review will be conducted before any planning decision is taken?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have made clear, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any specific national security issue. What I have been at pains to make clear is that the inspector’s report, which will come before Ministers in my Department at the point when the case comes to us, will include a wide variety of material planning matters, and in this case they are likely to include safety and national security matters.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

Further to the question from the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), the Home Affairs Committee has written to the Metropolitan police asking for details of any concerns it may have about the policing of this site and any particular disorder that might occur around it. I once again put it to the Minister that he must take account of these concerns. There could be very serious and significant concerns for policing in the capital.

[Matthew Pennycook]

All material planning considerations that have been brought to the attention of the inspector will be taken into account as part of the decision when it is made in due course.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

National security and security is a valid planning consideration, so does the Minister accept that, in the event that the Secretary of State allows this decision to go ahead, regardless of the planning inspector’s recommendation, this Government will essentially be putting our relationship with China ahead of our security relationship with the United States?

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is pure speculation. As I have said, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any national security matters.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Does the Minister believe that China will always try to exploit and infiltrate data communication in this country?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Widespread cyber-activity or interference in our democracy will not be tolerated and will be met with a strong response.

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

Moving on from national security, according to the documentation—I have double-checked—community safety is a significant material planning consideration. In such a multicultural area, what assessment of risk to community cohesion and the safety of local people is being made? How does taking such decisions more centrally align with the Government’s much-publicised commitment to devolution?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not know whether hon. Members can hear me. I keep answering the questions as posed, and I have answered that question. If the issue that the hon. Lady raises is a material planning consideration, the inspector will take it into account in their recommendation to Ministers to make a decision, once the case comes to the Department.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

China is already revelling in the Government’s spectacular own goal in handing over Chagos. China looks as if it is about to benefit again. Even if the Minister cannot say what amounts are involved, will he say what works would need to be done in advance of the embassy being set up at the Royal Mail site, and who would pay for that? Would it be the Chinese, or would it be the UK Government, and which part?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I said, a public inquiry was held between 11 and 28 February, and all the relevant documents submitted to that inquiry are available online. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to go and look at them. Again, he invites me to speculate on matters that are part of the application that the inspector will have considered in making his report and recommendation—when that arrives—to the Department. I emphasise again that no case is yet with the Department.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

If national security is a material consideration, will that be judged only by what is in the inspector’s report? If so, how could that be adequate, since the UK’s China audit will not have been published before the inspector concludes his report?

[Matthew Pennycook]

At the point when the planning inspector’s report and recommendation is received, it will be determined by a planning Minister, who will come to a decision based on material planning considerations that have been analysed.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

I understand that the Minister cannot comment on the specifics, but does he at least agree with the principle that if there is a risk that a nation state will act nefariously against the British state’s interests, the British Government should not reward that state?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have been at pains to make clear, the Government will always protect our national security and keep this country safe. There is a distinct issue from the planning application and the questions about process that have been put to me. On that basis, I cannot comment, as the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, on a decision that has not been made, and on a case that is not with the Department.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

My constituency is home to a growing number of people from Hong Kong who have been forced to flee their homeland as a result of actions by China. I appreciate what the Minister says about this being a quasi-legal matter, and the fact that a Foreign Office Minister is sat next to him speaks volumes about how this is not just a planning issue. Does he agree that this country owes a debt to Hongkongers, whom we need to protect from the Chinese interference that they consider this super-embassy would enable?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do recognise that point. As I have made clear, the Government will stand with and support members of the Hong Kong community. As I said—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber for this—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), and the Minister for Security met members of the Hong Kong community only recently. We will continue to stand with them.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

The Minister has made it clear that he will not comment on the specifics of the case, and I will not ask him to, but can he offer a view in principle on why we would ever offer a foreign state with known cyber-espionage capabilities that it deploys regularly easier access to critical cyber-infrastructure?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Again, the hon. Gentleman is making assumptions that I do not recognise, and thereby tempting me to comment on the case. I am not going to make blanket, in-principle statements, given the quasi-judicial nature and involvement of planning Ministers in the process.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Lee Anderson, are you bobbing or not bobbing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am somewhat thrown off there.

I thank the Minister for his answers. He will be aware of concerns that Chinese-born residents in my constituency and across Northern Ireland have about the reach, and indeed the overreach, of the Chinese Government in the United Kingdom. I can well understand US concerns and, with all due respect—he knows I always ask my questions with respect—does the Minister truly believe that this massive embassy will alleviate the concerns of those who know best the reach of the Chinese Government’s arm? Should we not be showing that, while we will accord them courtesy, as we do with other national embassies, they are not entitled to a Chinese “Vatican City” in the midst of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do recognise the concerns the hon. Gentleman raises, but—forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker—I have to repeat again that no decision has been made in this case. No case is yet with the Department. I have laid out in quite some detail the process that has been followed in how the application has been taken forward, and what needs to happen for Ministers to reach a decision at the appropriate point, when a case comes to the Department.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

Things that seem politically and economically expedient at the time can become things that Governments regret very much in the long term, as I found when I was the telecoms Minister having to lead the £2 billion strip-out of Huawei from our 5G infrastructure. It took only a few minutes for the Prime Minister to change his position on the Chinese embassy after a call from President Xi Jinping. The Minister has said he cannot answer any questions on the substance of the issue, but on a planning level will he commit personally to having a secure briefing ahead of making any planning decision, and also to publishing and sharing with this House details of all the representations he has received on the planning application, including those from his own Government?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will take the two aspects of the hon. Lady’s question in turn, if I may. We will be vigilant against the full range of hybrid, cyber, space and other threats from state and non-state actors, including those emanating from China. On her specific question about the planning application, all the representations made to the Planning Inspectorate as part of that public inquiry are publicly available for hon. Members to see. Ministers, when they come to make a decision on the basis of the inspector’s reports and recommendations, will do so taking into account material planning considerations.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Is the planning officer who is considering this case cleared to receive top-secret information?

[Matthew Pennycook]

A planning inspector is assessing the case as part of a public inquiry. Although I recognise why the hon. Gentleman has asked the question, I am afraid it would not be appropriate for me to comment on national security matters.

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

“China is likely to continue seeking advantage through espionage and cyber-attacks, and through securing cutting-edge Intellectual Property through legitimate and illegitimate means.” Those are not my words, but the words of the Government’s own strategic defence review. Given the sub-threshold threat posed by China and its starring role in the SDR, where it is referred to explicitly alongside Russia and Iran, why has China not been included in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme ahead of any potential approval of its super-embassy?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend the Minister for Asia and the Indo-Pacific tells me that that particular report is coming forward in due course. Again, on the planning application, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on specific national security issues but, as I have said, material planning considerations, including those relating to safety and national security, will be taken into account.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Steps to be taken when exercising functions under Part 3—

“When exercising any function or fulfilling any duty under Part 3 of this Act, the Secretary of State and Natural England must take all reasonable steps to—

(a) avoid, prevent and reduce any identified significant adverse effects on the environment, and only permit such adverse effects where they cannot be avoided and where the adverse effects will be compensated for;

(b) enhance biodiversity;

(c) permit a significant adverse effect on a European site or Ramsar site only where justified by imperative reasons of overriding public importance and where the adverse effect will be compensated for, and

(d) prevent the loss of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and veteran and ancient trees, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and any loss will be compensated for.”

This new clause would ensure that the Secretary of State and Natural England must take all reasonable steps to avoid causing adverse environmental effects.

New clause 2—Zero carbon standard for new homes—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 to require that new homes must—

(a) be built to a net zero carbon building standard, and

(b) include provision for solar power generation.

(2) Regulations must include a presumption that, as far as is reasonably practicable, new developments will include facilities for the rooftop generation of solar power.”

This new clause would require that new homes to be built to a net zero carbon building standard and include provision for the generation of solar power.

New clause 3—Transfer of land to local authority following expiry of planning permission—

“After section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, insert—

“91A Transfer of land to local authority following expiry of planning permission

(1) This section applies—

(a) where a development includes the construction of 100 or more homes and has not begun within the applicable period, and

(b) where section 91(4) of this Act does not apply.

(2) There is a compelling case in the public interest for the compulsory purchase under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 of land on which any such development was permitted provided that such purchase is—

(a) in accordance with the terms of the Land Compensation Acts, and

(b) complies with the relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.

(3) In this section—

(a) “applicable period” has the meaning given in section 91(5) of this Act;

(b) ”Land Compensation Acts” means—

(i) the Land Compensation Act 1961;

(ii) the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965;

(iii) the Acquisition of Land Act 1981;

(iv) any other relevant Act which the Secretary of State may specify.””

This new clause would mean that, where permission for a development of 100 homes or more is not used within the applicable period, there is automatically a justifiable case for the compulsory purchase of the land under the Housing Act 1985.

New clause 4—Sustainable drainage—

“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act—

(a) bring into force Schedule 3 (Sustainable drainage) of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and

(b) provide guidance to local planning authorities, land and property developers and other relevant stakeholders on how to incorporate sustainable drainage into new developments.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and provide guidance on the building in of sustainable drainage in future developments.

New clause 5—Local planning authority discretion over affordability of housing—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, provide guidance to local planning authorities on how to define or classify new or prospective developments as affordable housing.

(2) The guidance must make clear that a local planning authority may, while having regard to national or general guidelines, determine what is to be understood to be affordable housing in its area based on local needs and circumstances.”

This new clause would enable local planning authorities to use their discretion to determine whether certain housing is to be “affordable housing”.

New clause 6—Development plans to aim to improve health and well-being—

“(1) Any national or local plan or strategy relating to the planning or development of an area must be designed to improve the physical, mental and social health and well-being of the people who are to reside in that area.

(2) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local planning authorities on how local plans and strategies can be designed to achieve the aims outlined in subsection (1).”

This new clause would require national or local development plans to be designed in a way that aims to improve the physical, mental and social health and well-being of residents.

New clause 7—New car parks to include solar panels—

“(1) No local planning authority may approve an application for the building of an above-ground car park which does not make the required provision of solar panels.

(2) The required provision of solar panels is an amount equivalent to 50% of the surface area of the car park.”

This new clause would require solar panels to be provided with all new car parks.

New clause 8—Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, before Part 3 of this Act comes into force, establish an independent body to monitor the administration of the nature restoration levy by Natural England.

(2) The independent body may request information from Natural England relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy additional to the information and reports provided to the independent body by Natural England under section 66(5).

(3) The independent body may report to the Secretary of State on—

(a) any concerns relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy, and

(b) any other matters relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy as the independent body deems appropriate.”

This new clause would provide for independent oversight of Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy.

New clause 9—Environmental infrastructure in new developments—

“(1) Within six months of to the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 for the purpose of protecting and enhancing biodiversity.

(2) Regulations made under this section must—

(a) take account of biodiversity targets and interim targets set out in sections 1(2), 1(3)(c), 11 and 14 of the Environment Act 2021;

(b) include measures to enable the provision in new developments of—

(i) bird boxes;

(ii) bat boxes;

(iii) swift bricks;

(iv) hedgehog highways; and

(v) biodiverse roofs and walls.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to protect and enhance biodiversity in new developments.

New clause 10—Inclusion of wildbelt in planning considerations—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act—

(a) create a category of protection for wildbelt areas in England for the purpose of permanently protecting such areas from or during development, and

(b) issue guidance for local planning authorities and other relevant parties on how wildbelt land is to be protected.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “permanently protecting” areas means protecting or restoring the natural environment in a wildbelt area, and in ecosystems functionally connected to a wildbelt area.

(3) Guidance issued under subsection (1)(b) must—

(a) provide assistance to local planning authorities and others on the identification of wildbelt sites;

(b) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the development of spatial development strategies regarding—

(i) the use of Local Nature Recovery Strategies to protect and enhance wildbelt;

(ii) the reporting of progress towards the development of wildbelt sites; and

(iii) the reporting of progress towards the use of wildbelt designation to increase public access to nature.

(4) For the purposes of this section, “wildbelt” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify in guidance, but must include—

(a) areas of land;

(b) bodies of water and adjacent land;

(c) wetlands.”

This new clause would enable the creation of new wildbelt areas and associated ecosystems, and require guidance to be issued regarding the use of provisions of the bill to protect wildbelt areas.

New clause 11—Register of planning applications from political donors—

“(1) A local planning authority must maintain and publish a register of planning applications in its area where—

(a) a determination has been made by the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning, and

(b) the applicant has made a donation to the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning within the period of ten years prior to the application being made.

(2) A register maintained under this section must be published at least once each year.”

This new clause would require a local planning authority to keep and publish a register of applications decided by the Secretary of State where that Secretary of State has received a donation from the applicant.

New clause 12—Considerations when deciding an application for development consent—

“In section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (acceptance of applications), after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) When deciding whether to accept an application, the Secretary of State must have regard to the extent to which consultation with affected communities has—

(a) identified and resolved issues at the earliest opportunity;

(b) enabled interested parties to understand and influence the proposed project, provided feedback on potential options, and encouraged the community to help shape the proposal to maximise local benefits and minimise any disbenefits;

(c) enabled applicants to obtain relevant information about the economic, social, community and environmental effects of the project; and

(d) enabled appropriate mitigation measures to be identified, considered and, if appropriate, embedded into the proposed application before the application was submitted.””

This new clause to the Planning Act would require the Secretary of State to consider the content and adequacy of consultation undertaken with affected communities when deciding an application for development consent.

New clause 13—Removal of statutory consultees—

“(1) A party may only be removed from the list of consultees—

(a) in or under section 42 of the Planning Act 2008, or

(b) in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009,once Parliamentary approval for the removal has been signified.

(2) Parliamentary approval may be signified by—

(a) the approval of a relevant statutory instrument;

(b) the agreement of a relevant motion.”

This new clause would make the removal of statutory consultees subject to parliamentary approval.

New clause 14—Electricity distribution networks: land and access rights—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, consult on and implement measures to give electricity distribution network operators powers in relation, but not limited, to—

(a) the acquisition of rights over land for new and existing overhead lines and underground cables;

(b) the acquisition of land for new substations or the extension of existing substations;

(c) the entering into of land for the purposes of maintaining existing equipment;

(d) the entering into of land for the purposes of managing vegetation growth which is interfering with the safety or operation of overhead equipment.

(2) Any powers granted must be compatible with the need to complete works related to development in a timely, inexpensive and uncomplicated manner, and may include the provision of compensation to relevant landowners.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on giving electricity distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land.

New clause 15—Extension of permitted development—

“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act—

(a) make provision for the following to be included as permitted development—

(i) upgrading of existing lines from single to three phase;

(ii) alteration of conductor type;

(iii) increase in the height of distribution network supports to maintain minimum ground clearances under the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002;

(iv) increase in the distance of supporting structures by up to 60m from their existing position when replacing an existing overhead line;

(v) in relation to new connections from an existing line, an increase in nominal voltage to a maximum of 33kV and related increase in pole heights;

(vi) upgrading of existing lines from 6.6kV to 11kV;

(vii) installation of additional stays supporting wood poles;

(viii) upgrading of existing apparatus, including the increase of capacity of pole mounted transformers, subject to the provisions of section 37(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 and the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002;

(ix) temporary placement of a line for a period of up to two years.

(b) consult on the introduction of further measures for the purposes of enabling distribution network upgrades and reinforcements to be delivered as permitted development.”

This new clause would expand permitted development rights for upgrades to the transmission network.

New clause 16—Preservation of playing fields and pitches—

“(1) A local planning authority must, when exercising any of its functions, ensure the preservation of playing fields and playing pitches.

(2) The duty in subsection (1) may, when granting permission for development, be met through the imposition of conditions or requirements relating to—

(a) the protection of playing fields or playing pitches affected by the development; or

(b) the provision of alternative, additional or expanded playing fields or playing pitches.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “playing fields” and “playing pitches” have the same meanings as in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.”

This new clause would require local authorities to preserve playing fields when granting permission for development.

New clause 17—Community benefit from major energy infrastructure projects—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a scheme under which communities with a specified connection to a major energy infrastructure project are entitled to financial benefits.

(2) In subsection (1), “major energy infrastructure project” and “specified connection” have such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify, provided that any such definition includes all newly consented renewable energy projects.

(3) Financial benefits provided for by a scheme under this section must—

(a) be provided by the owner of the relevant major energy infrastructure project, and

(b) amount to 5% of the annual revenue of the relevant project.

(4) Where a major energy infrastructure project is onshore, regulations made under this section must—

(a) provide for two-thirds of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid to the council of that community, and

(b) provide for one third of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid into a strategic fund operated by the council.

(5) Where a major energy infrastructure project is offshore, regulations made under this section must provide for the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid into a strategic fund operated by the relevant council.

(6) Regulations made under this section may, among other things—

(a) specify the powers, purposes, responsibilities and constitution of a council strategic fund;

(b) make further provision determining which communities are qualifying under this section, and defining community for this purpose;

(c) confer functions in connection with the scheme;

(d) provide for delegation of functions conferred in connection with the scheme.”

This new clause sets out a scheme for providing financial benefits to communities in areas connected with major energy infrastructure schemes.

New clause 18—Local Area Energy Plans—

“(1) All local authorities and combined authorities must create a Local Area Energy Plan.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a “Local Area Energy Plan” means an outline of how the relevant authority proposes to transition its area’s energy system to Net Zero.”

This new clause would require all local and combined authorities to develop Local Area Energy Plans which set out how they will meet their Net Zero goals.

New clause 19—Extension of use classes C5 and C6 to England—

“In article 1(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2022, after “Wales” insert “, except in relation to articles 2(e) and 2(f), which apply in relation to England and Wales”.”

This new clause of existing regulations would extend use classes C5 (Dwellinghouses, used otherwise than as sole or main residences) and C6 (Short-term lets), which currently only to apply to Wales, to England.

New clause 20—Change of certain use classes to require permission—

“In article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, at end insert “, subject to paragraphs (1AA) and (1AB).

(1AA) Where a building is used for the purpose of Class C3, the use of that building for the purpose of Class C5 or Class C6 (or vice versa) is to be taken to involve development of the land.

(1AB) Where a building is used for the purpose of Class C5, the use of that building for the purpose of Class C6 (or vice versa) is to be taken to involve development of the land.””

This new clause would require planning permission to be obtained to change the use of a dwelling to a second home or to a short term let use class and for changes of use between those classes.

New clause 21—Local plan compliance with Land Use Framework and nature recovery strategies—

“When developing a local plan, a local planning authority must consider whether the plan complies with—

(a) the Land Use Framework, and

(b) any nature recovery strategy relevant to the area covered by the plan.”

This new clause seeks to ensure that Local Plans comply with the Land Use Framework and local nature recovery strategies.

New clause 23—Review of drainage performance of new developments—

“(1) A review of a development’s drainage performance must take place five years after the completion of the development.

(2) Where a review recommends that action be taken to improve the development’s drainage performance, the developer must implement such recommendations, giving priority to those relating to flood risk.”

This new clause requires developers to review the drainage performance of a development five years after being built.

New clause 24—Housing needs of ageing population—

“Any plan or strategy produced by a local planning authority which proposes the development of housing must include an assessment of the housing needs of an ageing population.”

New clause 25—National Landscape Partnerships to be statutory consultees for planning applications—

“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is a real pleasure to bring this landmark Bill back to the House on Report. Let me begin by thanking hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for their engagement with the Bill over recent months. In particular, I thank the hon. Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), as well as hon. Friends on the Government Benches, for their considered line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill in Committee.

Over the past 11 months, the Government have acted decisively to restore economic stability, increase investment and reform our economy to drive up productivity, prosperity and living standards in every part of the country. To build the homes and critical infrastructure we need, we have already delivered the most significant reforms to our planning system in a generation, including the publication of a revised, pro-growth national planning policy framework, which the Office for Budget Responsibility concluded will permanently increase the level of our real GDP by 0.02% by 2029-30—the equivalent of £6.8 billion in today’s prices.

We are making further progress on our plan-for-change mission of rebuilding Britain and kickstarting economic growth this week by progressing this critical legislation. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, helping us to achieve our ambitious milestones of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England, and making planning decisions on at least 150 major economic infrastructure projects in this Parliament, as well as supporting our clean power 2030 target by ensuring that essential clean energy projects are built as quickly as possible.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, the mother body of which is the National Farmers Union. Others will comment on this, but the UFU has told me that it is concerned about losing farmland for housing. Should it not be the policy of Government to ensure that brownfield sites are used first? If they are used first, farmers will have the opportunity to retain their land to produce food, which is important. Does the Minister feel there must be balance in what is put forward tonight to ensure that that happens?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention—he knows I have great affection for him. He tempts me into a debate that does not directly relate to the Bill, but I can tell him the following: the Government’s position is brownfield-first when it comes to development. He knows that we strengthened the national planning policy framework to give greater weight to brownfield release. We have consulted on a brownfield passport to ensure that bringing forward previously developed land becomes the default and that people get a yes in those circumstances. When it comes to agricultural land, very strong protections already exist. They remain in force in terms of what is in the NPPF.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way briefly, and then I will make some progress.

[Greg Smith]

When the Minister says that agricultural protections are very strong, that simply is not true, is it? In the new NPPF that the Government brought in after being elected, they removed the important clause that explicitly protected land used in food production.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I slightly take issue with the hon. Member’s interpretation. We made targeted changes, but the strong protections that apply to agricultural land exist. He knows that, and I have spoken to him before about the fact that, in particular parts of the country, we see high numbers of applications for things like solar farms. But as I have said to him before, even under the most optimistic scenarios, less than 1% of agricultural land will be brought forward for solar farm applications, and those protections remain in place, so we are confident that that is robust.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will take this one last intervention because these are not matters relating to the Bill, and then I want to move on.

[Sir Roger Gale]

This relates directly to the Bill. Not only does it relate directly to the Bill, but there are dozens of amendments all relating to this one single issue. The fact of the matter is that, under the proposals as they stand, we will lose vast swathes of prime agricultural land because planning consent will effectively be driven straight through. That is simply not satisfactory.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard the point I just made. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, less than 1% of agricultural land will be turned over to solar farm use. Some of the hyperbole that has been associated with the issue over recent months is unwarranted. I say directly to him, because I want to move on and speak to the Bill, that these are matters that relate to the national planning policy framework, rather than to any proposals in this piece of legislation. I am more than happy to sit down with him and talk about them outside of the context of this debate, but I do want to make some progress.

We made a number of improvements to the Bill in Committee to ensure that it operates as intended and that its expected benefits are fully realised. In many cases, the changes were a direct result of constructive feedback from key stakeholders and parliamentarians. The result is the stronger and more impactful Bill before us. I will briefly outline the more substantive changes made to the Bill in Committee, including in relation to the nationally significant infrastructure projects, statutory consultee funding and the nature restoration fund, before turning to further amendments that the Government tabled last week.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the very open way in which he has approached this process so far. He is absolutely right that the Government made many positive changes and concessions in Committee, but he will be aware that many stakeholders remain concerned about the Bill’s impact on nature. As the Bill progresses, is he minded to listen to representations from people who are absolutely behind him on his growth mission but who want to ensure that there is no further loss of natural habitat in one of the most nature-depleted nations on the planet?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend and I spoke just days ago about that issue. We are of course more than happy to continue engaging with and listening to the views proposed by hon. Members from across the House and by organisations. If he will allow me to make a little progress, I will deal specifically with the nature restoration fund in fairly short order.

Let me begin with the improvements made to the consenting process for critical infrastructure. As set out in my written ministerial statement of 23 April, the Government have removed the overly prescriptive and burdensome statutory consultation requirements for major economic infrastructure projects that were unique to the NSIP system established by the Planning Act 2008. Over this Parliament, that change could result in a cost-saving of over £1 billion across the project pipeline. By speeding up delivery, increasing capacity and reducing constraint cost, it will also contribute to lower household bills.

We have decided to proceed with the change because considerable evidence attests to the fact that the statutory requirements in place are driving perverse outcomes. Rather than providing a means by which engagement drives better outcomes, statutory pre-application procedures have become a tick-box exercise that encourages risk-aversion and gold-plating. The result is consultation fatigue and confusion for communities; longer, more technical and less accessible documentation; and an arrangement that actively disincentivises improvements to applications, even if they are in a local community’s interests, because applicants worry that a further repeat consultation will be required.

In removing the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for NSIP applications, and bringing requirements more closely in line with other planning regimes, the Government are not downgrading the importance of high-quality pre-submission consultation and engagement. We still want the NSIP regime to function on the basis of a front-loaded approach in which development proposals are thoroughly scoped and refined prior to being submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and we still expect high-quality, early, meaningful and constructive engagement and consultation to take place with those affected as part of that process. Given that such engagement and consultation routinely takes place and leads to improved proposals in other planning regimes without such statutory requirements, and because the development consent order examination procedure rewards high-quality applications, we are confident that developers will continue to be incentivised to undertake it.

To support that change, the Government intend to publish statutory guidance setting out strong expectations that developers undertake consultation and engagement prior to submitting an application. We will work with stakeholders to design that guidance—a public consultation will be launched in the coming months—so that it encourages best practice without recreating the flaws of the current system.

We have also made a number of other changes relating to the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, including by amending the Bill to ensure that promoters can gain access to land to carry out surveys assessing its condition and status and inform environmental impact assessments, and to make the process for post-consent changes to development consent orders more proportionate to the change requested.

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

My inbox is full of correspondence from Harlow residents who cannot get a home and cannot get on the housing ladder. They find that the planning framework means that it takes too long to get houses built. The main purpose of the Bill is to speed up that process and build people the homes that they need.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right: the Bill does streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure. Although the changes I have just referred to relate not to homes but the regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects—big clean energy projects, water reservoirs and so forth—there are other changes in the Bill that do support a more streamlined local planning process.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

Before the Minister moves on, will he give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am going to make some progress, because I know a lot of hon. Members want to get in and there are lots of points I need to make before I can bring others in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Is the Minister not concerned that he has lost the audience among wildlife organisations and trusts that say they are offended by Ministers’ portraying nature as a blocker to development rather than an enhancement to life and the economy, and are now asking for part 3 of the Bill to be scrapped?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will come on to address that call, which I know is being made, but in general the Bill aims for, and I have always focused on, a win-win for development and the environment. We had extremely productive engagement with ENGOs in the development of the Bill, and we continue to have fruitful conversations with them, aside from the campaigns that I know are being fought out there in the country and in some of the national media.

While critics of this part of the Bill may be content to maintain the suboptimal status quo, in full knowledge of the fact that it is frustrating the building of new homes and failing to drive the restoration of nature, this Government are not. To those who believe this Government might buckle and scrap part 3 of the Bill entirely, I simply say, “You have underestimated the resolve of this Government and this Minister.” The case for moving to a more strategic approach that will allow us to use funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in driving the recovery of protected sites and species, is compelling.

That is why so many organisations indicated their in-principle support for the purpose and intent of part 3 when the Bill was first introduced.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will make some progress.

As Beccy Speight, the chief executive of RSPB, put it at the time:

“With bold leadership, collaboration, and smart planning through initiatives like the Nature Restoration Fund, we can build a future where nature, climate, people and the economy thrive together”.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I welcome the enhanced environmental protections in the nature restoration fund. My constituency of Bournemouth West has some unique heathland habitats, many of which are protected as sites of special scientific interest. They hold deep value for the local community, so can the Minister reassure me that these unique habitats will be protected as well under this Bill?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We must make a distinction between irreplaceable habitats, where the model does not remove the strong protections that exist for them, such as ancient woodland in the national planning policy framework, and habitats where Natural England will be allowed to take a view as to whether conservation measures that apply to them meet the overall improvement test in the Bill, and any intervention in those circumstances will be driven by what is in the environmental best interests of the relevant feature. There are, therefore, protections in place that address my hon. Friend’s concerns.

In recent weeks, there has been a not inconsiderable amount of spurious commentary attempting to convey a false impression of what the nature restoration fund does.

[Ellie Chowns]

On that specific point, will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

If the hon. Lady will let me develop my argument a little, I am more than happy to give way to her in due course.

As such, I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. First, some have claimed that the nature restoration fund is driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment and that the Government are creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute—a “cash to trash” model, as some have dubbed it.

In reality, the nature restoration fund will do the precise opposite. I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not—and need not—come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest that the nature restoration fund would allow developers simply to pay Government and then wantonly harm nature. Instead, it takes payments from developers and hands them to Natural England, a public body with regulatory duties to conserve and enhance our natural environment, to develop environmental delivery plans, setting out how various conservation measures will not only address the impact of development, but go further to demonstrate how they will improve the conservation status of the environmental feature.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The Minister is making a strong case for the legislation, on which he has worked very hard. However, does he accept that many concerns were raised in Committee, on which we both served, about Natural England’s ability to undertake the duties that he is asking it to undertake, and that he was unable to give an answer about the extra funding that may be needed for that to happen? Will he elaborate on that?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The shadow Minister’s memory is different from mine: I did provide those assurances. We have already allocated £14 million in the Budget to support the delivery of the nature restoration fund, and through measures set out in the Bill, we will move to a system of full cost recovery so that Natural England has the resources it needs to carry out those functions.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Matthew Pennycook]

I know lots of Members wish to contribute to the debate but I will make some progress. If I may finish the argument I am trying develop about taking on those misconceptions, I will give way to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) very shortly.

We have been perfectly clear that the new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable, which is why the Bill gives Natural England the ability to request planning conditions to ensure that appropriate actions are taken by developers as part of using an EDP.

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the Minister warmly for giving way. He dismissed “spurious” criticism of part 3 of the Bill, but would he use that phrase to dismiss the very expert criticism of the Office for Environmental Protection? In complete contrast to the Secretary of the State’s claim that the Bill does not reduce environmental protections, in its independent expert advice, the OEP says that it does and that the Bill constitutes “a regression” in environmental protection?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The simple answer is no, I would not characterise the OEP’s advice as “spurious”, but I am characterising some of the arguments that have been made over recent days and weeks as such. The OEP is not saying that the Bill is a “cash to trash” model, but some people out there in the public discourse are making that claim.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not give way again. We have to make this argument to take on the critics of the Bill who are intentionally trying to malign the objectives—

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

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not. I have just been very clear that I am not going to give way again as I want to make some progress.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire is more than welcome to have another go at intervening in due course. I know that she will be putting forward her views later. The Government’s view is that the Bill is not “regressive”. As I have said, environmental delivery plans will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation. As the hon. Lady knows, because we had extensive debates in Committee, we are giving very serious consideration to the OEP’s technical advice on how the Bill might be strengthened in various areas.

Another claim that has been put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, that amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation. The very strong protections for important sites set out in national planning policy are untouched by the legislation. It is only when an EDP is in place, following consultation and approval by the Secretary of State, that developers can avail themselves of it to discharge the relevant obligation.

In the same way that developers can build only once they have met existing requirements, development supported by the nature restoration fund will only be able to come forward when there is a credible and robust EDP in place that will deliver better environmental outcomes. The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), has rightly flagged the importance of these plans relying on robust scientific evidence, which is why they will only ever be put in place where they can be shown to deliver better environmental outcomes.

Finally, there has been a suggestion by some that the new approach provided for by the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or for irrecoverable harm. Again, that is patently false. Not only do all existing protections for irreplaceable habitats remain in place, but the overall improvement test in clause 59 simply could not be met if an EDP proposed to allow irrecoverable harm. Natural England would not propose such measures, and the Secretary of State could not sign them off if it did. If any Secretary of State signed them off, they would be open to judicial review on the basis of that decision.

In short, the nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests: it will restore, not harm nature. It is smart planning reform, designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery, while improving the state of nature across the country. By shifting to a strategic approach, leveraging economies of scale and reducing the need for costly project-level assessments, it will deliver a win-win for development and the environment.

While the Government have no time for spurious and misleading attacks on the nature restoration fund, I am acutely conscious of the views expressed both within and beyond this House from those who are supportive of the purpose and intent of part 3 of the Bill—those who are not calling for it to be scrapped, but are not yet convinced that the safeguards within it are sufficiently robust or that there is the required certainty that it will deliver in practice the potential environmental benefits it offers.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

I find it remarkable that the Minister repeatedly accused the over 30 leading environmental groups, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has described the Bill as a “cash to trash” model, as making “spurious” remarks, given that he quoted the chief executive of the RSPB, Beccy Speight, to try to shore up his own argument. However, the quote that he took was from a much earlier comment made before the debate in Committee. More recently, she has said:

“The evidence clearly shows nature isn’t a blocker to growth. The Government has identified the wrong obstacle to the problem it’s trying to overcome”.

She went on to say that, with no possibility for improving the Bill through amendments,

“the complete removal of Part 3 of the Bill is the only responsible option left.”

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is for the chief executive of the RSPB to justify why she has changed her view on the Bill when the Bill has not changed. If anything, as I will come on to explain, quite a lot of amendments that the Government made—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The list of Members wishing to speak is extensive, so I hope that the Minister will be coming to a conclusion shortly.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I was not planning to, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I need to set out some important changes that the Government have made and the amendments that we are proposing. However, on the basis of your stricture, I will not take any further interventions.

The Bill has not changed; if anything, it has been strengthened in Committee in ways that I will set out. To assuage what are entirely reasonable questions in respect of an approach that is novel, we have already made some targeted improvements to part 3 in Committee, including requiring environmental delivery plans to demonstrate how conservation measures will be maintained and over what period; strengthening the overall improvement test by clarifying that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that it will be passed by the end date of the environmental delivery plan; clarifying that the negative effect the Secretary of State must consider relates to the maximum amount of development covered by the environmental delivery plan; and ensuring that Natural England has sufficient powers of entry, used only when absolutely necessary, to survey or investigate land alongside appropriate constraints, including notice requirements and introducing further protections in respect of Natural England’s use of compulsory purchase powers. Those changes significantly strengthen the nature restoration fund and, I hope, will be welcomed across the House.

However, as I was at pains to make clear in Committee, and will more than happily restate once again today, I continue to reflect on the reasonable points made by hon. Members and the advice of the Office for Environmental Protection with a view to deliberating on what more might be done to ensure everyone is confident that the outcomes for nature provided for by this part of the Bill will be positive. For the purposes of clarity, that includes giving serious consideration to ways in which we might instil further confidence in respect of the rigour of the overall improvement test, provide for greater certainty in respect of the delivery of EDPs, and ensure that there is more clarity about the evidential basis and environmental rationale for strategic network level conservation measures. As we do so, I put on record my thanks to all those who have continued to engage constructively with the Government with a view to providing reassurance that the nature restoration fund will operate as intended. As ever, I will listen carefully to the contributions made by hon. Members in respect of part 3 of the Bill, and I look forward to a constructive debate on these clauses.

In Committee, we discussed the need to do more to rapidly increase the coverage of swift bricks across the country as an important means of arresting the long-term decline in breeding swift populations. In responding to the debate, I intend to cover some of the ways forward that the Government intend to take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for that point of order. It is simply not the case that it has to be withdrawn on the Floor of the House; this has happened on numerous occasions.

I call the Minister.

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

It is a pleasure to rise to respond to what has been a very comprehensive debate. [Interruption.] A significant number of amendments have been spoken to in the course of the debate—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) should not be shouting at the Clerks in that way. I have made my point.

I call the Minister.

[Matthew Pennycook]

A significant number of amendments have been spoken to in the course of the debate and the House will appreciate that I do not have the time to address the vast majority of them. I will therefore focus on addressing as many of the key amendments and points of contention as I can. I have been extremely generous in giving way in opening the debate, but I hope that hon. Members will now appreciate that to get through as many points as possible I will not be taking further interventions.

The debate this evening has evidenced support from across the House for nature and for ensuring we get the nature restoration fund right. I spoke in detail about the Government’s position in opening the debate. As I repeatedly made clear in the Bill Committee and will reiterate this evening, we are listening to the concerns raised by hon. Members and stakeholders. We are clear that this is the right model to take us forward.

We are of course open to ways to improve the legislation, however, and on that basis, and to emphasise the point I made earlier in the debate, we are giving serious consideration to ways in which we might instil further confidence that part 3 will deliver the outcomes we believe it will, such as providing greater confidence in the rigour of the overall improvement test, as raised by the OEP and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos).

We are also giving due consideration to how we can provide for greater certainty in the timescale for delivering conservation measures, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), as well as seeking to clarify the evidential basis and environmental rationale for strategic conservation measures, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins). The status quo is not working. The case for moving to a more strategic approach is compelling and I look forward to further consideration of part 3 in the other place.

Turning to the important issue of children’s play areas and playing fields, I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling new clause 16 and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for tabling new clauses 82. I particularly commend my hon. Friend on all that he is doing to make the case for high-quality, accessible and inclusive areas for play. The Government agree that access to play space is vital, which is why strong protections are already in place.

The national planning policy framework is clear that local planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities, and opportunities for new provision, including places for children’s play. In December, we strengthened the strong protections already in place in the NPPF by adding explicit reference to safeguarding “formal play spaces”. That means that those facilities can be lost only where they are no longer needed, or where there is a justified and appropriate alternative

Given the existing policy expectations, safeguards and sources of support, we do not believe that it is necessary to add the sort of legislative requirements the amendments would entail. However, I recognise the importance of what the amendments seek to achieve, and the provision of play space is one of the areas we are considering as we prepare a new set of national planning policies for decision making, on which we will consult this year. I commit to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East to writing to my counterparts at the Department for Education and at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that we are acting across Government to increase spaces for play. I will work with him to broker the necessary ministerial meetings that he seeks. With those assurances, I hope that he and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Turning to swift bricks, which were mentioned several times during the debate, we recognise that they are a vital means of arresting the long-term decline of the breeding swift population. While swift brick coverage is increasing, with nearly 30 house builders having made a voluntary commitment to install one for every new home built, the Government want to do more to drive up swift brick installation. However, there is a principled difference of opinion as to the best way to achieve that objective. Although I understand why many are attracted to the argument that the only way to make a significant difference to swift numbers and other red-listed species is to mandate the incorporation of swift bricks into all new-build properties, through building regulations or free-standing legislation, I take a different view.

In all sincerity, I do not believe that amending building regulations is the most appropriate way to secure the outcome that the House as a whole seeks. As building regulations are mandatory, going down that route would compel developers to install swift bricks in all new buildings, irrespective of what they are or where they are located.

[Chris Curtis]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

No, I will not.

Contrary to what hon. Members might assume, amending building regulations is not a quick fix. It can take years for changes to feed through into building design and we do not think that swifts can afford to wait that long. For those and other reasons, I remain of the view that changing national planning policy is the more effective route to securing swift bricks as a standard feature of the vast majority of new buildings.

As the House will be aware, the revised NPPF published in December expects developments to incorporate features that support priority or threatened species such as swifts, bats and hedgehogs. However, as I have made clear to many hon. Members over recent months, we have always intended to go further. We are specifically giving consideration to using a new suite of national policies for decision making to require swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings, unless there are compelling reasons that preclude their use or that would make them ineffective. That would significantly strengthen the planning policy expectations already in place, so that, for example, we would expect to see at least one swift brick in all new brick-built houses.

I believe that is the best way we can achieve the objective of seeing swift bricks used as widely as possible, as the use and placement of swift bricks can be integrated into the planning process and become a standard expectation in the design of new developments. We will be consulting on a new set of national policies for decision making later this year. So that no one can be in any doubt about our intentions here, the Government have today published new planning practice guidance setting out how swift bricks are expected to be used in new developments, as an interim step ahead of the planned consultation.

We also heard from several hon. Members who want to see stronger protections put in place for chalk streams. The measures in the Bill will not weaken existing protections for those valuable areas for nature, but the Government continue to give careful consideration to this matter in the context of ongoing reform to national planning policy and I am more than happy to engage with hon. Members from across the House on it.

I turn to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, which would have the effect of preventing the Government from implementing a national scheme of delegation for planning committees. Put simply, it is a wrecking amendment, and the Government cannot accept it for the following reasons. Planning is principally a local activity, and the Government recognise the vital role that planning committees play. However, we must ensure that they operate as effectively as possible. At present, every council has its own scheme of delegation, and 96% of planning decisions in England are already made by planning officers. However, there is significant variation across the country, which creates risk and uncertainty in the system. As such, we believe that there is a robust case for introducing a national scheme of delegation.

Since Committee stage, when we debated these issues at length, the Government have published a technical consultation setting out our detailed plans for reform in this area. I encourage hon. Members to read that consultation, in which we propose splitting planning applications into two tiers, providing certainty about what decisions will be delegated to expert officers and at the same time ensuring that councillors can continue to focus on the most significant proposals for housing and commercial developments to allow for effective local and democratic oversight of the most controversial applications where warranted. I believe that if Members engage with the detail of that conversation, they will recognise that what is being proposed is not an attempt to ride roughshod over local democracy, but a sensible and proportionate change designed to improve certainty and decision making in the planning system. However, on the fundamental point of whether we should introduce a national scheme of delegation, the Government’s position is an unequivocal yes. For that reason, I cannot accept the new clause in question.

I turn briefly to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington relating to the Bill’s new reflective amendment procedure for national policy statements. I reassure the House that our changes are not about eroding parliamentary scrutiny, but about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made, and we absolutely recognise the value that such scrutiny brings to getting important changes right.

As I have discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, several safeguards are in place that will ensure parliamentary oversight is protected; I will happily restate them for the record. Where we intend to make a reflective amendment, a statement will be laid in Parliament announcing a review and we will write to the relevant Select Committee. Ministers will make themselves available to speak to that Committee as far as is practicable, and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period.

Let me be very clear in response: the Government recognise the importance of Ministers attending Committee to explain the proposed changes, and I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the Deputy Prime Minister and I will write to colleagues to ensure that is fully and clearly understood. Importantly, the NPPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted. I hope that clarifies the process and reassures my hon. Friend and the House more widely.

Finally, I will address some of the amendments about provision of affordable and social housing, including new clauses 32 and 50, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). The Government are committed to the biggest generational uplift in social and affordable housing, and in our first 10 months in office we have put our money where our mouth is. We have announced new £800 million in-year funding to top up the 2021-26 affordable homes programme, and we announced in the spring statement an immediate injection of £2 billion in new capital investment to act as a bridge to the future grant programme, which is to be announced this week in the spending review.

To date, we have not chosen to define a target for social and affordable housing, and there is good reason why that is the case, including the fact that the sector has faced significant financial constraints and needs regulatory certainty. That was made worse by many of the completely irresponsible and unacceptable decisions made by the Opposition when they were in government over the past 14 years. It would not be appropriate to set a target until after the sector is stabilised, knows what is required and, importantly, is clear on what investment will be available to support delivery, which will become apparent only after the spending review. A range of complex factors contribute to the numbers of affordable houses coming forward in this country and impact on the sector’s ability to build more homes, but we will of course keep that matter under review.

I will very briefly mention the green belt and the protection of villages. As the House will be aware, we recently published guidance in relation to the green belt. None of the long-standing green-belt purposes are touched by those changes, including the purpose of precluding the merging of towns. The guidance does not remove those appropriate and relevant protections from land around villages, and any green-belt land—including land in, or near, villages—that conflicts with the relevant purposes would not be identified as grey belt.

To conclude, I once again thank all hon. Members who have participated in today’s debate for their contributions. The Government will continue to reflect on the arguments that have been made. I urge the House to support the targeted amendments to this Bill that the Government have proposed, to ensure we can realise its full potential.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 69 accordingly read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

24. What steps she plans to take to reform the leasehold system.

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

The Government continue to progress the implementation of the reforms to the leasehold system that are already in statute, while at the same time undertaking the work required to bring forward the wider set of reforms necessary to end the feudal leasehold system for good. We remain on track to deliver our ambitious leasehold and commonhold reform agenda, as set out in the written ministerial statement that I made on 21 November last year.

[Chris McDonald]

I thank the Minister for his positive engagement with me on the issue of a safe crossing at roads on the Wynyard and Queensgate estates in my constituency, but can I also bring to his attention the issue of service charges at the Willow Sage Court estate? Does he agree that our leasehold reforms must ensure fair service charges? I can send him further information about this case if he wishes.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, and I would like further information on that case. The Government recognise the considerable financial strain that rising service charges place on leaseholders and tenants. Overcharging through service charges is completely unacceptable. We intend to consult in the very near future on the measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 designed to drive up the transparency of service charges to make them more easily challengeable if leaseholders consider them to be unreasonable.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky]

I congratulate the Government on the bold action they are taking to end the feudal leasehold system for good, which will ensure that future flat owners will never again be treated as second-class homeowners. But as the Minister is well aware, there are millions of existing leaseholders, including thousands in my constituency of Hendon. Will he update the House on the work the Department is doing, building on the path forward outlined in the commonhold White Paper, to strengthen protections for existing leaseholders, including on the conversion of leaseholds, ground rents and right to manage?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government remain committed to providing existing leaseholders with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes. We commenced the right-to-manage measures contained in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 on 3 March. We remain firmly committed to tackling unregulated and unaffordable ground rents, and we will deliver that in legislation. We will set out further detail on our proposed approach to enabling the conversion of existing leaseholds to commonhold in our draft leasehold and commonhold reform Bill later this year.

[Ms Minns]

Inflation-busting estate management fees for little or no service plague residents across the country, including those of the Brackenleigh, Greymoor Meadows and Denton Mill estates in my Carlisle constituency. What assurances can the Minister give my constituents and those of other hon. Members that the Government’s actions will curb those atrocious practices by estate management companies?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point; I recognise that many hon. Members across the House are affected by this issue. The Government remain committed to protecting residential freeholders on private and mixed tenure housing estates from unfair charges. We will consult this year on implementing the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act’s new consumer protection provisions for the millions of homes subject to the charges affecting my hon. Friend’s constituents, and we will bring measures into force as quickly as possible thereafter.

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

I am glad to see the Government starting to tackle some of these issues. Will the Minister assure me that people on freehold housing estates with covenant issues in places like Basildon and Billericay will also be included in any legislation? They often face service charge increases of tens of per cent every single year, and they need that same assurance being provided to leaseholders that the Government will think about that and take action.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are thinking about the plight of residential freeholders alongside leaseholders. As I just said, we will consult this year on implementing the provisions in the 2024 Act, which provides those residential freeholders with new consumer protection provisions. They will have that immediate safety to come in, as we look at how we reduce the prevalence of such arrangements in the longer term.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Leaseholders at South View on Upperton Road in Eastbourne face an extortionate bill of up to £40,000 each to repair unsafe balconies. The communication from Morgans and Stredder Pearce, who are both responsible for fixing that, has been woeful, and delays are leading to costs spiralling further. Will the Minister urge those organisations to improve the speed and responsiveness of their communications to protect South View’s leaseholders from further costs?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that case. I recognise the problem that he alludes to. We want to bring in as soon as possible measures to standardise service charges in particular and make them more transparent. I wonder if he might write to me and the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), who is responsible for building safety, with details of that case so that we can look into it further.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Developers are now creating facility and management companies, with new homeowners and tenants finding themselves as shareholders without their consent. Will the Minister look at that issue across the country to protect those homeowners?

[Matthew Pennycook]

If I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he pointed to how a variety of arrangements can be put in place under freehold estates; we need to capture that variety across the country. That is one of the challenges in looking at what measures we might bring forward to reduce the prevalence of such arrangements, and we certainly intend to do that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I must say that the shadow Minister is developing a bit of a habit here; he seems to have conflated a number of separate issues. The Government have a very clear commitment to ending the feudal leasehold system within this Parliament. That requires a wider set of reforms than switching on the powers that are already on the statute book via the 2024 Act, though we are going to do that and are doing so at pace. If he cared to look at the written ministerial statement where I set all this out in a lot of detail, he would see that we remain on track with implementing our reform agenda.

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

3. If she will make an assessment of the adequacy of the funding model for the repair of council housing stock.

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

The Government recognise the strain placed on housing revenue accounts as a result of changes in rent policy, inflationary pressures and increased costs associated with investing in existing stock. The principle of self-financing remains the right one, but we are committed to working with councils to overcome the pressures on their HRAs so that they can invest in new and existing stock.

[Will Stone]

Will the Minister join me in praising Swindon borough council for its fantastic vision in investing in fixing our council stock—something the previous Conservative administration failed to do for 20 years?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I certainly will. My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for council housing and highlights that Swindon borough council is putting significant investment into its housing stock over the next five years. The Government recognise that councils, like other registered providers, need support to build their capacity. That is why we consulted last year on a new five-year social housing rent settlement and have allowed councils to keep 100% of the receipts generated by right-to-buy sales. We will set out details of further investment in the forthcoming spending review.

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

In Kendal on Friday afternoon, I came across a constituent in a Home Housing property who had been the victim of a house fire several months ago. Although they were still living in the property, it had not been fully restored or fixed. I am on the matter personally and dealing with the casework issues; if I share the details of this case with the Minister, will he take a personal interest in it, and does he agree that it is outrageous for someone to have to live in a fire-damaged property for five months without it being properly restored?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that case. It does sound outrageous; if he writes to me, I will certainly look into the matter further.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

4. What steps she is taking to support high streets. 

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

5. What steps she is taking to ensure that new homes meet the minimum standard of EPC C rating.

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

The December 2021 uplift to energy-efficiency standards means that most new build homes already achieve EPC ratings of A or B. As recently announced, the Government intend to introduce future standards in the autumn that will set more ambitious energy-efficiency and carbon emissions requirements for new homes to ensure that they are net zero-ready.

[Charlotte Cane]

As well as energy, water is an important utility. In Ely and East Cambridgeshire, we suffer drought and floods. What is the Minister doing to encourage new builds to have proper rainwater harvesting and dual piping, so that we can use rainwater to flush our toilets and for other non-drinking water uses?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are looking at how we might make household water use more efficient, as well as a range of other interventions in my hon. Friend’s part of the country to ensure that we make the best use of water and that the necessary infrastructure is put in place to accommodate housing growth.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

In Hartlepool, 24,000 existing homes have an energy performance certificate rating of D or below. That means too many homes are too cold and have bills that are too high. What can the Minister do to accelerate the improvement of those homes to ensure warm homes for Hartlepool constituents?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend tempts me into the responsibilities of another Department, but I will get the relevant Minister from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to write to him to set out what measures are being put in place as part of the warm homes plan.

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

In 2010, just 12% of homes had an EPC C rating or above, so those homes were too cold and had bills that were too high. It was 60% by 2024 when we left power. Will the Minister share with the House the ambition and give us a number for the percentage of homes that we should expect to have that basic EPC C rating by the end of this term, which I hope will be the only one the Minister has, so he should make a difference while he can? [Laughter.]

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

That’s a bit harsh.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Gentleman is certainly not charitable. As I made clear, I recognise the December 2021 uplift in energy efficiency standards means that most new builds that come through achieve an EPC rating of A or B. Off the top of my head, though I stand to be corrected, I think about 84% of new homes meet those standards. But as I said, we have announced that we want to introduce future standards this autumn, which will drive even more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emission requirements for new homes.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

Having long campaigned on the need for much tougher regulations for solar panels on new homes, I was delighted to hear the Government announce last Friday that we will bring forward requirements to do exactly that. That will not just boost EPC ratings, but save new homeowners thousands of pounds in bills, all while reducing energy usage. How can we ensure that we move at speed so that as many of the new homes we build over the course of this Parliament as possible will benefit from our ambition here?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend has been a champion of ensuring that we get more solar panels on to new build homes and other types of building. As I said in answer to a previous question, we want to move at pace to put future standards in place. We are looking at this autumn, and that will ensure more of the new homes coming forward meet those more ambitious standards. It will mean, as he is aware, that the vast majority of new build homes have solar panels on them as standard.

--- Later in debate ---

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

8. Whether her Department is taking steps with independent training colleges to train construction sector specialist apprentices to support house building targets.

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

The Government recognise the need to expand and upskill the construction workforce to meet our ambitious plan-for-change milestone of delivering 1.5 million safe and decent homes in this Parliament. We are working closely with industry to provide high-quality house building training opportunities, and we welcome the £140 million industry investment late last year in 32 pioneering new home building skills hubs, which will create up to 5,000 more construction apprenticeships per year.

[Alison Hume]

The construction skills village in Scarborough is an innovative real-world training environment for the specialist trades that we desperately need to build homes. Does the Minister acknowledge the importance of independent training providers in our plans to build 1.5 million new homes, and will he meet me to discuss how we can ensure that ITPs, which deliver the specialist skills that the construction industry is asking for, are included in our plans to train 60,000 new construction workers?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government are investing significant amounts of money to train more construction workers. We appreciate fully the importance of independent training providers in training the workforce needed to deliver more homes across England. I suggest that my hon. Friend and I find time to meet Baroness Smith from the Department for Education to discuss matters relating to ITPs, including the CSV in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to supporting skills training in the construction sector. Does he agree that skills training needs to be particularly focused on the sustainable skills, and will he join me in congratulating the low-carbon technology training centre in my constituency, as well as the new university in Hereford—its first cohort of engineers graduated just last month? Does he welcome such initiatives, and will the Government put more funding into supporting the construction and engineering skills that our building sector will need?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope that the hon. Lady recognises that we are putting significant amounts of investment into construction skills. In the spring statement, the Government announced a £600 million investment that will recruit an additional 60,000 construction workers by 2029. I am more than happy to recognise the contributions made by initiatives of the sort that she mentions in her constituency. We absolutely need skills across the built environment to meet our targets.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

9. If she will take steps through the spending review to increase social housing supply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

T2. We are very good at growing things in South Norfolk, including food, businesses and thriving communities. However, if we want our young people to share in that success, we need to plant a new town in my constituency. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we will achieve that?

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

I do not blame my hon. Friend for trying, but for good reason we established an independent expert advisory panel—the new towns taskforce—to make recommendations to Ministers on the location and delivery of new towns. The taskforce will submit its final report to Ministers in the coming months.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

T3. In the light of some worrying small-site applications on previously undeveloped green-belt land in my constituency, and of concerns from the Campaign to Protect Rural England, will the Minister undertake to monitor and assess the initial impact of the new grey-belt provisions and look at refining the wording, to avoid salami-slicing of the green belt?

[Matthew Pennycook]

No. We are confident that the protections in place for the green belt—the tests that have to be met for grey-belt release—are robust. It is ultimately for local planning authorities to conduct green-belt reviews and to bring forward those sites as part of local plans.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

T8. Across London, 90,000 children are living in temporary accommodation, denied the essentials of a stable home, which has terrible consequences for their physical and mental health and education. This is a scandalous inheritance from the previous Conservative Government. When does the Secretary of State believe that we will begin to see those numbers drop substantially?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

T5. It has been estimated, and reported, that billions-worth of unspent community infrastructure levy may be available at local authority level for investment in critical infrastructure. Will the Minister ensure that the money is invested in roads and drainage, so it can deliver the improvements that our residents deserve?

[Matthew Pennycook]

There are legitimate reasons why developer contributions can be held by local authorities—for example, so that they can complete phased development, or bring forward other sites over a period of time—but we are aware that certain local authorities hold, in some cases, significant sums, and we are giving the matter some attention.

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

The Shared Health Foundation recently published a vital report on children living in temporary accommodation, which revealed the scandalous fact that all too often, children living in such accommodation are not safe, secure or able to thrive. Does the Minister agree that it falls to this Labour Government to fix that wrong, on which there has been silence for too long?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

People have lived in Earsdon View in my constituency for more than 15 years, but the estate remains unadopted due to an ongoing issue between the landowner, Northumberland Estates, and the developer, Bellway, involving the securing of sewer adoption. I continue to press all parties to resolve the problem, but how can we ensure that people are not left in this situation for decades, often paying management fees on top of council tax, and that developers deliver?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend has been a doughty champion of leaseholders and residential freeholders in her constituency. We must start to provide the consumer protections that are already on the statute book, but as I have made clear, we are determined to end the injustice of fleecehold entirely, and will consult later this year on legislative and policy options to reduce the prevalence of private estate management arrangements.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I broadly support unitarisation on a strategic scale, but I am concerned about how historic debts will be treated in Surrey, especially those of Woking and Spelthorne councils. How will those debts be handled as our councils come together, and will the Minister assure my constituents in Virginia Water and Englefield Green, in the well-run borough of Runnymede, that they will not foot the bill for this as part of the reorganisation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the enhanced protections for tenants in the Renters’ Rights Bill, but data from The Londoner shows that for London tenants, there is only one enforcement officer per 7,500 private rented homes. Given the new enforcement burdens that the Bill places on councils, will the Minister please ensure that they have the resources to protect private tenants?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend will know that in the Bill we have taken a “polluter pays” approach. Local authorities will be able to levy fines on landlords to raise revenue, but—my hon. Friend can check the transcript on this point—we did commit ourselves to “new burdens” funding as appropriate.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Given the environmental importance and scarcity of chalk streams, may I urge the Deputy Prime Minister and her team to support amendments to this afternoon’s legislation that would protect those streams? They are vital, and they need as much protection as we can give them.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, chalk streams already have protections in national planning policy, but I am sure that we will continue this discussion on Report of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill later today.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Will the Minister meet me and residents of Beech and Willow Rise in Kirby, where a combination of failed leasehold law, previous corporate entities and inadequate regulation risks leaving residents facing unaffordable costs and eviction?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend. I know she has had constructive conversations with the Minister with responsibility for building safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), but I am happy to meet her.

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

Three hundred social homes are at risk in my Chichester constituency, despite having outline planning permission, because developers are rejecting offers from registered providers. Will the Minister commit to action to stop developers evading their obligation, and will he meet me to help me protect the delivery of these social homes?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We recognise the challenges around uncontracted section 106 units. A complex array of factors has led us to this point, but we are giving serious consideration to how we unblock the problem, and how we get those section 106 homes allocated and people living in them.

Street Parking on Estates: Bracknell Forest

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for raising this important matter with the Government, and congratulate him on securing this debate. I have heard his concerns regarding the inadequate provision of parking across his constituency, and I recognise the issues he raises on the accessibility of parking. These are important issues which have a direct link to the welfare of local communities and the economic prosperity of our towns. Let me cover some of the main points raised in his remarks and other interventions.

As my hon. Friend will be all too aware, competition for parking spaces, especially for accessible street parking, across this country is already substantial. The Government recognise the provision of accessible and reliable parking is particularly important outside of the major metropolitan areas, where public transportation is often limited and where people need to be able to drive to access basic services and economic centres. Although the Government understand the benefits of private car use for individuals up and down the country, with many across our communities relying on private vehicles as a key part of their lives, I also recognise that many estates are simply not equipped to deal with the number of cars on our roads. That is most keenly felt by residents in older estates.

This problem has been exacerbated by the fact that modern cars have grown not only in number but in size, as my hon. Friend rightly referenced in his remarks. As a result, the growing demand for the provision of parking risks becoming unmanageable. That will not only be frustrating to residents who own vehicles, but can also lead to irresponsible or even dangerous parking in prohibited areas.

My Department is aware of the complaints many residents of Bracknell Forest have raised about parked vehicles preventing the flow of traffic, and I welcome the measures the council has now put in place to prevent this. While the Government recognise the importance of adequate provision of street parking for local communities, in line with the Government’s position on localism, parking is ultimately the responsibility of local authorities and it is for them to determine what is appropriate in their area, and local authorities already have powers to implement and enforce parking restrictions.

The Government understand that Bracknell Forest council has acknowledged the pressures with street parking in the community and is in the process of implementing a parking strategy with the objective of supporting the provision of parking in the borough. I note the concerns my hon. Friend raises regarding the council’s progress to date; however, it is right that local authorities have autonomy over the nature and scope of parking policies within their local area. As he rightly recognised when he spoke about local solutions, local authorities are best placed to balance the needs of residents, emergency services, local businesses and those who work in and visit their area.

Of course, the Government are committed to investing in local communities and improving local transport infrastructure. The Department for Transport recently allocated £203,000 to Bracknell Forest council from the local transport resource funding scheme. Under the scheme, local transport authorities can use this funding to build their capability and capacity to develop ambitious transport schemes, develop and update local transport plans, deliver local delivery plans, fund individual projects and retain the transport expertise to do this.

On pavement parking, I well understand that this can be a real problem for pedestrians, wheelchair users, those with prams and buggies, and especially people with mobility or visual impairments. We are mindful of the concerns many people have raised about inconsiderate pavement parking.

As my hon. Friend is likely already aware, the Department for Transport held a consultation back in 2020 on the complex problem of pavement parking. This Government intend to publish a formal response to that consultation later this year, which will summarise the views received and announce the Government’s next steps for pavement parking policy. In the meantime, highways authorities may introduce specific local pavement parking restrictions using their existing TRO-making powers—traffic regulation orders—and these can be enforced by councils using their civil parking enforcement powers.

My hon. Friend also raised the topic of electric vehicle charging on housing estates with roadside parking. The Government are committed to making EV charging infrastructure more affordable and accessible, particularly for those without off-street parking. Most electric vehicle drivers charge overnight at home, which is often the most convenient and cost-effective option. To support those without on-street parking, the Government offer a grant for homes to purchase a charge point when paired with a cross-pavement charging solution. The Department is aware of at least 26 trials and hundreds of individual installations of cross-pavement solutions across the UK. The Government are also working with local authorities to encourage this technology. In December 2024, the Government published cross-pavement guidance to help local authorities understand what they need to consider for the roll-out of cross-pavement solutions. That includes relevant planning permissions, minimum existing standards, responsibilities and case studies of trials.

For private land, such as the residential estates my hon. Friend mentioned, the landowners or private car park operators are responsible for parking provision and enforcement. I am pleased to hear that Bracknell Forest council is working with local landowners, including housing associations, to deliver more parking capacity across the community. Housing associations are private bodies and must make their own decisions on how they run their business, but the neighbourhood and community standard is clear that providers must co-operate with partners to promote social, environmental and economic wellbeing. The standard includes a specific expectation that housing associations co-operate with local authorities to support them in achieving their objectives. However, the regulator of social housing does not dictate how individual housing associations demonstrate how they comply with this duty. I welcome the co-operation my hon. Friend mentioned. I am glad to hear his local authority is working collaboratively with Abri, the housing association in question, and I am pleased by Bracknell Forest council’s commitment, through its parking strategy, to work with housing associations generally to help alleviate the pressures on parking.

To conclude, I thank my hon. Friend once again for raising this matter with the Government. We recognise the significant concerns many communities, particularly those residing in older estates, face regarding the accessibility and availability of parking. This essential resource is under increasing pressure, and we fully support local councils in their endeavours to mitigate the challenges. As I said, local councils are best positioned to lead the initiatives, as they possess the intimate knowledge of their areas and can effectively consider factors such as traffic flow capacity, road safety and the diverse needs of residents, visitors and businesses, but I hope I have given my hon. Friend a sense of what the Government are doing to support them.

Question put and agreed to.