Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate today, and for introducing it with his customary clarity and civility. It has been a thoughtful and considered debate and I thank all other hon. Members for the contributions they have made. Whether it is simply the result of good fortune or the product of the right hon. Member’s powers of persuasion, this is not the first time we have debated house building in his constituency this year. We also had—as he made reference to—what I hope he will agree was a useful meeting back in March with officers from East Hampshire district council to discuss the challenges his local planning authority faces in setting housing requirements, given the proportion of it covered by the South Downs national park.

In the time I have available to me I intend to address the main points raised by the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, with the usual caveat that I am unable to comment on individual local plans or planning applications, given the role of MHCLG Ministers in the planning system.

I will start with some general comments on housing targets, given that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly clear in his remarks that they are at the heart of his concerns, but I will also touch on the interesting points made on affordability more generally and on tenure mix. In the NPPF published on 12 December last year, we restored mandatory housing targets that were abolished by the previous Government. We restored them, as our manifesto committed us to doing. It means local authorities must use the standard method as the basis for determining housing requirements in their local plans.

However, we have almost always made it clear that a mandatory method is insufficient if the method itself is not adequate to meet housing need. That is why the NPPF, published last year, introduced a new standard method for assessing housing need that is aligned to our stretching plan for change target of building 1.5 million new safe and decent homes in England by the end of this Parliament. I gently say to the shadow Minister: if he calls that number unrealistic, in his own manifesto, in the bidding war that was pursued during the general election, his own party came out with a 1.6 million number. How a Conservative Government would have set about achieving that is a question for another day.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned affordability with both a capital and a lower case “a”; in its lowercase sense, I say to him that boosting the supply of homes of all tenures has to be at the heart of any strategy to address affordability. There is a wealth of evidence that building more housing for private market sale makes other types of housing more affordable now. Such is the mismatch between housing supply and demand—the result of successive Governments not building enough homes of all tenures, and I include my own party as well as his in that. Tenure obviously still matters. We look primarily to local planning authorities to set the tenure mix in their own local areas, but the draft framework that we published yesterday includes firmer expectations in relation particularly to housing sites over 150 units. We want to see the right type of housing come forward.

[Damian Hinds]

The Minister is very good to give way; I thank him. To be clear, when I was talking about the mix, I was not talking solely or even mainly about the tenure mix, but about the price points and the way that the formula works—he gets the point.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The point was well made and well understood, and I will address it shortly. The new standard method that we introduced relies on a baseline set at a percentage of existing housing stock levels to better reflect housing pressures right across the country. It uses a stronger affordability multiplier to focus additional growth on the places facing the biggest affordability challenge. In general terms, it is a vast improvement on the standard method it replaced, which was based on household projections that were volatile, subject to change every few years and subject to unevidenced and arbitrary adjustments, with the result that local planning authorities found it extremely difficult to plan for housing over their 10 to 15-year plan periods.

I did, in response to the question put to me yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman, give a pithy and straightforward answer. The Government have no intention of withdrawing or modifying the standard method that is now in operation. On the specific point he raised, where affordability ratios fall, the uplift would also fall because it applies over an affordability ratio of 5:1—that is the Office for National Statistics affordability threshold.

I think I understood the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the short-term impact, but the only way to bring the affordability ratio down is to build many more homes of all types, and that is what the target is intended to do. However, it is a complex and technical point and he may wish to write to me on it.

[Damian Hinds]

I will write to the Minister in more detail—but if, in adding to the stock, we raise the median house price, that has an adverse effect on affordability. We get this ironic situation where the more we build, the less affordable it looks.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not think that is correct—at least not in the medium to long term. Going back to the point I just made about supply and demand, we have to build sufficient volumes of homes to arrest the steady rise over many years in house prices and start to gently bring them down over time. We are some way away from that, but the affordability uplift should respond over time if we start to build, in a high and sustainable manner, the large number of homes we need.

I will now address the rural-urban balance, which was raised by a number of colleagues. We have had this debate before. We recognise that the targets we have introduced are ambitious and they do mean uplifts in many areas, but such is the severity of the housing crisis in England that all parts of the country, including rural areas, must play their part in providing the volume of homes the country needs.

However, it is not the case that the new formula directs housing growth away from large urban areas. We scrapped the arbitrary 35% urban uplift that the previous Government applied to the 20 largest cities and urban centres—and the core of those centres, as was mentioned. However, across city regions, the new standard method increases targets by 20%. Through it, housing growth is directed to a wider range of urban areas, including smaller cities and urban areas as well as larger city areas.

London was referenced; under the previous Government, housing targets in London were deliberately set at entirely unrealistic levels because that arbitrary 35% standard method was applied not just to the core of our capital city, but to every London borough. We have revised that number down, but London still has a stretching house building target, which we increased in response to feedback to the consultation we received.

In the draft framework yesterday, as the shadow Minister and other hon. Members recognised, we also gave more support for a brownfield-first approach to housing. We welcome responses to the draft framework, through which we now have in-principle support for development within settlements, subject to specified exemptions where there could be unacceptable impacts. We have built on that with the announcement of a default “yes” for development on land within reasonable walking distance around train stations.

Local plans have been mentioned a number of times; in some ways, this gets to the heart of the matter. I would first say to the Liberal Democrat spokesman that, far from undermining the plan-led system, the announcements we made yesterday will strengthen the plan-led system. The clear, rules-based policies in that new draft framework will make it easier for local authorities to come forward under the new system of local plan making and get those plans in place more quickly and effectively.

Why do they need to be in place more quickly and effectively? Because authorities with an up-to-date local plan will typically meet the five-year housing land supply, which is what is required to pass the examination in the first place. Having a local plan in place supports a much more comprehensive approach to considering cumulative impacts of development, so we need those local plans in place across the country. It is not my party’s fault that we do not have universal coverage of local plans. I remember standing for years where the shadow Minister is now, telling Conservative Housing Ministers on this side of the Chamber to take effective action to use the full range of their intervention powers to drive up local plans. We are not there, but this Government are committed to doing that.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire knows about this, as we have discussed it before: local authorities are able to justify a lower housing requirement than the figure that the standard method sets, on the basis of local constraints on land and delivery, such as natural landscapes, protected habitats and flood-risk areas.

[Cameron Thomas]

I thank the Minister very much for giving way, and I wish him a merry Christmas. Nothing would empower my local authority more than the Government implementing recommendation 89 of the EAC’s report into flood resilience in England. Will his Department do that?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We will respond in due course to that report, in the usual way. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about flood risk; I am trying to set out that local constraints can be taken into account in the context of local plans. Government provide flexibility in policy for areas that have such local constraints when calculating housing needs and setting targets, and we provided further guidance on the matter alongside the December 2024 NPPF.

East Hampshire district council is availing itself of that flexibility through the use of a locally determined method, as part of its efforts to progress towards submitting its plan for examination. My officials have been actively supporting that process, including by facilitating an advisory visit for the Planning Inspectorate, and I will continue to meet with officers to discuss any further support.

Several hon. Members mentioned the duty to co-operate. Local authorities often face pressure from neighbouring authorities to meet unmet housing needs under the duty. I recently announced that the duty as a legal provision will cease to exist once the new planning system regulations come into force early next year. However, East Hampshire and neighbouring authorities will still be expected to show that they have collaborated across boundaries, including on meeting unmet need, in line with the current and draft NPPF, which set out policies on maintaining effective co-operation.

I understand hon. Members’ long-standing concerns about infrastructure. The Government are aware that there is more to do across Government and with the sector to ensure that the right infrastructure gets built. I draw hon. Members’ attention to the remarks I made in the statement yesterday. The previous NPPF, from December 2024, strengthened the support for infrastructure —particularly essential infrastructure such as health services and schools—and the latest draft, which we published yesterday, consolidates and strengthens that. On top of that, through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which should receive Royal Assent this week, we are streamlining the delivery of nationally critical infrastructure, from rail to roads to reservoirs, across the country.

The shadow Minister asked me about section 106. We want to see a simpler, more transparent and more robust section 106 system. That should include standardised templates. As the NPPF published yesterday shows, we think that, in the first instance, that should be rolled out on medium sites.

To conclude, I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire once again for giving the House an opportunity to discuss this important range of matters. As in our debate earlier this year, I appreciate that I will not have convinced him of the merits of the Government’s approach to planning reform or the standard method, but I hope that I have provided him and other hon. Members with sufficient reassurance in respect of local plans, infrastructure and other important matters. I too wish all hon. Members, you, Mr Twigg, House staff and officials a merry Christmas. I hope that everyone has a well-deserved break.

Planning Reform: Next Phase

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Written Statements

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

England remains in the grip of a housing crisis that is both acute and entrenched. The detrimental consequences of this disastrous state of affairs are now all pervasive: a generation locked out of home ownership; 1.3 million people languishing on social housing waiting lists; millions of low-income households forced into unaffordable private rented housing; and more than 170,000 homeless children living in temporary accommodation.

Our economy, and the public services we all rely on, are suffering too because, as well as blighting countless lives, the housing crisis is consuming ever-larger amounts of public money in the form of a rapidly rising housing benefit bill, and it is hampering economic growth and productivity by reducing labour mobility and undermining the capacity of our great towns and cities to realise their full economic potential.

The monumental scale of the challenge that this Government inherited demanded a commensurate response. That is why we committed ourselves, unashamedly, to an incredibly stretching house building target of 1.5 million new safe and decent homes in this Parliament. And it is why we acted quickly and boldly to put in place the foundations of a revamped planning system that will facilitate the delivery of high and sustainable rates of house building in the years ahead.

Within three weeks of taking office, we moved to consult on changes to the national planning policy framework, finalising them in December 2024. Among the many changes made in that initial revision to the framework were: the restoration and raising of mandatory housing targets; a new standard method for assessing housing needs aligned to our 1.5 million new homes target; greater support for social and affordable housing provision; a strengthening of policy relating to brownfield land development; a modernised, strategic approach to green belt land designation and release; and enhanced support for key economic sectors and clean energy infrastructure.

In March we introduced our landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The Bill will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, supporting delivery not only of the Government’s 1.5 million new homes target, but of our plan for change milestone of fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. It will also support delivery of the Government’s clean power 2030 target by ensuring that key clean energy projects are built as quickly as possible. As a result of its swift passage, it is due to receive Royal Assent before the House rises on Thursday.

Over recent months we have carefully considered the extensive feedback we have received on a range of policy propositions, from a brownfield passport to reforming site size thresholds in the planning system. As a result, I am today setting out details of the next phase of this Government’s planning reforms alongside a comprehensive package of support for small and medium-sized house builders.

A revised national planning policy framework

We are today publishing a fuller and more definitive overhaul of the NPPF for consultation. It is the culmination of a sustained effort over the first 17 months of this Parliament to revamp our planning system so that it meets housing need in full and unleashes economic growth, and represents the most significant reform to national planning policy since the original NPPF was introduced more than a decade ago.

This wholly restructured framework maintains and builds on the initial revisions that we made in December last year; includes a range of new measures to support key economic sectors; and incorporates new clear and rules-based national policies for both plan and decision making. These proposals will make the NPPF easier to navigate for communities, local authorities and developers alike.

As a result of the not insignificant risk and uncertainty that such an approach entailed, we have taken the decision not to proceed with statutory national development management policies at this stage. Instead, we have chosen to swiftly realise their benefits through agile national policy changes, while leaving open the possibility of a future transition to statutory NDMPs, should that be required.

The new decision-making policies in the framework published today are therefore designed to make development management more certain, consistent and streamlined; to standardise policies that apply across the whole of England; and to reduce duplication and avoid unjustified local deviation from national policy in local plans. To ensure that these changes make an immediate difference, the Government are proposing that the new national decision-making policies effectively override conflicting policies in local plans from day one.

As part of this overall change to the framework, we are also proposing new policies to boost housing supply and unlock economic growth in the years ahead:

1. A permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development

We want to make clear what forms of development are acceptable in principle in different locations as part of creating a more rules-based approach to development. For urban land, this approach takes forward parts of our “brownfield passports” work and builds on the December 2024 framework update, by making development of suitable land in urban areas acceptable by default. As part of this change, we are also proposing a revised presumption in favour of sustainable development, underpinning the way the new policies direct different forms of development to the most appropriate locations—in effect, applying a permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development.

2. Building homes around stations

We want to establish “in principle” support—a “default yes” —for suitable proposals that develop land around rail stations within existing settlements, and around “well-connected” train stations outside settlements, including on green-belt land. We are also proposing a minimum density of 40 dwellings per hectare around all stations and 50 dwellings per hectare around “well-connected” stations—maximising opportunities for sustainable development, making the most of high levels of connectivity, and improving access to jobs and services.

3. Driving urban and suburban densification

We want to get the most use out of land in urban and suburban areas, including through the redevelopment of corner and other low-density plots, upward extensions and infill development—including within residential curtilages. These changes will support higher density development in sustainable locations, with good access to services. We are also setting clear expectations that authorities should set minimum densities in well-connected locations, including around train stations and town centres, and support an overall increase in density within settlements.

4. Securing a diverse mix of homes

We want to better support the needs of different groups through the planning system. This includes stronger support for rural social and affordable housing and setting clearer expectations for accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disabled people. It also means providing more flexibility on the unit mix of housing for market sale, where local requirements have been met for the mix of affordable homes.

5. Supporting small and medium sites

We want to make it easier to bring forward small sites, through clear support for the principle of development in different locations, the policies on building more densely in settlements, and strengthened support for mixed tenure development. We are also introducing a category of medium development (see annex C of this consultation document), linked to a range of policy and regulatory easements, to support a more streamlined and proportionate planning system—including exploring further the potential benefits and drawbacks of enabling developers to discharge social and affordable housing requirements through cash contributions in lieu of direct delivery.

6. Streamlining local standards

We want to promote certainty for applicants and speed up local plan production by limiting quantitative standards in development plans to only those specific issues where local variation is justified. We also want to limit duplication of matters that are covered by the building regulations—other than where there is the existing ability to use “optional technical standards”.

7. Boosting local and regional economies

We want to encourage economic growth by giving substantial weight to the benefits of supporting business growth, and to particular areas and sectors—including those named in the industrial strategy, AI growth zones, logistics, town centres and agricultural and rural development. We are also interested in views on whether the town centre sequential test should be removed, in order to allow greater flexibility to respond to changing patterns of demand.

8. Supporting critical and growth minerals

We want to ensure that adequate provision is made for their extraction, recognising their economic importance. In parallel, and in view of the Government’s mission to achieve clean power by 2030, we want to restrict further the extraction of coal.

9. Embedding a vision-led approach to transport

We want to further embed the changes made in December 2024, which signalled the importance of moving away from a “predict and provide” approach to transport planning, which can create unattractive environments dominated by cars.

10. Better addressing climate change

We want to set out how decisions can take a proactive approach to both mitigation and adaptation in relation to climate change, in a way that links to other relevant policies in the draft framework.

11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

We want to make a number of changes, including to reflect local nature recovery strategies, to recognise landscape character and conserve and enhance existing natural features, to incorporate swift bricks and to provide guidance on sites of local importance for nature.

12. Taking a more positive approach to the use of heritage assets

We want a clearer and more positive approach that can better support suitable heritage-related development, replacing the current policies that are difficult to navigate.

The framework will also support the implementation of reforms that I set out in the written ministerial statement of 27 November— https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-11-27/hcws1104 —to deliver faster and clearer local plans, preserving their place as the cornerstone of the planning system. New plan-making policies in the NPPF will support the implementation of the new plan-making system by setting out policy on the role, content, preparation and examination of the plans of different types—including supporting the introduction of spatial development strategies across the whole of England to ensure effective planning across local authority boundaries.

The proposed new NPPF will play an integral role in delivering the new homes and essential infrastructure that the country needs and unlocking sustained economic growth. The consultation is an opportunity for everyone to play their part in shaping a planning system that delivers for local communities and the country as a whole.

Development plans will not be required to follow the revised framework until the final version is published, in accordance with the transitional arrangements set out within it. However, local planning authorities preparing plans under the new plan-making system should have regard to the draft framework to help inform the early stages of their production, bearing in mind the framework’s status as a consultation draft.

Support for small and medium-sized house builders

In addition to publishing a fuller and more definitive NPPF for consultation, the Government are acting to support small and medium-sized house builders. As a Government, we are clear that ramping up housing delivery requires us to diversify the house building market. Integral to such diversification is not merely arresting but reversing the decline of SME developers that has taken place over recent decades. Building on the steps we have taken to better support SME house builders to access finance and land, we are today announcing a series of policy and regulatory easements to help them thrive and grow.

In May the Government published a working paper seeking views on a new “medium” threshold for development for sites up to 1 hectare with between 10 and 49 homes—noting that over 80% of such sites are developed by SME builders. Having reflected on the useful feedback we received, we have decided to go further. While the 10 to 49 unit threshold will apply, we propose to increase the size of sites covered by the new medium category to up to 2.5 hectares, thereby increasing the number of SME house builders being supported.

To support development activity on this new category of site, we are proposing to limit information requirements to what is necessary and proportionate. We are also setting a clear expectation that local planning authorities allocate 10% of their housing requirement to sites between 1 and 2.5 hectares, in addition to the existing requirement to do so for sites under 1 hectare, to better support different scales of development.

Without compromising building and residents’ safety, we are also using the consultation to ask the necessary technical questions to determine whether to exempt this new “medium” category of development from the building safety levy. And we are exploring further the potential benefits and drawbacks of enabling developers of medium sites to discharge social and affordable housing requirements through cash contributions in lieu of direct delivery.

Finally, having considered carefully the responses to the consultation undertaken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs earlier this year, I can confirm that the Government will exempt smaller developments up to 0.2 hectares from biodiversity net gain, and introduce a suite of other simplified requirements to improve the implementation of biodiversity net gain on small and medium sites that are not exempted. DEFRA will also consult rapidly on an additional targeted exemption for brownfield residential development, testing the definition of land to which it should apply and a range of site sizes up to 2.5 hectares.

Wider funding and support

To ensure the successful implementation of the changes to national planning policy and regulation that we are announcing today, the Government will provide additional funding and support.

We are making £8 million available to local planning authorities to accelerate planning applications for major residential schemes at the post-outline stage. This funding will be targeted at those authorities with high volumes of deliverable applications in this Parliament and those with strong economic growth potential, ensuring that resources are directed where they will have the greatest impact.

£3 million of this funding will be allocated to the Greater London Authority to provide specific support to London boroughs to bolster their planning departments and enable them to implement the emergency measures announced by the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State on 23 October 2025.

These measures build on the announcements set out in the Budget last month, where the Government have committed to spend an extra £48 million to strengthen planning capacity and support the aim to recruit around 1,400 new planning officers this Parliament—substantially exceeding our original commitment to recruit just 300.

We will also provide an extra £5 million to boost the roll-out of the small sites aggregator initiative across Bristol, Sheffield and the London borough of Lewisham, supporting SME builders to deliver much-needed social housing on 60 small brownfield sites that would otherwise remain undeveloped, and attracting private investment to build new social rent homes.

Beyond the planning system, this week we will launch an expression of interest for ambitious local planning authorities to work with us to create pattern books of standardised, high-quality house designs—intended to accelerate the delivery of attractive new homes and make use of artificial intelligence and modern methods of construction.

[HCWS1187]

Planning Reform

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s ongoing efforts to overhaul the planning system.

As the House is fully aware, England remains in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis. It is a crisis, first and foremost, that is blighting countless lives, not least those of the more than 170,000 homeless children living in temporary accommodation today, but it is also hampering economic growth and productivity by reducing labour mobility and undermining the capacity of our great towns and cities to realise their full economic potential. In grappling with this crisis, the Government have never been under any illusions, either about the monumental scale of the task before us or about the challenges that must be overcome and the pitfalls that must be avoided if we are to succeed. However, we remain absolutely determined to tackle this task head-on and make tangible progress towards a future in which all our people have a decent, safe, secure and affordable home in which to live.

We have committed ourselves as a Government unashamedly to an incredibly stretching house building target of 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. In the face of a housing crisis of such severity, anything less would have been a dereliction of duty. Progress towards that ambitious target of 1.5 million new homes was always going to be slow in the early years of this Parliament; after all, the Government inherited a housing market downturn, one that was exacerbated by the conscious and deliberate decisions of Ministers in the previous Conservative Government to make a series of anti-supply changes to national planning policy, including the abolition of mandatory housing targets. Such is the protracted nature of the development cycle that the corrosive impact of those changes is still in evidence today.

However, on taking office, this Government acted quickly and boldly to put in place the foundations of a revamped planning system that will facilitate the delivery of high and sustainable rates of house building in the years ahead. In December last year, we revised the national planning policy framework, reversing the previous Government’s anti-supply changes, implementing a new standard method aligned to our more ambitious national housing target, and releasing more land into the system through a modernised, strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release. In March, we introduced our landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill to further streamline and speed up the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, and I am delighted that that Bill will receive Royal Assent before the House rises on Thursday.

Over recent months, we have carefully considered the extensive feedback we have received on a range of policy propositions, from a brownfield passport to reforming site size thresholds. As a result, I am today setting out details of the next phase of this Government’s planning reforms. That next phase consists of action on two main fronts. First and most significantly, we are today publishing for consultation a fuller and more definitive overhaul of the national planning policy framework. This wholly restructured framework maintains and builds on the initial revisions we made in December last year. It includes a range of new measures to support key economic sectors and incorporates new clear and rules-based national policies for the making of both plans and decisions.

As a result of the not insignificant risk and uncertainty that such an approach entailed, we took the decision not to proceed with statutory national development management policies at this stage. Instead, we have chosen to realise their benefits swiftly through agile national policy changes, while leaving open the possibility of a future transition to statutory NDMPs should it be required. The new decision-making policies in the framework published today are therefore designed to make development management more certain, consistent and streamlined; to standardise policies that apply across the whole of England; and to reduce duplication and avoid unjustified local deviation from national policy in local plans.

As well as setting out national planning policy in a clearer and more comprehensive manner, we are proposing a number of substantive reforms to boost housing supply and unlock economic growth in the years ahead. These include a permanent presumption in favour of sustainable development, building on the proposals outlined in our brownfield passport working paper to make development of suitable land in urban areas acceptable by default; a default yes for suitable proposals for development of land around rail stations within existing settlements and around well-connected stations outside settlements, including on green-belt land, to ensure that sufficiently dense development comes forward around existing transport infrastructure; and a targeted series of changes to drive urban and suburban densification, including through the redevelopment of corner and other low-density plots, upward extensions, infill development and residential curtilages. We will also take action to secure a diverse mix of homes. There will be stronger support for rural social and affordable housing; clearer expectations will be set for accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disabled people; and more flexibility will be provided on the unit mix of housing for market sale where local requirements for social and affordable homes have been met.

In addition to these and other important policy changes on matters such as design, vision-led transport and climate change mitigation and adaptation, the revised framework delivers on various commitments made either at this Dispatch Box or in the other place. As a result, it now includes a clear requirement to incorporate swift bricks into new developments; the application of new national standards for sustainable drainage systems; explicit protection for our precious chalk streams; and, as a result of sustained advocacy by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), recognition of the importance of providing new, improved, accessible and inclusive facilities for children’s play.

Taken together, these changes represent the most significant reform to national planning policy since the original NPPF was introduced more than a decade ago. The proposed framework is the culmination of a sustained effort over the first 17 months of this Parliament to revamp our planning system so that it meets housing need in full and unleashes sustained economic growth. We look forward to receiving feedback through the consultation.

Further revisions to the NPPF are not all we are announcing today. The second main front on which we are acting is support for small and medium-sized house builders. As a Government, we are clear that ramping up housing delivery requires us to diversify the house building market. Integral to such diversification is not merely arresting, but reversing, the decline of small and medium-sized enterprise developers that has taken place over recent decades. Building on the steps we have already taken to better support SME house builders to access finance and land, we are today announcing a series of policy and regulatory easements to help them thrive and grow.

In May, the Government published a working paper seeking views on a new medium threshold for development of sites up to 1 hectare with between 10 and 49 homes, noting that over 80% of such sites are developed by SME builders. Having reflected on the useful feedback we received, we have decided to go further. While the 10 to 49 unit threshold will apply, we propose to increase the size of sites covered by the new medium category to up to 2.5 hectares, thereby increasing the number of SME house builders being supported.

To support development activity on this new category of site, we are proposing limiting information requirements to what is necessary and proportionate. We are also setting a clear expectation that local planning authorities allocate 10% of their housing requirement to sites between 1 hectare and 2.5 hectares, in addition to the existing requirement to do so for sites under 1 hectare, to better support different scales of development. Without compromising building and residents’ safety rules, we are using the consultation to ask the technical questions necessary to determine whether to exempt this new medium category of development from the building safety levy, and we are exploring further the potential benefits and drawbacks of enabling developers of medium sites to discharge social and affordable housing requirements through cash contributions in lieu of direct delivery.

Finally, having considered carefully the responses to the consultation undertaken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs earlier this year, I can confirm that the Government will exempt smaller developments of up to 0.2 hectares from biodiversity net gain and introduce a suite of other, simplified requirements to improve the implementation of BNG on small and medium sites that are not exempted. DEFRA will also rapidly consult on an additional targeted exemption for brownfield residential development, testing the definition of land to which it should apply and a range of site sizes up to 2.5 hectares.

This Government promised to get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. While there is more that needs to be done to transform the failing housing system we inherited, the further changes to regulation and policy we have announced today are integral to our plans to improve housing availability, affordability and quality in this Parliament. They will not be without their critics, both in this House and in the country, but in the face of a housing crisis that has become a genuine emergency in many parts of England, we will act where previous Governments have failed to ensure that a decent, safe, secure and affordable home is the right of all working people, rather than a privilege enjoyed only by some.

I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

This Labour Government’s last planning framework began pushing development on to rural areas, prioritising concreting over the green belt and green fields rather than focusing on supporting building in urban areas, which is where we need to build most. From what the Minister has just said, it sounds as though the Government are going to double down on this approach with an all-out assault on the green belt. Over the past decade in London, under its abysmal mayor, Labour has conspicuously failed to build the right amount of housing, and now it is going to fail to build the right kind of housing in the right places in the rest of England. It clearly prefers to target building in rural areas, while not building in the cities and urban areas where demand is highest and much of the necessary infrastructure already exists.

At the current rate of house building under Labour, which is at a dismal low, the Government will fail by some distance to meet their target of 1.5 million homes. House building is falling under Labour, with the number of additional dwellings delivered in 2024-25 falling by 12,810. If the delivery of net additional dwellings continues at this rate, Labour will deliver its target not by the end of this Parliament but in seven years’ time. This Labour Government’s record on house building is dreadful—they delivered fewer homes in their first year in office than we delivered during a global pandemic. This is not a good sign for Labour’s first year in office, and now this Labour Government are intent on ignoring the voices of local people up and down the country while imposing top-down housing targets, disproportionately in rural areas, and tightening their grip through Whitehall-imposed targets.

The reality is that Labour is prioritising building on rural areas while claiming that it is grey-belt land. It is now returning to something that the previous Labour Government did, namely garden grabbing. The previous Conservative Government removed the top-down diktats that forced councils to demolish gardens, but the Minister has just promised “the redevelopment of low-density” residential plots, introducing higher buildings at street corners and “infill development” within “residential curtilages”. It is clear that, because of Labour’s failure to build homes on brownfield land, it now has residential gardens in its sights. The Government should be prioritising and incentivising brownfield development first, and making it easier to build on brownfield sites in cities and urban areas, but they are not—they are only paying it lip service. If Labour really wants homes to be built where they are needed, it should think again about how its planning framework will actually deliver.

There are many questions about the Government’s approach, but time is short, so I will restrict myself to four. The Minister states that there should be “a default yes for suitable proposals for development of land around rail stations within existing settlements and around well-connected stations outside settlements, including on green-belt land”. In that context, what is a “well-connected station”?

The Minister proposes “action to secure a diverse mix of homes” and “stronger support for rural social and affordable housing”. What form will the support take? What regulations will the Government relax or scrap to support housing delivery? What incentives will they offer to get brownfield development actually to happen?

Finally, the views of local people are not a burden in assessing planning applications; they are among the most important factors. Putting local people and local concerns high up the agenda is a long-established and democratic precedent that successive Governments have followed. However, I fear for their voices under the current Administration. The Government railroaded their Planning and Infrastructure Bill through Parliament and are now following up with this statement. It is increasingly clear that the planning system that this Government are not just envisaging and planning for, but actively creating, is one in which such local concerns are much harder to raise. His Majesty’s Opposition do not believe that local people and local democracy should suffer for that.

The Government are eroding trust in the planning system and widening the gulf between the Government and local people. That is why we are clear that local voices, not just Whitehall’s, must play a key part in any planning decisions. We will continue to scrutinise the framework as the Labour Government implement it, and we will hold them accountable as it begins to negatively impact local communities.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. I appreciate that he has not had a huge amount of time to look over today’s announcement, but he has completely misunderstood one of the primary thrusts of the changes we are making, which is to double down on a brownfield-first approach. Through the draft framework, we are introducing a presumption in principle for development in urban areas. We want to make clear in principle what forms of development are acceptable in different locations. Building on our brownfield passports, that will mean that, in practice, the development of suitable urban land will be acceptable by default. That is a doubling down on a brownfield-first approach.

The shadow Minister raised concerns about the green-belt. As ever, this Government are committed to protecting the green-belt, which has served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, but we did introduce—[Interruption.] I am more than happy to have a debate with Opposition Members. We replaced the haphazard approach to green-belt release under the previous Government with a more strategic and modernised approach. All the draft framework does is build on that approach in a specific form by allowing development to proceed in the green-belt on well-connected stations.

I should say that well-connected stations are precisely defined as the 60 highest travel-to-work areas based on gross value added. However, as with all the policies in the draft framework, we are consulting on whether that is the right number or whether it should go higher or lower. There are appropriate densities in the framework for all stations across the country and higher densities for specific well-connected stations in those areas.

The shadow Minister asked me what we are doing on rural affordable housing. We want to see greater support for social and affordable housing in rural areas. The new framework—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, the framework makes it easier for rural exception sites to come forward through clearer national policy; makes it far easier for rural authorities to require affordable housing on smaller sites, including by removing the need for legislative designation; and removes the first homes exception sites as a stand-alone form of exception site, to avoid driving up land prices and crowding out wider social and affordable tenures.

Finally, the shadow Minister critiques this Government’s record on housing supply, and it is true that net additional dwellings in 2024-25 stood at 208,600, but in attempting to castigate this Government for that figure, he betrays his ignorance of the development process. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of new homes completed in 2024-25 are the result of planning applications submitted in the last Parliament. In criticising those numbers, he is rebuking his own Government’s record. He is right to do so because, as many hon. Members know, the previous Government, in abolishing mandatory housing targets, have torpedoed housing supply in this country. We are turning things around, and the draft framework will help us to do just that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee, who makes a very good point. The Conservative party does not want development on the greenbelt, and it does not want urban and suburban intensification; in short, it does not want homes brought forward in the volume required to meet housing demand across the country.

My hon. Friend asks a specific question about accessible housing. The changes we are making through the draft framework will set new, higher requirements for authorities to deliver more accessible housing. They include proposals for 40% of new builds to meet mandatory accessibility standards, and proposals to ensure that local plans provide for wheelchair accessible homes. I stress that that is a minimum, not a target. It will drive up the provision of accessible housing overall—I note that some local plans at present have 0%—while ensuring that different levels of local need are met.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Although I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement, I fear that it represents an unprecedented removal of power from local people and local government by a Government who appear to have given up on sustainable development as a driving force behind decision making. The cost-benefit statement reads like it was written in the Treasury. It sees only the benefits of development, and none of the costs to communities or nature.

Under the new framework, sustainable development is no longer the pre-eminent principle. The framework means widespread development in the greenbelt. The presumption has so many holes in it that buildings put up for any purpose, including under permitted development, will now be green-lighted for development across the open countryside. Lorry parks in green fields will be green-lighted. The framework rewrites and overrides the policies in local plans. For many authorities, the value and purpose of all the expense that they went to in writing a local plan will be called into question.

I have only one minute, which is simply not enough time to debate the most significant rolling back of planning controls for decades, so will the Minister hold a debate on the framework in Government time, so that all hon. Members have the chance to debate it? The framework will have much more impact than the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which recently went through Parliament. Will the Government upgrade the framework’s wishy-washy mention of chalk streams, and recognise them fully as irreplaceable habitats? Will the Minister reverse the abolition of BNG for 0.2 hectare sites, and go with the 0.1 hectare limit that environmental non-governmental organisations call for? Will the Government increase their target for social and council-rent homes from 18,000 per year to the 150,000 per year that we Liberal Democrats wish to see, or at least to the 90,000 per year that Shelter wishes to see? Finally, will the Government go further and ensure that the 1.5 million permissions for homes are subject to real “use it or lose it” powers before new homes are created?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, but again, I think he misrepresents what is in this new framework, with regard to local involvement and local engagement. He seeks to give the impression that there are no safeguards on development in the new framework, and that is not true. The new permanent presumption provides significant backing for development—absolutely. We want to introduce clear, rules-based policies, both for plans and for decision making, but development still has to comply with the wider policies in the NPPF, and decisions on individual applications still have to be taken.

The hon. Gentleman raised a point about local standards. Our proposals support our overall aim of making policy more rules-based to streamline the content of development plans. The framework still allows some local standards, where it makes sense to set them locally—for example, on design, parking and open space—but where we have national standards in building regulations, including in the forthcoming future homes and future building standards, which raise our ambition in this area, it does not make sense to allow duplication and variation across local areas.

Lastly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned chalk streams, and again I want to push back. We have included explicit recognition of chalk streams as a feature of high environmental value, as I committed to doing during consideration of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Local plans will, as a result, have to identify and manage the impacts of development on these sensitive areas, such as by creating buffer zones or green corridors. We have set clearer expectations that development proposals will assess and mitigate adverse impacts on water quality, including in relation to chalk streams.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the statement, and for the support for getting our housing market going again, particularly when it comes to brownfield sites; proposals for many of them are still being held up right across the country. He says that he will not at this stage make NDMPs statutory. Many people across the sector would like him to do so, because of the extra certainty it would provide. When he talks about the risk and uncertainty of taking that approach, what does he mean? If he will revisit this question, when might he do so? What will he be looking at when he potentially makes the decision to revisit that question?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not have the time to go into incredible amounts of detail on why we did not choose to take a statutory approach to national development management policies. Suffice it to say that the approach carried considerable uncertainty and risks. There has been a long debate—I can see Members who served on the Bill Committee—about what a conflict between statutory NDMPs and a local development plan would mean in practice. We were concerned about the chilling effect that might have on the system as a whole, so we have decided to proceed, as I have said, with agile changes to national policy. I remind hon. Members—Opposition Members often complain about this—that national planning policy carries significant weight. Since our December reforms, an unprecedented 80% of major residential appeals relating to grey-belt land have been approved. That is the power of national policy in action, but we will keep the matter under review.

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

We do not have green belt in east Kent. We used to have something called farmland; it is now called blighted land, because it has been zoned for housing, but it is not being built on. House building in east Kent has virtually come to a grinding halt, and houses are not selling as a direct result of this Government’s policies. How many unbuilt-out housing consents have already been granted? Should we not be using those before we start taking further agricultural land for building?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, the draft framework we have published today continues to provide the protections for agricultural land that are in place in the NPPF as revised last December, including a preference that development be directed towards areas of poorer-quality agricultural land. On consented sites, he is absolutely right. We want to see more consented sites built out, and that is the whole purpose of our new homes accelerator, which we established to take forward those sites. We published a working paper on build-out transparency, but I am afraid that it remains the case that we have to oversupply consents into the system to drive up the number of houses delivered.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the housing crisis has become an emergency, but can I ask for detail on an issue that I have raised with him in the House before? He said that it is a default yes for suitable proposals for the development of land around rail stations. He knows that I have a number of sports grounds close to railway stations that might attract the attention of developers as a result of what he has said today. Those grounds are not just a green lung for south-east London, but provide vital access to sports for people from central London, Kent and East Sussex. Can we have an assurance from him that these sites will not be put under threat, and that owners will not put these grounds under lock and key, say that there is no demand for them, and start planning to build houses on them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right that the new framework proposes a default yes to suitable proposals around train stations, particularly targeting well-connected train stations across the country, as I mentioned. He will know that in the revisions we made to the NPPF last December, we strengthened protections for playing fields. As I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), although there is a new permanent presumption within settlements as part of this framework, development still has to comply with the wider policies in the NPPF, and individual decisions on applications still have to be taken. I am more than happy to sit down with my hon. Friend and discuss his particular concerns about playing fields.

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

As the Minister knows, in Wiltshire, speculative development is often approved without consideration of access to active travel routes, health provision, school places, and access to public transport, so that our residents can reach work or education. This leads to areas of extreme deprivation, caused, according to the Government’s own statistics, by a lack of skills and job opportunities. Rural housing can work, but only when it is genuinely plan-led, and when infrastructure keeps pace with housing. Will the Minister ensure that rural development is supported by its communities, and is for its communities, rather than villages being left to absorb growth without the services that they so desperately need?

[Matthew Pennycook]

There is a lot in the hon. Lady’s question, but let me say a couple of things. First, we have been clear as a Government that when new housing comes forward, it must be matched with new amenities and infrastructure. We strengthened the policies in the previous framework last year to provide for community infrastructure, but today’s draft framework consolidates and strengthens that even further. She will be interested in the new vision-led transport measures in the framework, again strengthening those provided for last year. We want the appropriate amenities and infrastructure to come with housing, because we want to create not just housing units, but thriving places and neighbourhoods for people to live.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts to get the homes built that the country needs, particularly for young people, who face the prospect of never being able to afford a home of their own. I have two questions. First, does he think that where a site is earmarked in a local plan for development, the local planning authority should give permission for that development automatically? Of course, the details will have to be considered at the time, but there should be a presumption that such sites will be given planning permission when an application is made. Secondly, the draft local plan in Sheffield, as he knows, is mainly geared up to building on brownfield sites, but there are some proposals to build on greenfield sites to create the additional number of homes. He has laid out the golden rules for infrastructure development that will go alongside house building, but will he give the assurance that if a site in the local plan is on green belt, the planning authority has the right to turn down an application, if infrastructure will not be provided alongside the development?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend tempts me, I think deliberately, to comment on his local plan, which, for reasons that he will appreciate, I cannot do. On the general principles, there are many factors that need to be considered when planning committees, officers or elected members consider particular application, but we want to see greater weight given to applications on sites that are allocated in the development plan. This goes to the question from the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson). We want plan-led development. Local plans are the cornerstone of our planning system. That is why it is such a problem that we inherited a planning system where the coverage of up-to-date local plans is only a third. We are determined to drive up coverage of local plans, and to drive plans to adoption as quickly as possible.

When it comes to the green belt, through the changes that we made last year, we have set out a very clear sequential test for what local planning authorities need to do when they have exhausted brownfield development, densification, cross-boundary planning and co-operation with local authorities. When they do need to review green belt, they should start with the poorer-quality green belt—grey belt—in the first instance, if that is required to meet their housing need.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Within a mile of the well-connected stations of Radlett, Cuffley, Borehamwood, Potters Bar and Bushey there is pristine countryside that is treasured by local communities and prevents urban sprawl. The opening up of this green belt to a development free-for-all runs totally contrary to the promises made by the Labour party at the last election. What radius around those stations is envisioned in these proposals, and what will the Minister do to protect the character and integrity of existing villages and towns in my constituency and others up and down the country?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but it is absolutely incorrect to say that the draft framework proposes a free-for-all in relation to land around railway stations. As I have said, we want to establish, in principle, a default “yes” for development around railway stations within existing settlements, and to extend it to well-connected stations outside. That will provide clarity and confidence that these locations are suitable for growth, with the potential to unlock land for up to 1.8 million homes over the decades ahead. Alongside this, as I have said, we are proposing minimum densities to ensure that land is used effectively.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me for a specific radius. It is set out in the framework—[Interruption.] If he will allow me to reply, the definition set out in the framework is “within walking distance”, so about 800 metres. However, as with everything in this framework, we are consulting on what is the appropriate distance around stations, and I am more than happy to take his views and those of any other hon. Member views into account.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. I am very pleased, as I know my constituents will be, to hear about the swift bricks. Ours is a city of nature lovers, and I know that people have been very concerned about BNG, which has been mentioned. I would like to understand a little more about how it has been determined that 0.2 hectares is the right area, particularly in relation to natural capital.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: BNG plays a vital role in protecting and restoring nature, while enabling us to build the homes that this country needs. The Government remain fully committed to it as an approach to development, but, as I hope hon. Members will recognise, this is a novel system that was introduced only last year. We have heard from developers, local authorities and ecologists that the system needs to work better for some of the smallest developments, and that there are particular challenges on brownfield land. That is why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consulted earlier this year on updates to the system, and why we are today confirming that we will introduce that new exemption—and we think that 0.2 hectares is the right size for it. There is a suite of other simplifications for smaller and medium sites that are not exempted, and DEFRA will consult on whether any acceptable exemptions are appropriate for residential brownfield land.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

In my constituency there is planning permission for over 2,000 new homes in and around the town centre alone, yet developers are not building those much-needed homes. What steps are the Government taking to tackle developers that are land banking instead of building homes, and are they continuing to refuse to introduce tougher “use it or lose it” powers in these planning reforms?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is wrong to say that this is an area that we are overlooking. I refer the hon. Member to a working paper that sets out a series of proposals to get build-out transparency and accountability up. A delayed homes penalty, for instance, would act as a charge when development could be coming forward but is not. Those proposals are distinct from today’s draft framework, which does not deal with that issue, but I can assure him that it is very much a priority for me and for the Department.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. In my constituency, many new homes have been built in places such as Ebbsfleet and Stone, and I am glad to announce that there are plans for many more, but it is fair to say that local infrastructure—including GP surgeries, Darent Valley hospital and local schools—has struggled to keep pace, and there have not been enough affordable homes. Can the Minister outline how new, clear policies on where and how we build will ensure that development is sustainable and linked to jobs and infrastructure, and that we have enough affordable homes?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have visited the developments in my hon. Friend’s constituency that Ebbsfleet development corporation is taking forward. As I said in response to an earlier question, we as a Government are clear that new housing must be supported by appropriate infrastructure and amenities. Last year we made important changes to the framework to strengthen the provision of community infrastructure, and, as I have said, the draft framework consolidates and strengthens the support given to that provision, including public services. However, we know that there is more to do to ensure that the right infrastructure comes forward at the appropriate time, alongside the building of new homes.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

As with business rates and the Budget, it might take a few days for it to be absolutely clear what is in today’s announcement, although I hope that it will not take quite as long as it did with the Budget. I think it possible that some things will be welcome, given what the Minister said about densification and brownfield, if that is accompanied—this would be consistent—by a rebalancing of the housing target formula, which resulted in a doubling of targets in places such as East Hampshire and many places in the far north-west and far north-east, and a reduction in parts of London and Birmingham. Will the Minister now revisit that formula?

[Matthew Pennycook]

No.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

No Minister could be doing more than my hon. Friend to try to drive forward the house building that we need, and that will be greatly welcomed by many of those who are struggling to get hold of a property. I am also pleased about what he said in response to the question from the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster). However, many of us are concerned about developers who sit for years on planning applications without bringing them forward. Planning permission was given to the former North East Derbyshire district council site in my constituency more than four and a half years ago, but nothing has been built, and the building is running to rack and ruin. Can my hon. Friend say any more about the powers enabling councils and central Government to work together, so we can ensure that the errant developers who will not get on and build are brought to book and that they pull their weight as well?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is difficult to make blanket statements about individual development sites. There are many reasons why sites across the country are held up, but sometimes they are legitimate reasons to do with viability. As I have said, we are experiencing a housing market downturn, although we are hopefully coming out of it with the assistance of some of these policies. Viability is a challenge across the whole country and is particularly acute in places such as London, but where development could be coming forward and is viable but developers are not proceeding with it, we want to look at further measures on build-out to ensure that it does come forward. We are providing central Government support through the new homes accelerator to unlock the large strategic sites that have already received consent. That is the low-hanging fruit when it comes to bringing forward new homes in this Parliament.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The Minister knows that I share his enthusiasm for speeding up housing delivery, but that can only happen if we get the right infrastructure. He is aware, as I am, of the pressure around certain motorway junction upgrades, including at junction 10, which is adjacent to my constituency. Can he give me some reassurance that motorway junctions that are crucial to the upgrades that are required to deliver the housing that he so desires will not soon be scrapped?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am aware of the case to which the hon. Member refers. There is considerable pressure on the housing infrastructure budget and the projects that remain within it. I am aware that in respect of this case, which he has raised with me previously, a material amendment has been submitted and is being considered. Obviously I will not comment on that, but I think his point shows that the Government do provide significant amounts of funding support for land and infrastructure across the country to help to ensure that those homes can come forward in the right places, with the right infrastructure and transport connections.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I recently attended the launch of a development site for 32 new affordable family homes in Bournemouth town centre. That is fantastic, but we need much more of it, because there are still 535 children in temporary accommodation in my constituency, many of them under the age of 10. House prices and rent costs are higher than the national average, whereas wages are not, because the previous Government failed to get a grip on the housing crisis. I welcome this decisive action to build more homes. Will the Minister condemn the last Government’s failure to deal with this crisis and the hundreds of thousands of children we still see in temporary accommodation?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Absolutely, and we are taking concerted action across the Department, not least through the homelessness strategy that was published in recent weeks. At the heart of how we resolve the problem of temporary accommodation is building more affordable homes, particularly more social rented homes. That is precisely why the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme devotes 60% of its funding to social rented homes.

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

The Conservatives were right to abolish Whitehall-imposed mandatory housing targets, and Labour was wrong to bring them back. May I ask the Minister specifically about call-ins? Under the well-established system, the Secretary of State might have called in, on average, about 20 applications a year if they raised issues with national implications, and there was almost invariably a full public planning inquiry. Under Labour’s proposals, councils will have to notify the Secretary of State if they intend to refuse any application for more than 150 homes. The Secretary of State could then call it in before local councillors have even had a chance to vote on it. There would be no guarantee of a public inquiry, and the application could even be given to a planning inspector to deal with it behind closed doors by written representations—by letter—so that local people and their councillors would not have a chance to say anything at all. That is completely undemocratic, is it not? Why have a local plan at all?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Mandatory housing targets have an important role to play in a functioning housing and planning system, and we have seen the impact—in nosediving supply—of what happens when anti-supply changes are made to the NPPF. On the specific change that he references, yes, we are changing the referral criteria so that they apply not just to planning applications that might be accepted and that the previous Government wanted to ensure could be blocked, but to planning applications that might be refused and that we might want to see come forward.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

This morning I accompanied my constituents Jacob and Mikey to No. 10 to make a heartfelt plea to the Prime Minister for accessible playgrounds. I welcome the Minister’s statement, especially the inclusion of play spaces and their importance for children and young people. Can he assure me that disabled children and their families will be consulted on how to make these play spaces accessible?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I want to mention again the advocacy and work that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) did on this subject through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill; he persuaded us to look at it very closely. The new policies on children’s play signal strong support for providing and safeguarding areas for children’s play, both through plan making and when dealing with development proposals. Importantly—my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) is right to reference this—they make it clear that local communities should be actively involved in the design of play areas, so that they are inclusive and reflect local needs.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

The Government say that they are committed to green belt protection—in fact, the Minister has said as much at the Dispatch Box today—but the reality is set out in his statement, which says there will be a default “yes” to settlements around stations on green belt land. In my constituency of Esher and Walton, we have seven stations and lots and lots of green belt. What words can I use to reassure my constituents that that green belt is not under threat?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have said in response to previous questions, we made a series of changes to green belt land designation release in the NPPF last year. These changes have been carried over into the draft framework, with one substantive change, which is to enable appropriate development around well-connected train stations across the country, including in the green belt. What I would advise the hon. Lady to say to her constituents is that we should bring forward appropriate and appropriately dense development around existing public transport infrastructure.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister and his Department for confirming yesterday that Dudley has successfully cleared the first stage of Pride in Place assessment—the first step to unlocking £20 million over the next decade. Will he outline how the new planning reforms, Pride in Place funding and greater community powers will revitalise Dudley town centre, and can he confirm that any new infrastructure will use local materials from local businesses, such as Dreadnought Tiles, to boost the local economy?

[Matthew Pennycook]

There is support within the new framework to boost local and regional economies, and we want to encourage economic growth by giving substantial weight to the benefits of supporting business growth and to particular areas and sectors. I am more than happy to sit down with my hon. Friend and ministerial colleagues to give her a better sense of how the different initiatives across the Department, including Pride in Place, will work for her area and across the country.

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

The Minister will be aware that in certain parts of the country the agricultural planning system has ground to a halt, preventing modernisation on farms, stifling investment and damaging British food security. I welcome today’s measures on biodiversity net gain, but may I ask him to go further by tackling Natural England’s barmy guidance on nutrient neutrality and preventing vexatious judicial reviews against planning applications, to free up the hundreds of millions of pounds in the system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The solution to nutrient neutrality and other similar constraints is the environmental delivery plans delivered through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which the hon. Gentleman’s party voted against.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

When I met local nature activists in Bracknell, they told me that swift bricks are used not just by swifts, but by house martins and sparrows. Sadly, they are not used by swallows—although this Swallow certainly welcomes them. As the Minister knows, I have been strongly calling for swift bricks, so I am really pleased to see that they will be a requirement in new developments. Does he agree that this demonstrates that bringing forward the housing that we need to address the housing crisis does not have to come at the cost of nature? If we get this right, we can make sure that there is fantastic access to nature, alongside the homes we so badly need.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he is one of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have called for greater support for swift bricks, which we recognise are a vital means of arresting the long-term decline of the breeding swift population. The new swift brick requirement in the framework will require all developments to include swift bricks in their construction, unless compelling technical reasons prevent their use or make them ineffective. This is a significant strengthening of the expectations already in place, and we expect the end result to be at least one swift brick in every new brick-built house, unless there are legitimate reasons why installation would not be appropriate.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

In Stratford-on-Avon, previous changes to national planning policy wiped out the council’s five-year housing land supply almost overnight. Despite years of over-delivery, we did the right thing, and this has opened the door to a developer free-for-all. Will the Minister look again at the impact of these changes, and commit to restoring a genuinely plan-led approach that puts the allocation of housing back in the hands of councils and communities, rather than developers? Through their viability studies, developers are not delivering social housing or infrastructure.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I know the hon. Lady will take a keen interest in annex B of the framework, which deals with viability specifically and asks a range of questions. We want to ensure that we have a viability system that is working effectively, that is fair and that deals with the constraints that prevent development from coming forward, rather than being, as the National Audit Office and others have drawn attention to, abused by some developers to reduce rates of affordable housing and other obligations in section 106 agreements.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

This is really about ensuring that we can balance national standards and local decision making. As a former chair of a planning committee, I seek reassurance on how we and local decision makers can hold developers to account on stalled sites. We absolutely need to get building on brownfield sites. We have over 5,000 permitted homes in Gravesham, but we need reassurance that the small pockets of beautiful green space in our urban areas are protected, so that we see development where it needs to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right, and the protections and provisions that were in the draft framework last year have been carried across. We want councils to be able to designate those spaces for their areas, but we also want to see development come forward in the right places. I think she alluded to a national scheme of delegation, and we will be taking forward our reforms to modernise planning committees that are in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. We will set out details of the national scheme of delegation, and consult on the draft regulations, early next year.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

My constituents would have much more sympathy with the Minister if he could explain why, when it comes to house building, Leicester city’s target will go down by 31%, whereas Hinckley and Bosworth’s and north-west Leicestershire’s targets will go up by 59% and 74% respectively. It means that we have 10,000 houses proposed near Twycross, and thousands near Burbage and Barwell. What would he say to my constituents about the unfairness of the discrepancies between targets for city and brownfield sites, and targets for green-belt sites and agricultural land?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have said to other hon. Members in the past, housing targets, under the new standard method we have introduced, will increase in every metro area in the country with the exception of London, which was given a fantastical figure by the previous Government, because they applied the urban uplift—an entirely arbitrary 35%—to every London borough, not just the core centre.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Under the previous Conservative Government, there was significant building in Mickleover in Derby, yet the GP surgery that was promised alongside that development never materialised. Can the Minister outline how the Government’s new clearer planning policies, particularly on where development should take place, will ensure that future growth is genuinely sustainable and properly linked to the delivery of GP provision and other essential services and infrastructure?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have referenced before the consolidation and strengthening of the provisions in the framework we published last year in terms of the provision of infrastructure, particularly public service infrastructure. It is local plans, primarily, that should address needs and opportunities around infrastructure, and identify what infrastructure is required and how it can be funded and brought forward, but the reforms we are making through the draft framework will make both plan making and decision making clearer and simpler. I am more than happy to sit down with my hon. Friend to discuss the particular challenges she is facing in her constituency.

[Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)]

Bramhall and Heald Green are facing huge numbers of development proposals in their area, and the Government are today proudly announcing their policy to presume approval of developments around rail stations to improve sustainable transport. Gatley and Heald Green stations have the highest rates of cancellations in the north-west, and there has been no Sunday service in Bramhall for over a year and a half. The Minister should know that these stations are serviced by Northern—coincidentally, it is in effect a Government-run company—so how can my constituents trust this Government when it comes to building sustainable communities?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman’s constituents can trust this Government because we are setting out—for consultation, as I continue to stress—a clear definition of what a well-connected station means. As I said in response to the shadow Minister, we have defined it as the top 60 major economic centres based on travel to work areas by GVA, and four trains an hour or two trains in one direction. This covers 60% of train stations across the country, with 40% that are not covered, but we welcome views through the consultation.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

There is much to welcome in the Minister’s statement, and I would like to invite him to come and have a look at the opportunity for new housing around Shipley station. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on housing and care for older people, I particularly welcome the commitment in the NPPF to more accessible homes for older and disabled people. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), the Minister mentioned that 40% of new homes would be mandatory at M4(2) standards. Can he confirm that that is a baseline, and that the ambition is for planning authorities to go further and move towards 100% of all new homes?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I confirm to my hon. Friend that the 40% figure is a minimum, not a target. Our proposals recognise that accessibility needs are locally specific, and our changes ensure that necessary levels of accessible housing are provided, while providing authorities with the flexibility to maximise house building overall. Where needs are higher than the mandatory minimum, we are proposing that planning policies should reflect this.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The Minister has said that the Government want to double down on the brownfield-first approach, that they have a presumption in favour of development in urban areas and that they are committed to protecting the green belt. Neither I nor my constituents can square that with the reality of what is happening across Bromsgrove and the villages. My constituency is 89% green belt, but the housing target has increased by a staggering 85%, yet in adjacent Birmingham the housing target has decreased by over 30%. Local people are concerned not just about the erosion of the green belt, but about the lack of infrastructure. Over 5,000 local people have signed my petition expressing their concern about this approach. I want to work constructively with the Minister, so will he agree to meet me, together with the leader of Bromsgrove district council, to discuss the impact of this approach and forge a new path forwards?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will meet the hon. Gentleman and his local authority leader—I am more than happy to set out the Government’s position on green-belt land designation and release—but I gently say to him and other Opposition Members that there is no way of building the volume of homes our country needs on brownfield land alone. There is not enough land on brownfield land registers, certainly not brownfield land that is in the right place and viable to meet that need. We do need to release more land, including green-belt land, but we are doing it in a fair way and starting with grey-belt land first.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to tackling the housing crisis that we inherited. I have had many emails from people in Norwich about the need to build much-needed homes but also to protect our natural environment. As he probably knows, Norfolk is home to 10% of England’s chalk streams. He has touched on this, but can he provide reassurances to my constituents, and outline how this new policy will protect vital nature spots, like chalk streams?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We do want to provide greater protection for our precious chalk streams, which is why we have included explicit recognition of them in the framework. As I said in a previous answer, we will ensure that local plans identify and manage the impacts of development on these sensitive areas and set clearer expectations for development proposals in relation to them. The aim is to secure the consistent application of policy on these precious habitats. That will be supported by the roll-out of local nature recovery strategies, which will be able to map chalk streams and identify measures to enhance and improve them.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The Minister’s statement pins the blame for the housing crisis on the planning system, but we all know that there are many challenges facing the building sector: cost inflation, staff shortages made worse by Brexit, issues with housing association funding, and the problem of land banking, with all these planning permissions not being built out. Instead of the Minister pitting nature protection against house building—if he really wants to increase housing availability, affordability and quality, as he said in the statement that he does—will he set a social housing target, invest far more in directly supporting social housing and ensure that all building meets nature protection and climate crisis challenge goals?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have never pitted, and I will not pit, development against the environment. This Government have sought a win-win for both, which is precisely what part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill does. The hon. Member is wrong to suggest that all this Government are doing is planning reform. Planning reform is a necessary but not sufficient measure, and we are undertaking plenty of others, including £39 billion for the new social and affordable housing programme.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

I particularly welcome the comments about social and affordable homes in rural communities, and the commitments around swift bricks and chalk streams. In many areas, including in my county of Norfolk, the environment so often is the economy, whether that is through farming or tourism. Does the Minister recognise that one of the barriers to growth in many rural areas is capacity in district council planning authorities and the recruitment crisis? Will there be any specific measures on improvements to planning in rural areas?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I would say two things in response to that question. The Government have already allocated significant funding for planning capacity and capability in local departments. The Chancellor in the recent Budget allocated another £48 million. We are making £8 million of that available today to support local authorities with development management. In general, this framework will give a major boost to rural economies. We are making it very clear that development that supports farm modernisation and food production, and that allows rural businesses to grow, should be supported.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

This is a dark day for Shropshire’s green belt—places like Albrighton and Shifnal in my constituency—for the remaining green belt in the borough of Telford and Wrekin, in places like Preston upon the Weald Moors, Edgmond, Bratton and Church Aston. Another time in this place, the Minister referenced the number of local authority voids—both Conservative and Labour, to be fair—and voids held by social landlords. What more can be done to release those voids so that we can take the pressure off Shropshire’s green belt?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the potential to do more on voids and on empty homes more generally, although councils already have quite significant powers to bring empty homes back into use. I say very gently to him, building on my comments about the need to release appropriate green-belt land where necessary to meet housing need, that my concern is less about the instances he described and more about the 1.3 million people languishing on social housing waiting lists and, in particular, the 170,000 children who are today homeless and living in temporary accommodation. We have to build more homes. That requires green-belt land, as well as brownfield land, to be developed.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. He will be aware that Harlow is home to a number of builders, construction workers and entrepreneurs. How will the proposals he has set out today make a difference for Harlow’s hard-working builders, construction workers and entrepreneurs?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The second half of my statement—I hope my hon. Friend will have noticed—is a series of measures, interventions, policy and regulatory easements to get small and medium-sized house builders back on the pitch in a serious way, alongside councils and community-led housing. We need more providers on the pitch, building a diversified house building market. I hope that SME house builders across the country will welcome the package.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

I am pleased that the Government have listened to my calls, and to those of other Liberal Democrats, to mention the explicit protection of chalk stream rivers in the statement. The Minister mentions the consistent application of policy. Will he confirm whether those policies might include, for example, exclusion zones around chalk streams to protect them fully as unique and irreplaceable habitats?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to clarify and provide a bit more detail, which will hopefully reassure the hon. Lady. Through the changes we have made in explicitly recognising chalk streams, we are now clear that local plans must identify and manage the impacts of development on these sensitive areas. That might include creating buffer zones or green corridors around them, as well as and alongside clearer expectations for developments, so that in decision making they are properly protected.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

If the Minister is serious about, in his words, “doubling down” on brownfield first, will he look again at the Campaign to Protect Rural England report, which was put together with academic rigour, which identified enough land in England alone for 1.4 million homes on brownfield sites? If he looks again at that seriously, he will find that it is right and will mandate to build on those sites first before a single farm, field or piece of green-belt land is built on.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid—I have been very open about saying it before—that I have never been convinced by that CPRE research. As to the general thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s question of whether we want to see more development on previously developed land, absolutely. I stress once again to hon. Members the radical nature of the proposals that we have brought forward today with regard to brownfield land. We are proposing development support in principle within settlements as a whole, with a permanent presumption in favour of development on brownfield land. Opposition Members keep challenging us to go further on brownfield. There is no further. This is dialling up brownfield to the extreme and it will ensure that we get brownfield applications in, as well as green-belt land release and designation where necessary.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

My column for the Stockport Express is this week encouraging my constituents to respond to the Stockport local plan consultation—the deadline is Sunday—because the Government’s doubling of the housing target for Stockport will have an impact on our green belt and our community, and I am really keen that they have their say. Anyone serious knows we need more homes to be built, but I absolutely understand the worries of my constituents. They are thinking about the impact the doubling of the housing target will have on roads, GP appointments, schools and, in particular, our green spaces. One of the problems with the Government’s approach is the sequencing. Constituents see the downside of large-scale developments without the needed public transport. Would the Minister support minimum infrastructure targets before and alongside minimum housing targets?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I refer the hon. Lady to the comments I have already made on how the new draft framework further consolidates and strengthens the expectations around infrastructure provision. Vision-led transport, which is now hardwired through the framework, will make a difference to the challenges she poses, but she is absolutely right that we want to see infrastructure up front, alongside new homes being delivered.

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

The Minister’s statement referenced a presumption in favour of sustainable development on certain brownfield sites. Will applications for those developments still have to undertake a traffic and environmental impact assessment? If, for example, the highway network were found to be inadequate, would the local planning authority be able to refuse that application?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman. It sounds to me—I may be guessing here—that he has a specific constituency matter that he might like to discuss with me, and I would be happy to do so.

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

The Minister referred in his statement to the housing crisis we face, yet there are an estimated 1.4 million homes with planning permissions that are yet to be built. We know that developers favour land banking—waiting until the situation is so acute that they can then deliver those homes for more money, or renege on their commitment to deliver social homes by claiming that the cost pressures mean that they can no longer be delivered. We have seen that in my constituency. Does the Minister therefore agree that “use it or lose it” planning permission would get houses built, and that he does not have a housing crisis, but a building crisis?

[Matthew Pennycook]

There are real challenges with housing delivery. I refer the hon. Lady to the proposals on build-out generally that we have outlined and sought feedback on. She is absolutely right in the thrust of her question: we are overly reliant as a country on a handful of volume developers. That is precisely why we are encouraging other providers to get in the game through the package we have announced today for small and medium-sized house builders, so that we can have the diversified house building market that we need to bring forward delivery in the volumes the country requires.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The Minister must accept that house building targets are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. House building targets are based on a naive delusion that private developers will collude with Government in driving down the price of their final product, which surely cannot be the case. Cornwall is not a nimby location; we have grown faster than almost anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Despite almost trebling our housing stock in the past 60 years, the housing need of local communities is greater now. Will the Minister therefore consider that some local authorities, where simply setting targets is not the answer, should be given the tools to meet need rather than developers’ greed?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman and I have had this discussion, or variants of it, many times. We have a slight difference of opinion over the role of housing targets; I think they are necessary and play an important role. However, we are giving local planning authorities the tools they need—specific to the hon. Gentleman’s area, that includes changes in the draft framework on rural, social and affordable housing and the wider grant funding support that we are bringing forward through the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I welcome the explicit protections for chalk streams—something I have long campaigned for, as the River Itchen runs through my constituency. Will the Minister also guarantee that local plans will be strengthened by the NPPF overhaul and that community input will not be undermined?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We want to see more community input, particularly upstream in the development of local plans. The Government are committed to driving local plans to adoption; we want to see universal coverage of local plans. The clear rules-based policies in this draft framework will help with the new plan-making system that we announced just weeks ago to ensure that we can drive up coverage in this Parliament.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I welcome the ambition to build much-needed homes, especially social and affordable housing. However, in places such as Cherwell district in my constituency, the problem is not planning permissions. Under Liberal Democrat control, the council has already consented more than 10,000 homes; though consented, those homes have not yet been built, because the real blockage is delivery. Homes are not built because of a failure of grid capacity, supply chain costs and land banking by developers. These problems, which are outside the council’s control, now undermine its five-year housing land supply. The build-out consultation, which the Minister referred to, closed in the summer. Will he now commit to holding developers to account, once permission is granted, with real “use it or lose it” powers and to developing core infrastructure first, so that approved homes actually get built?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I was very clear that there is more that needs to be done to transform the failing housing system we inherited from the Conservatives. We need greater focus on reform and delivery; that will come next year. The regulatory and planning changes that will be made today—the culmination of 17 months of work to transform our planning system—are absolutely vital. We will come forward in due course with a response to proposals around build-out measures.

Historical Interim Development Orders

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) on securing this important debate. She has made a strong case on behalf of her constituents in Pilning and other nearby communities, who, while not directly affected, still have an interest in this matter. I appreciate fully the concerns she raises in respect of historical interim development orders on the communities she represents. In the time available, I will seek to provide her with a number of reassurances, although I suspect I will not be able to assuage her concerns in full, for reasons that will become clear.

Planning is principally a local activity, and I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government want local communities to be at the heart of the planning system. That is why we have made a clear commitment to achieving universal coverage of local plans that are shaped by early and effective engagement with communities, and that is why we continue to explore ways to enhance community engagement planning, including through greater digitalisation of the system.

The particular issue that is the subject of this debate has a long and complex planning history, as the hon. Lady made clear in her remarks. Although I am obviously unable to comment on individual planning applications, due to the quasi-judicial role of Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers in the planning system, I will seek to respond to the concerns she has raised in general terms and, to the best of my ability, assuage them, although I suspect that I will be unable to do so in full, for reasons that I will now set out.

Let me make some general comments about planning permissions. The hon. Lady has acknowledged this point, but there really is no way of tackling this subject without dry commentary on some of the historical elements of planning law, but such is the debate we are having—it is an important one. For reasons that I trust are obvious, it is vital that the planning system provides certainty on what can be built and where. It is axiomatic, but nevertheless worth stating, that the grant of planning permission for development is a right to develop. It is important that developers and landowners have the certainty that a planning permission, once granted, will not be readily removed or altered, given the considerable investment committed to it as part of the development process.

When the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 was enacted to establish the planning system as we know it, it was determined that the grant of planning permission would be in perpetuity unless it was explicitly for temporary development. No provision was made for the abandonment or lapse of a planning permission in instances where development did not occur. This issue was partly— but not entirely—addressed in the Town and Country Planning Act 1968, which required, through a mandatory commencement condition, that development must begin within five years in relation to full permissions. The same Act extended that requirement to earlier permissions that had not been built out before 1968. Since then, the default commencement period in England has been reduced to three years for full permissions, to ensure timely build-out of developments. If a development is commenced, the planning permission remains extant, and it is often possible for a developer to carry out the remainder of the development many years later.

However, as the recent Supreme Court judgment in Hillside Parks Ltd v. Snowdonia National Park Authority made clear, it is not lawful to carry out development if the development has become physically impossible to implement—for instance, if a planning permission for another subsequent development has been implemented instead. This means it is likely that many historical planning permissions that have not been implemented cannot now in practice be lawfully carried out, as subsequent development has since been carried out so as to render further development under the historical permission physically impossible.

That said, the Government recognise that it is still possible to carry out the development granted by a small proportion of historical planning permissions—for instance, if there has been a partial commencement. We also recognise that the conditions and obligations related to the development of these historical permissions may not be as comprehensive as a recent permission for the same development would be.

Local planning authorities do have the power, as a last resort, to revoke or modify planning permissions that could be used for historical planning permissions under section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Secretary of State must confirm any revocation or modification, and there must be sound planning reasons for taking such action. As the local planning authority would in such circumstances be unilaterally affecting a land interest’s right to develop, it is worth making clear that in such a scenario the planning authority in question would also be left liable to provide compensation to the land interest for any expenditure incurred in carrying out works and other sustained loss or damage.

Another tool potentially available to local planning authorities is a completion notice under section 94 of the Act. This can be used where development has begun under a planning permission but the LPA is of the opinion that the development will not be completed within a reasonable period. In such circumstances the local authority can serve a completion notice, which works on a “use it or lose it” basis, with the planning permission ceasing to have effect at the end of a specified period of at least 12 months.

As part of this Government’s commitment to provide greater transparency and accountability in respect of build-out rates on housing sites and to speed up the building of homes, we intend to implement the changes made to relevant completion notice legislation under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. This will remove the need for Secretary of State confirmation of a completion notice, making it easier for local planning authorities to use such notices.

It is worth me making some brief remarks about outline planning permissions. As the House will know, outline planning permission establishes the principle of development, on the condition that subsequent reserved matters are to be approved at a later date. When considering an application for the approval of reserved matters, the decision maker must consider these matters of detail within the context of the outline planning permission. Although this does not allow decision makers to revisit the principle of development or the parameters set by the outline permission, local planning authorities can ensure through reserved matters applications that the development constitutes sustainable development and that amenity, design quality, highways safety and flood risk issues are fully considered.

Finally, let me turn to community engagement. Where a new planning permission is sought, planning law requires that local planning authorities provide the local community with the opportunity to make representations about the application through a range of methods. As the principle and therefore substantive planning matters have typically been established through the outline planning permission, there is no legal requirement for local planning authorities to consult on an application for approval of reserved matters. However, I am aware that where the matters raised would warrant input from the local community, local planning authorities do carry out engagement with communities when assessing applications for the approval of reserved matters. In the unique circumstances of an historical planning permission, I would encourage local planning authorities to carry out such engagement. Where relevant considerations are raised by local residents, they must be taken into account by the local planning authority. However, the weight attached to a particular condition is a matter of judgment for the local authority as the decision maker in the first instance.

Although there are clearly cases where historical planning permissions may still be implemented years after they were granted, the Government consider them to be extremely rare. To the extent that such planning permissions remain extant after the development has been commenced, they cannot automatically be extinguished. As I have set out, local planning authorities do have the power to revoke or modify incomplete planning permissions, or issue commencement notices, but only in specific circumstances.

I appreciate, therefore, that the planning system as it has developed in the post-war period and as it is currently constituted does not provide a ready solution for the specific challenge outlined by the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate. With a view to exploring what more might be done within the constraints of the current system, I am happy to ensure that the hon. Lady gets a meeting early in the new year to give the matters relating to these specific applications the due consideration they warrant. As they relate to a specific application, I hope she will accept that in the first instance it would be appropriate for them to be with officials in my Department rather than me personally, but I will make sure that that meeting covers the analogous points she made about mineral permissions and IDO processes. I will also seek, through my officials, to ensure that she gets the requisite engagement with the relevant statutory consultees. In this instance, that will mainly be the Environment Agency, but she is more than welcome to write to me with other bodies that she wants to be engaged, particularly on the flooding issues she raised.

To conclude, I commend the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate once again for securing this important debate. I thank her for the clarity with which she set out her constituents’ concerns and the constructive manner in which she engaged with me on the subject. I will ensure that she gets the required engagement with my Department to explore what might be done in respect of the concerns that she has so ably set out.

Question put and agreed to.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House does not insist on its disagreement to Lords amendment 33, but proposes amendment (a) to the Lords amendment.

Today is a pivotal day, because, subject to agreement from this House—and, in due course, the other place—on a single remaining issue, the Government’s landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill will have completed all its stages and will therefore shortly become law. That moment will be a hugely significant one for our economy, because this legislation will facilitate a step change in the delivery of the new homes and critical infrastructure that our country so desperately requires.

Let me briefly remind the House again why this Bill is so important. When it comes to house building and the provision of major economic infrastructure, the status quo has demonstrably failed. The process of securing consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects is far too slow and uncertain, and is constraining economic growth and undermining our energy security. The current approach to development and the environment too often sees both sustainable house building and nature recovery stall. In exercising essential local democratic oversight, planning committees clearly do not operate as effectively as they could, and local planning authorities do not have adequate funding to deliver their services. The compulsory purchase order process is patently too slow and cumbersome, and development corporations are not equipped to operate in the way that we will need them to in the years ahead. It is abundantly clear that the lack of effective mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning mean that we cannot address development and infrastructure needs across sub-regions as well as we otherwise might.

We can and we must do things differently, and this Bill will enable us to do so. That is why we have been so determined to ensure that we can make use of its provisions as soon as possible, and why I am delighted that, following today’s debate, it is expected to return for a final time to the other place before becoming law. To that end, I hope hon. and right hon. Members will lend their support to Government amendment (a). Before I turn to the detail of that amendment, let me put on record once again my profound thanks to Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding the Bill through its stages in the House of Lords and for undertaking such broad and extensive engagement with peers throughout its passage.

Lords amendment 33 seeks to make the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure, and Government amendment (a) seeks to give effect to that change. In the debate on consideration of Lords amendments on 13 November, I argued that the affirmative procedure was unnecessary in this instance, in the light of the multiple rounds of consultation that would take place before the relevant regulations were laid. However, I acknowledge the strength of feeling in the other place on this matter, and we have therefore tabled an amendment to give effect to the intention of Lords amendment 33, ensuring that the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation is subject to the affirmative procedure. I thank Lord Lansley for his engagement on this issue, and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for his contributions to previous debates on these regulations.

Government amendment (a) simply removes the unnecessary provisions in Lords amendment 33 in respect of future regulations, for which there are already powers in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Set alongside the existing safeguards built into the legislation, including a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on the draft regulations before they come into effect, I hope the House will agree that Government amendment (a) will ensure that an appropriate amount of parliamentary scrutiny and engagement is able to take place on these provisions ahead of implementation.

I urge the House to support Government amendment (a), and I look forward to receiving the support of Members.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

With the leave of the House, I will close what has been an extremely brief but nevertheless necessary and important debate, which has moved us another step closer to the Bill becoming law. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken for their contributions. In the time I have available to me, I will seek to respond to the points that were made.

The concerns expressed by the Opposition and Liberal Democrat spokesmen have generally been well rehearsed throughout the passage of the Bill, and I do not expect that I will convince them of the merits of its main principles. There is still time for them to change their minds and recognise the benefits that the Bill will bring in terms of productivity, prosperity and economic growth across the country, but the Bill has been debated at length, so I do not intend to comment too widely on those general points—and there is, of course, only a single amendment before us. However, I will make a couple of comments on some points that were raised.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) referred to the commitment that we made in the other place, and he is absolutely right. On 24 November, during consideration of Commons reasons and amendments in the House of Lords, the Government made it clear that

“the first EDPs will address nutrient pollution only”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 November 2025; Vol. 850, c. 1158.]

and that Ministers would return to the House once those first EDPs are in place to issue a statement on their progress. Only at that point would the Secretary of State be able to take forward any other EDPs on environmental issues.

I made, and stand by, the commitment that chalk streams will be explicitly recognised in national planning policy. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) will not have to wait long to find out what that will entail, but I take on board his points about what he expects to see on chalk streams.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the private sector, which was well made, we recognise the importance and increasing role that the private sector, including land managers, habitat banks and ecological consultancies, must play in supporting nature’s recovery. Such businesses also play a crucial role in the planning system more generally. The Bill has been drafted to enable delegation and partnership working with third parties. That may apply both to the development of EDPs, including ecological surveys and impact assessments, and in the undertaking and monitoring of conservation measures. EDPs obviously also represent an opportunity for growth in nature service markets and revenue diversification for farming and land management businesses. I hope that he is somewhat reassured on that point.

On the substantive issue of the national scheme of delegation, we absolutely agree that planning is principally a local activity. Decisions about what to build and where should be shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. That is why the Government are determined to ensure that every part of the country has an up-to-date local plan that is developed through significant resident engagement, and why the Government of course believe that planning committees have an integral role in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. However, it is vital that in exercising that democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on the applications that really warrant member input and not revisiting the same decisions.

As hon. Members know, we have undertaken a technical consultation on the national scheme of delegation. We got a significant response: nearly 600 responses from local planning authorities and developers alike. Broad support was expressed for the tiered approach that we have proposed, but we will take all that feedback into account in drafting the regulations to come, which we expect to lay in the spring. Just to make it clear once again, the draft regulations will be subject to public consultation, and we will respond to the consultation at the same time as we publish the draft regulations for consultation.

This landmark piece of legislation will enable us to overturn a failing status quo that has hampered the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, and thereby impeded progress towards greater prosperity and rising living standards. I am immensely proud of having developed the Bill and taken it through Parliament. As I argued on Second Reading, 14 years of Tory failure

“left the country with a belief that nothing works, that nothing gets built, and that Britain can no longer do big things. This Government refuse to accept the stagnation and decline we were bequeathed. We were elected on the promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this…Bill, we will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal.”—[Official Report, 24 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 745.]

It would be remiss of me to conclude my remarks without thanking those who have made a vital contribution to the Bill. I express my gratitude to all hon. and right hon. Members and peers in the other place who engaged with the Bill throughout its passage. The expertise and insight that has been brought to bear in both Houses has strengthened the Bill in a number of important respects. I thank the shadow Front-Bench teams for the constructive way in which they approached scrutiny in Committee and throughout all stages.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her unwavering support in the Bill’s early stages, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), the Secretary of State, for his firm support over recent months. I thank all stakeholders, including a wide range of development industry experts and organisations and environmental non-governmental organisations, which have engaged extensively with my Department to shape the Bill.

Finally, I thank all the talented officials in my Department who have devoted considerable time and energy to this landmark piece of legislation. I particularly thank the Bill team, ably led first by Alex Bush and now by Holly Harper; expert officials, including Will Burgon, Alicia Ford, Guy Skelton and Andrew Short; and past and present members of my private office, including Jim Carroll, Grace Doody, Josh Gray, Gabe Allason and Matt Davies, for helping to deliver the Bill in record time.

The imminent prospect of this Bill receiving Royal Assent is obviously only a beginning. Once the Bill becomes law, we need to implement its provisions. In that regard, the House should be in no doubt that we intend to move quickly, so that we can realise the full benefits of this legislation for productivity, prosperity and living standards across the whole UK. I very much look forward to working with hon. and right hon. Members, as well as stakeholders, as we progress the Bill’s implementation over the coming months.

Question put and agreed to.

Mental Health Bill [Lords]: Programme (No.2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Mental Health Bill [Lords]:

Consideration of Lords Message

(1) Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to.

Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate. I thank him for his enthusiasm: despite the shadow Minister’s attempt to cast doom and gloom on the situation, there is a huge amount to be positive about in the Ox-Cam corridor. Not only is my hon. Friend a powerful advocate for the interests of his city, but he has long recognised the huge potential in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and the high-potential growth sectors within it, as evidenced by his opening remarks. It is therefore fitting that it is he who has given hon. Members the opportunity to discuss this vital matter.

I also thank the many other hon. Members who have spoken. I am really pleased that it has been such a well-attended debate. I have heard lots of bids for recognition of any kind, including from my hon. Friends the Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) and for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis), and support for funding. Support is undoubtedly required when it comes to things like planning capacity and capability, an issue raised by the hon. Members for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). There were also requests, as I expected, for various grant funding pots across Government. I cannot respond to each request directly, but I assure hon. Members that I will make sure that my ministerial colleagues in the relevant Departments are made aware of them.

In the time available, I will respond to as many as possible of the thematic and broad issues that have been raised. I will start by outlining why the Government are so focused on supercharging growth in the Ox-Cam corridor as part of our ambitious plan for change. As we have heard today, the Oxford-Cambridge region is already an economic powerhouse. It is home to world-leading universities, to globally renowned science and technology firms and to some of the most dynamic innovation clusters in Europe. For a region of 3.5 million people, it punches well above its weight by contributing £143 billion annually to the UK economy.

As this debate has evidenced, the corridor is not just a stretch of land between two cities with world-class universities; its strength lies in the combined economic power of the entire region. With its highly productive and thriving tech sector, Milton Keynes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North rightly raised, is a magnet for innovation and investment. Silverstone contributes advanced manufacturing capabilities. Luton brings global connectivity through its international airport and its strong Eurospace and engineering cluster. Culham is now a thriving centre for research, innovation and a world-recognised fusion technology cluster. I could go on—there are many other examples of places that are doing fantastic things. Together, these and other places within the corridor form an interconnected economy that is driving growth, attracting talent and delivering benefits for those places and for the UK as a whole.

However—and there is strong consensus across the Chamber on this point—we have not yet realised the region’s full potential. It has the potential to become one of the most innovative and economically dynamic areas in the entire world, but as things stand, numerous constraints, from inadequate transport connections to a lack of affordable housing, are preventing it from realising its true potential. That is why the Government are determined to do what is necessary and apply clarity and consistency to drive sustainable economic growth in the region, to the benefit of local communities and national prosperity.

As has been said, there are numerous constraints preventing the corridor from realising its potential. We have had a couple of examples today, and I could add to them. It currently takes two and a half hours to travel by train from Oxford to Cambridge; there is no way to commute by rail directly to Cambridge from places such as Bedford and Milton Keynes; and the lack of affordable housing across the region is a major barrier to securing the world-class talent on which world-class companies depend.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge rightly argued, it is now imperative that, after several false starts, we do what is necessary to drive the growth that we need in the region. That is why the Chancellor made it clear in January that the Ox-Cam corridor would be an economic priority for the Government; it is why she appointed Lord Vallance as the ministerial champion for the region.

If we are to drive the growth we need in the region, we must improve its infrastructure. As hon. Members will know, we have reaffirmed our commitment to deliver East West Rail in full. That will provide a direct rail line between Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge, reconnecting businesses and communities and increasing opportunities for people who live and work in the corridor.

More recently, at the end of October, we committed £120 million to reopen the Cowley branch line in Oxford. That unlocked significant private investment from the Ellison Institute of Technology, which has committed more than £10 billion in science and technology as it expands its Oxford site over the next decade. All of that is on top of our existing projects to improve wider transport infrastructure across the region, such as the upgrade to the A428, which is central to boosting connectivity between Cambridge and Milton Keynes. We are also supporting greater international links for the corridor through our championing of the expansion of Luton airport.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge set out, we need to develop a clear plan for infrastructure in its widest sense. We are therefore working actively across Whitehall and with local partners to consider the region’s needs in areas such as energy and water provision.

[Layla Moran]

I absolutely agree that the Cowley branch line is amazing, but I underline the point that the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) made about the Kennington bridge problem: there is a £70 million hole there. That matters, because the Oxford flood alleviation scheme will protect the Thames valley floodplain, the largest unprotected floodplain in Europe. If the problem is not addressed, the scheme will get held up, which in turn will stifle growth across the region. It is really important—small, but important.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have already had a conversation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) about the importance of Kennington bridge to supporting growth and the transformation of Oxford’s west end, and I recognise the significant interdependencies with the Oxford flood alleviation scheme. The hon. Lady should be in no doubt, and my right hon. Friend is in no doubt, that I have made the point to Ministers in the DFT, as my right hon. Friend has done directly. We recognise the importance of the project.

Another key priority for the corridor is affordable housing, which obviously falls within the responsibilities of my Department. We need to deliver ambitious housing with a strong sense of place, creating sustainable communities with a high quality of life. That is why we are taking a strong place-based focus through the work of my Department in Cambridge and Oxford in particular.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned, we have established the Cambridge Growth Company, which is chaired by Peter Freeman, whom I met again this morning, to drive forward plans for nationally significant growth in greater Cambridge. We are committing up to £400 million to this work to deliver more homes, commercial space and jobs, and have recently announced our intention to consult next year on a centrally led development corporation for the area. As my hon. Friend also mentioned, appointing a high-calibre chief executive to that work will be vital. I can assure him that the search for an exceptional candidate will begin shortly.

I appointed regeneration expert Neale Coleman CBE to lead work on the Oxford growth commission, which is supporting a programme of work to unlock stalled development sites and deliver much-needed housing, including social housing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East will be aware that 60% of our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme is targeted at social rented homes. We encourage providers in Oxford and across the corridor to put in ambitious bids when the programme opens in February.

The corridor could also benefit from our wider work on the new towns programme, with three of the 12 areas highlighted by the new towns taskforce—Tempsford, Milton Keynes and Heyford Park in Oxfordshire—identified as potential sites for development. Looking at the opportunities at the sites will be a key priority for my Department in the coming months. As hon. Members are aware, we have already commenced a strategic environmental assessment to explore the programme as a whole and the most appropriate sites to take forward.

We are also putting innovation first by combining public and private investment to unlock growth and support essential infrastructure. That is why we established the UK’s first AI growth zone in Culham, and why we have been able to support the reopening of the railway at Cowley to fully connect Oxford’s innovation districts. As I think the shadow Minister mentioned, that has enabled us to invest £15 million for the Cambridge innovation hub, creating a world-class space for science and entrepreneurship.

The corridor is already a huge focus for international investment. Lord Stockwood is the Minister who leads on investment in the ministerial delivery group, and his door is always open for any investors who want to look at opportunities in the corridor. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware of Universal’s plans to open a world-class theme park and resort in Bedfordshire, which we believe will generate a £50 billion boost for the economy and create approximately 28,000 jobs. That is an example of the Government’s growth mission in practice and of our realising the opportunities for growth, despite the shadow Minister’s pessimism on that front.

We want to go further, however, and to be ambitious in our support for more investment across the region. I was really pleased that the Chancellor launched our new investment prospectus for the corridor at the regional investment summit in October. It showcased a range of significant opportunities across the region and will be key to our ongoing work to attract inward investment and drive job creation across the corridor.

Before I wind up, I want to stress the importance of the environment. As we drive forward our ambitions for the region, it is essential to address environmental constraints and promote sustainable growth. Water scarcity is a key risk to growth in the region. The Government are determined to ensure that we get the infrastructure in place so that businesses and communities can grow and thrive. As I hope hon. Members are aware, we have fast-tracked plans for two new reservoirs in Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire as part of a £104 billion private sector funding package. We are also implementing innovative approaches to water efficiency in Cambridge.

[Pippa Heylings]

I applaud the Government for confirming and recommitting to those new reservoirs. Will the Minister confirm that the Government understand that the new fens reservoir is enough only for the existing ambitions within the emerging local plan, not for the additional thousands of homes that are being considered by the new development corporation? We need to get the water scarcity group working together now to think about other options. Otherwise, water is a deal breaker.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I assure the hon. Lady that I understand the potential constraint that water may provide. The Cambridge Growth Company, working with local partners in Greater Cambridge, is looking at solutions that can be taken forward. As I say, water efficiency, as well as investment, is needed for infrastructure of the kind that she mentions.

We are recognising the importance of the natural environment by confirming that a new national forest will be established in the corridor to support nature recovery, create green jobs and ensure access to nature for local communities. That is currently in the planning phase, but further details will be released next year.

Lord Vallance cannot respond as the ministerial champion for the corridor, but I stress that this is an example of what mission-led Government means in practice. We have a cross-Whitehall ministerial delivery group that brings together all interested Departments and ministerial champions to ensure that our approach across the region is consistent, joined up and ambitious.

The hon. Members for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) and for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), among others, asked how we are to bring together and co-ordinate infrastructure and investment. There are nationally significant projects, such as East West Rail, but key in my mind on the planning side are the spatial development strategies that will be enabled through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on a sub-regional level—high-level infrastructure frameworks for investment and housing growth that can pull together and co-ordinate cross-boundary in the way we need, supplementing national interventions.

I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge once again for securing the debate and for all the points that he made. I am more than happy to take up land value capture, skills and issues of interest to him. Given the number of meeting requests that I have had, it is probably time for another. Lord Vallance held some engagement sessions for hon. Members earlier this year; I am happy to facilitate, with him, the scheduling of another drop-in session so that hon. Members get the chance to raise specific issues.

The Government are going further and faster to deliver growth. The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor is not a distant aspiration; it is happening now. It will happen in this decade, to address the point my hon. Friend made in opening the debate. We are building the homes and the infrastructure, delivering the opportunities that the region’s communities deserve and ensuring the corridor becomes a world-class innovation supercluster, driving prosperity for generations to come.

Reforming Local Plan Making

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Written Statements

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

Following my written statement concerning local plan making and guidance—[Official Report, 27 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 62WS.]—I am today providing an update on the implementation of our reforms to the plan-making system in England.

This Government were elected on a manifesto that included a clear commitment to build 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament, and all areas are required to play their part. In order to deliver the homes and growth that the country needs, we expect all local planning authorities to make every effort to get up-to-date local plans in place as soon as possible.

The plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our planning system. Local plans are the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their areas need. 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. It is for these reasons that the level of up-to-date plan coverage we inherited is so problematic.

As a Government, we have made a clear commitment to achieving universal local plan coverage. To that end, we have been clear that we intend to drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible. That is why we introduced transitional arrangements for emerging plans in preparation as part of the changes we made to the national planning policy framework in December last year, and why we have recently awarded over £29 million in funding to 188 local planning authorities to support the rapid preparation of plans that reflect that updated framework.

However, the current system is optimised neither for speed, nor for community participation. The Government are therefore clear that more fundamental reform to the system is needed, to ensure that local plans are faster to prepare and simpler for end users to access and understand.

In February, we published the Government’s response to the previous Government’s consultation on implementation of plan-making reforms. I am today publishing more detailed information about the design of the legislation required to implement the new system; how we intend to roll it out across the country, and the resources that will be made available to support plan makers to that end.

Designing and implementing new plan-making regulations

We will shortly lay the regulations that will underpin our new approach to plan making. These will reflect our February 2025 response to the previous Government’s consultation on the new plan-making system, and their development has taken into account responses to that consultation, as well as feedback provided through extensive engagement with the sector.

The regulations will set out a new process for producing plans, with clear steps that a local planning authority will need to take. This should support faster preparation of plans and more frequent updates, in line with our aim of universal coverage of up-to-date plans that reflect local needs.

The Government are today publishing a summary of what we intend these regulations to contain. This will provide plan makers and other key stakeholders with the information they need to familiarise themselves with the new system in advance of it coming into force early next year.

Rolling out the new plan-making system

The Government are acutely aware that many local planning authorities are keen to start work on plans in the new system at the earliest opportunity, to give themselves the best possible chance of success and provide much-needed certainty for their communities.

Having considered carefully responses to the earlier consultation, I am announcing today that we no longer intend to roll the system out in a series of plan-making waves. Instead, local planning authorities will be encouraged to bring plans forward as soon as possible following the commencement of the regulations early in the new year.

While authorities will have discretion over how soon they start their plan, regulations will set out final backstop dates for when plan-making must legally have commenced. Local planning authorities covered by the NPPF transitional arrangements will have to commence formal plan making (gateway 1) by 31 October 2026, while those that have a plan that is already over five years old must commence by 30 April 2027. Further information will be set out in the regulations and in guidance.

We will provide a minimum of £14 million of funding this financial year to support local plan making. This is to help local planning authorities get ambitious plans in place as soon as possible and to support those starting work on a new plan early in the new plan-making system. Further details will be published shortly.

Guidance and tools to support local authorities

In February 2025 we launched a new home for local plan-making resources on gov.uk— https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/create-or-update-a-local-plan

This is already supporting plan makers. Today we are going further by publishing, in draft, the first dedicated guidance and tools to support plan makers bringing forward a local plan in the new system.

For this initial release we have prioritised resources that can best support plan makers in the earliest stages of plan-making, aiding their understanding of how the new system will work and what they could focus on now to get ready. Additional practical tools and templates have been provided by the Planning Advisory Service, which will further support plan makers with their preparations. These resources form part of a growing digital offer to support plan makers to deliver local plans faster. It will be followed by the timely release of tools and services both this year and beyond.

Plan making in the current system

The Government have been clear that they want local planning authorities to continue bringing forward plans as quickly as possible ahead of the new system coming into force. For plans progressing to adoption under the existing plan-making legal framework, we will be setting out in the aforementioned regulations that the final date for submission for examination will be 31 December 2026.

As set out in the revised NPPF published on 12 December 2024, local plans that reached regulation 19 stage on or before 12 March and needed updating as they were meeting less than 80% of local housing need, are expected to be updated and submitted by 12 June 2026, unless updating the plan required the authority to return to regulation 18. If this was the case, authorities have until 31 December 2026 to reach submission.

The Government are committed to taking tough action to ensure that local authorities have up-to-date local plans in place. While we hope the need will not arise, we have made it clear that we are willing to make full use of available intervention powers—including taking over a local authority’s plan making directly—if local plans are not progressed as required.

Duty to co-operate

The new plan-making system provided by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 does not include the duty to co-operate that was inserted into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 through the Localism Act 2011 to help bridge the gap in cross-boundary co-operation resulting from the abolition of regional planning. Instead, the new system will rely on revised national policy and the new tier of strategic planning to ensure effective co-operation between plan-making authorities.

The regulations for the new system will also save the current plan-making system for a period to allow emerging plans to progress to examination by 31 December 2026. Given the above, and to help drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible and progress towards our objective of universal local plan coverage, we have decided not to “save” the duty, thereby removing this requirement for plans in the current system.

Local planning authorities should continue to collaborate across their boundaries, including on unmet development needs from neighbouring areas, and we expect planning inspectors to continue to examine plans in line with the policies in the NPPF on maintaining effective co-operation. I have written to the chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate to ask that these matters are made clear to local plan inspectors.

[HCWS1104]

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

6. What the infrastructure requirements are for supporting the proposed new town at Tempsford.

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

Although Tempsford—along with Crews Hill in Enfield and Leeds South Bank—looks like a promising site, no final decisions on new town locations will be made until the strategic environmental assessment that was commenced on 28 September has concluded. Alongside the SEA process, my Department will continue to engage with local leaders to further develop our understanding of how different locations might meet the Government’s expectations of what a future new towns programme can deliver.

[Ian Sollom]

I thank the Minister for his answer. St Neots is the nearest town to the proposed east coast main line and East West Rail interchange station that would be central to any new town development at Tempsford. Many recognise the opportunities of our area, but my constituents also need clarity, particularly on health and education infrastructure. With multiple local authorities potentially being involved across county boundaries, will the Minister meet me to discuss how, in the event of a new town at Tempsford going ahead, St Neots will be supported and, in turn, how St Neots can support the new town?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I stress again that no decisions have been made or will be made until the SEA process concludes. We have been clear that the next generation of new towns must be well connected, well designed, sustainable, healthy and attractive places where people want to live and, importantly, that they must have the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities established from the outset. I am more than happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman at the point when the SEA concludes and we know the final set of sites that we are taking forward.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The plans for Tempsford vindicate those of us who have long argued for East West Rail and the plans for the area between Cambridge and Oxford, but can my hon. Friend assure me and the House that this Government will be consistent in their support and will not wobble like the previous Government did, which led to a lost decade for these projects?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We will be consistent. Where we make commitments around large-scale housing development or infrastructure that is required to support it, we intend to bring that forward, and my hon. Friend will know that on Greater Cambridge we are out to consultation on a centrally-led development corporation to take forward nationally significant growth in his part of the country.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Pride in Place funding on the Luton South and South Bedfordshire constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

15. What steps his Department is taking to help ensure adequate levels of accountability of estate management companies.

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

This Government are determined to end the injustice of fleecehold entirely, and we will publish consultations before the end of this year on how we best implement the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, on new consumer protection provisions for residential freeholders and on options for reducing the prevalence of private estate management arrangements. We are also committed to ensuring that residential freeholders and leaseholders are protected from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous property agents.

[Lloyd Hatton]

At a recent public meeting, people living at the Chesil Reach and Greys Field development in Chickerell told me about the problems they had been facing with the estate management company FirstPort, with large increases to the service charge, little transparency and a failure to fulfil even the most basic obligations. It is all made so much worse because FirstPort is truly terrible at responding to concerns when they are raised by the public. With all that in mind, can the Minister outline what steps are being taken to hold FirstPort to account for its many failings? How can we deliver much stronger protections for everyone living in properties managed by FirstPort?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As my hon. Friend may be aware, in response to widespread concerns raised in a recent debate on property service charges, I met Martin King, managing director of FirstPort, on 17 November. In our meeting, I pressed Mr King and his associates on a wide range of issues stemming from reports of poor service, and I left him in no doubt that in the Government’s view, FirstPort’s performance is not good enough. I intend to write to FirstPort to follow up on the issues raised, and I will happily deposit a copy of that letter in the Library.

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

I was contacted by residents of Canford Paddock, who wrote to me about ongoing unregulated estate fees, which particularly relate to a suitable alternative natural greenspace—SANG—that was a condition of the development, as it is near a site of special scientific interest. The privately owned SANG is in the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council area, but is not managed by the council. What protections therefore exist for the residents, who are having to pay for a public site managed by a private developer?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In my opening answer, I referenced the consultation we intend to launch soon relating to protections for residential freeholders from that type of charge, where it is unreasonable. Those provisions in the 2024 Act provide for greater transparency. They allow homeowners on freehold estates to take the estate manager to the first-tier tribunal if unreasonable rent charges are being levied. The hon. Lady and her constituents will have a chance to feed into that consultation very soon.

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

16. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that new housing developments are adequately flood-resilient.

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

The national planning policy framework sets out a sequential approach to flood risk management, requiring inappropriate development to be directed away from areas at highest risk and providing strong safeguards where development is necessary in these areas. The updates to the framework made in December last year expanded the requirement for development to provide sustainable drainage systems. Statutory guidance accompanying building regulations promotes flood-resilient buildings in flood-prone areas through approved document C.

[Brian Mathew]

Over the past week, I am sure many of us have seen and felt the proof that our weather is becoming more extreme. That is why it is ever more important to be proactive and forward-thinking in our housing strategy. Does the Minister agree that sites that flood frequently, such as the old golf course in Bradford-on-Avon in my constituency of Melksham and Devizes, should not be included in local plans and not be called upon for development?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I would say a number of things to the hon. Gentleman. First, local plans are tested for their soundness by the Planning Inspectorate. He will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual sites, but I again draw the attention of the House to the strong protections in national planning policy which mean that development that could be vulnerable to flooding should not be allowed in areas of high flood risk.

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

17. What steps he is taking to improve the private rented sector for tenants.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill takes smaller decisions away from councillors. Last week’s direction, announced in a ministerial statement, will take big decisions involving over 150 homes, such as the decision on Oldway Road in Wellington, out of the hands of local councillors. Do the Government no longer trust local people to shape communities and deliver the housing that we need?

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

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I think he misrepresents the proposal that has been announced. It is not an automatic removal for all planning applications relating to more than 150 homes; it is simply a referral process, which applies in other situations already, that allows the Secretary of State to call in individual applications.

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

I recently met representatives of BUUK, a multi-utility infrastructure provider that constructs and operates essential utility assets, and can provide all utilities as a one-stop shop. In view of the Department’s progress on new towns, and the need to rapidly scale up house building, what consideration has the Department given to using innovative delivery models, such as BUUK’s site-wide deployment of utility infrastructure, and thus reducing bureaucracy, streamlining delivery, improving accountability and allowing house builders to get on with building?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Government obviously recognise the importance of ensuring that new housing development is supported by appropriate infrastructure. On the individual company that he references, I will ask my officials to reach out to it directly to discuss its delivery model and find out a bit more about its potential advantages.

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

T3. The Planning Inspectorate recently overturned a decision by North East Lincolnshire council for a development of 200 houses in New Waltham in my constituency. The objections centred on highway capacity. In his report, the inspector acknowledged that the nearby roundabout was over capacity, but said that an increase from 100% to 107% capacity would make very little difference. Clearly, local residents disagree. Would the Minister acknowledge that public confidence in the process—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are on topicals, and Members are stretching the questions.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. Again, he will appreciate that, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning system, I cannot comment on individual applications. I am aware of the concerns that have been raised by Members from across the House about holding directions, issued in particular by National Highways. He may be aware of the reforms that we are making to the statutory consultation system as a whole, which are now out to consultation.

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

In my constituency of Sherwood Forest, we have new housing developments, including in Edwinstowe and Rainworth. Does the Minister agree that when these sites are developed, local authorities and housing companies should ensure appropriate infrastructure is put in place, whether that is GP surgeries, schools or shops, because in the past this has not happened, including in Hucknall?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and she is absolutely right. Local development plans should address infrastructure needs and opportunities. When preparing a local plan, local planning authorities are under a duty to bring forward infrastructure funding statements. However, we realise that there is more to be done to ensure that we get the right infrastructure built in the right time as a development proceeds.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

T4. Cornwall is not a nimby location. It has almost trebled its housing stock in the last 60 years, and it is one of the fastest growing places in the United Kingdom. Yet despite all that, the housing problems of local people have got worse. As the Government impose housing targets on local authorities, what will they do to ensure that the local authority in Cornwall has the power to deliver the homes that we need, rather than delivering for developers’ greed?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which is topical in that I recently met officials from Cornwall council and Members, including hon. Friends, banging the drum for new homes in Cornwall, in particular social and affordable homes. There is ongoing work, including conversations taking place with Homes England, on how we can better support Cornwall to bring forward the homes it needs.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

If it comes forward, Tempsford new town would offer an opportunity to get infrastructure right while building the homes we crucially need, in stark contrast to the chaotic approach to development seen by far too many of my Bedfordshire towns and villages. If it does proceed, will the Minister meet me to ensure we engage on how we can maximise the infrastructure benefits, not just for Tempsford but for my existing communities that are already feeling the strain?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that and other matters of importance to him in his locality. He is a doughty champion for ensuring that, as we bring forward new homes, we get the essential infrastructure and amenities in place as well.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

T5.  I recently met the Water Minister to discuss the Independent Water Commission’s recommendation that we adopt pre-pipe solutions to prevent rainwater further overflowing our sewage system, especially if more homes are built. Will the Minister meet me and Cabinet colleagues to make rainwater harvesting mandatory on all new home builds and major developments?

[Matthew Pennycook]

If memory serves, I answered another question from the hon. Gentleman on precisely this topic. He knows, I think, that we are out to consultation on the matter. If he wants to write to me in the first instance with further details about the type of changes he is seeking, I would be more than happy to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

T9.   Flooding costs the UK economy up to £6 billion a year. Aviva estimates that 2,000 more homes will be at risk of surface water flooding by 2050 in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton alone, as well as 115,000 of the Government’s planned 1.5 million new homes. That is why flood resilience is a growth issue. Will the Minister tell me what he is doing to ensure that new homes are flood resilient, to protect both my constituents and the UK economy?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I made clear in answer to a previous question, strong protections in national planning policy mean that development that could be vulnerable to flooding should not be allowed in areas of high flood risk. Where local planning authorities have approved development in spite of initial objections—for example, from the Environment Agency—they will have had to ensure that the development would be safe through, for example, adequate mitigations.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for Housing and Planning for visiting Ebbsfleet Garden City in my constituency last week. Does the Minister agree that, with an additional 10,000 homes to be built in Ebbsfleet over the next 10 years, to create great places to live we have got to build schools, medical facilities and green spaces—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is enough.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We fully appreciate the importance of finishing Ebbsfleet Central, and while I cannot pre-empt the Department’s business planning, my hon. Friend can be assured that his championing of Ebbsfleet Garden City will ensure that it receives the support it requires through the new—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Sarah Pochin.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

T10.   Will the Minister confirm what oversight the Department has of the central Government grant given to Halton borough council and Merseyflow for the two bridges in Runcorn, bearing in mind that a substantial proportion has gone unspent in recent years? What steps are being taken to ensure that any unspent funds are used transparently?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady will have to write to me and outline which fund precisely she is talking about. I am more than happy to get back to her if she does that.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Meur ras, Mr Speaker. The whole of Cornwall, one of the most deprived regions in northern Europe, missed out on Pride in Place funding, which I can only assume was due to the “trusting your neighbour” indicator being treated as a marker of affluence rather than deprivation in the community needs index. Can the Minister confirm that Cornwall will not be disadvantaged because of that in the next tranche of Pride in Place funding?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for Housing and Planning for his constructive meeting last week on the community infrastructure levy. Could he tell the House whether Liberal Democrat-controlled councils such as mine in Waverley should be charging the community infrastructure levy to private householders who do a straightforward extension on their house?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As this is topicals, I do not want to repeat the extensive conversation that the right hon. Member and I have had. He knows that we are making good-faith efforts to resolve the issue and to bring some redress forward for his resident freeholders.

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

Hillingdon council has applied for exceptional financial support due to years of underfunding under the previous Government and local financial mismanagement. Will the Minister assure me that, as part of our updated funding criteria, councils such as Hillingdon will get more of the funding that they need, and that there will also be improved accountability and management requirements on local councils?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

In rural areas like my constituency, private renting is very expensive and is unaffordable to many. What is the Minister doing to ensure that more housing is available at social rent rather than market rent, which people can simply not afford?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are ensuring, through the new £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, for example, that the types of homes that need extra grant funding have that flexibility—that will include rural housing.

[Mr Speaker]

For the final question, Wendy Morton.

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

What is grey belt, and can the Minister tell us what assessment he has made of the risk it poses to the integrity of the green belt in areas such as mine?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Lady continues to ask me what grey belt is; Google is her friend in this instance. I continue to refer her to the planning practice guidance that covers exactly what it means.

Infrastructure: Cramlington and Killingworth

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) on securing the debate. I also note the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery). I remind hon. Members, as I always do at the outset of my remarks, that due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process, I am unable to comment on individual local plans, planning applications or, for that matter, how individual local planning authorities—including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth—may interpret national planning policy.

As my hon. Friend rightly acknowledged, it is also the case that a number of the specific issues she raised are the sole responsibility of the Department for Transport. I understand from DFT officials that proposals in respect of Moor Farm roundabout are being considered by National Highways as part of the road investment strategy pipeline. While my Department and the DFT obviously work closely together on all aspects of legislation, policy and guidance concerning shared priorities, my hon. Friend will, I hope, appreciate that it is not for me to comment in any way on those specific proposals. As my hon. Friend knows, my ministerial colleagues in the DFT are aware of her strongly held views on the matter, not least as a result of the June Westminster Hall debate that she secured on it, but I will ensure that the points that she has made today are drawn to their attention. I will seek to respond as best I can in the time available to the various matters and questions that she raised, in so far as they fall within my responsibilities.

My hon. Friend drew attention to the importance of local development plans. Local plans are the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development that their areas need. Importantly, local development plans should address needs and opportunities in relation to infrastructure and identify what infrastructure is required and how it might be funded and brought forward. This aspect of a plan, including its relationship with housing, is publicly examined by an independent inspector to determine whether a local plan is sound and can be adopted. Planning practice guidance recommends that, when preparing a local plan, local planning authorities use available evidence of infrastructure requirements to prepare an infrastructure funding statement. Such statements can be used to demonstrate the delivery of infrastructure throughout the plan period. It is precisely because up-to-date local plans are integral to the functioning of our planning system that we are determined to drive local plans to adoption, and progress towards our ambition of achieving universal plan coverage, as quickly as possible.

Although I appreciate that all that does not offer any immediate solution to the transport infrastructure challenges highlighted by my hon. Friend, increased local plan coverage will support better land use and transport planning. I understand that North Tyneside council is progressing a plan in the existing plan-making system and intends to submit by December 2026, and that Northumberland county council intends to prepare a new plan once the new plan-making system commences. I know that my hon. Friend will do whatever she can to support both authorities with progressing their plan-making efforts, and officials from my Department would be happy to meet officers at Northumberland and North Tyneside councils to discuss any specific issues of concern they have in respect of their plan-making activities.

My hon. Friend raised concerns about the role of statutory consultees in the planning system. She drew particular attention to the use of holding directions. The Government recognise that the statutory consultee system is not currently working effectively. In far too many instances, statutory consultee engagement with planning applications is not proactive or proportionate, and advice and information provided are not timely or commensurate with what is necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms. In turn, local planning authorities and developers too frequently provide inadequate or poor-quality information or make blanket and inappropriate referrals to statutory consultees. That said, the role of statutory consultees in the planning system is important. When they engage and are engaged effectively in the planning application process, they support good decision making and high-quality development through the swift provision of expert advice and information on significant environmental, safety, heritage and transport issues.

The Government are determined to improve the functioning of the statutory consultee system, to facilitate confident and timely decision making. To that end, we have this very day published a consultation document on reforms to the system. The objective of the proposals outlined in that document is to ensure that statutory consultees are focused on providing practical, pragmatic and timely advice and expertise in respect of what is necessary to make development acceptable, and that local planning authorities are not engaging with statutory consultees where it is not necessary to do so. If taken forward, the reforms would mean that bodies such as National Highways and Active Travel England would need to consider up to 40% fewer applications. That would mean the saving of time and effort for both house builders and councils. This is an important step towards a faster, more efficient planning system that supports housing delivery.

My hon. Friend asked what my Department is doing to boost growth and advance devolution in the north-east. She will know that local leadership and local growth plans, such as the north-east growth plan, are the cornerstone of this Government’s place-based approach to unlocking economic growth. The interventions and investments identified through those plans are focused on addressing key barriers to growth and building on existing strengths and local assets, such as those she mentioned.

Our shared transport priority recognises the need to improve transport connectivity and unlock housing development and commercial activity by ensuring that new development is supported by the public transport network and that pinch points on the road network are addressed.

[Ian Lavery]

The reality here is quite simple. It is about transport infrastructure versus economic growth. If we cannot get the transport infrastructure right, there is an impact on the potential for economic growth and tens of thousands of jobs in North Tyneside and Northumberland; we will not see any growth in our local economies. Frankly, we cannot afford to allow that to happen. We ask you, Minister—I beg you—to have a look at the impasse. Why is it happening at Moor Farm roundabout when those such as Testo’s roundabout and the Silverlink roundabout, and the roundabouts down the A19 and the Spine Road, have all been given the right investment? We are waiting on something to allow us to develop our areas for our people.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I well understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. It is not for me, as the Minister of State for Housing and Planning, to make determinations on individual transport projects that are being considered through the road investment strategy pipeline. My Department has additional capital funds of its own to deploy for land and infrastructure in respect of the new national housing delivery fund. That will be part of the integrated settlement for the Mayor of the North East to consider but, in this instance, consideration is being taken forward by the DFT as part of the road investment strategy pipeline, as I said. I am giving my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth and Ashington and for Cramlington and Killingworth my perspective as a Minister in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as to how the planning system in the round considers such matters.

The frameworks I was referring to will help to attract public and private investment, unlocking opportunities for people and business across the region. As the North East takes its plan forward, it should feel empowered to use the plan and our shared priorities as the basis for engaging with the Government, the DFT in particular, and other key partners in the region. The plans are backed by £1.79 billion for the North East combined authority from the transport for city regions funding for 2027-28 through to 2031-32, on top of the wider funding from the city region sustainable transport settlements.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth reiterated her long-standing concerns about the various problems associated with freehold estates. She and I have discussed the matter numerous times. We have had debates on the subject and the House considered the issue in some detail recently, on 30 October, so I do not intend to restate the Government’s position in its entirety. Suffice it to say that we remain fully committed to protecting residential freeholders on such estates from unfair charges and to ending the injustice of fleecehold entirely by reducing the prevalence of private estate management arrangements. As we have promised, we will consult on these matters before the end of the year, and my hon. Friend and her constituents can feed into our proposals at that point. We remain on track to bring those consultations forward.

I commend my hon. Friend again for securing the debate. I thank her, as ever, for the clarity with which she made her arguments and in particular demonstrated the link, which we absolutely acknowledge, between strategic infrastructure and housing delivery, and for the passion with which she and my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington spoke in favour of the specific project that they want to see come forward. I emphasise once again that the Government are seeking to drive improvements across the whole system to prevent similar issues in future and to unlock development.

I note the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth on the specific infrastructure projects that she referenced. As I made clear at the start, I have already had a conversation with the relevant Ministers in the DFT, but I will draw their attention to the remarks made today and our Department will continue to engage with the DFT on these and other projects where housing considerations are pertinent.

I look forward to continuing to engage with my hon. Friend to ensure that the changes that the Government have made already, along with those still to come, are to the lasting benefit of her constituents—as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington—and I thank her for bringing these matters to the House’s attention today.

Question put and agreed to.

Renters’ Rights Act: Implementation Road Map

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Written Statements

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

In their manifesto, the Government promised to overhaul the regulation of our country’s insecure and unjust private rented sector. The Renters’ Rights Act delivers on that commitment.

The Act will empower renters by providing them with greater security, rights and protections so that they can stay in their homes for longer, build lives in their communities and avoid the risk of homelessness. It will ensure that we can drive up the quality of privately rented housing so that renters have access to good-quality and safe homes as a matter of course. It will allow us to crack down on the minority of unscrupulous landlords who exploit, mistreat or discriminate against renters.

The Act will also provide tangible benefits for responsible landlords who provide high-quality homes and a good service to their tenants. Not only will it improve the reputation of the sector as a whole, but it will also ensure that good landlords enjoy clear regulation, better access to information, and clear and expanded possession grounds, so that they can regain their properties quickly when necessary.

I am announcing the publication of “Implementing the Renters’ Rights Act 2025: Our roadmap for reforming the Private Rented Sector”.

The document, a copy of which I will deposit in the Library, provides an overview of our implementation plans for the coming years and includes detail on how we will phase our reforms and when they will come into force.

We intend to implement the Act in three distinct phases:

In the first phase of our reforms, we will implement the new tenancy regime. This will apply to both new and existing tenancies and will come into force on 1 May 2026. In this phase, section 21 evictions will finally be abolished; we will move to a simpler tenancy structure where all assured tenancies are periodic; the practice of landlords demanding large amounts of rent in advance from tenants will be brought to an end; rental bidding will be prohibited; and tenants will be given strengthened rights to request a pet.

In the second phase of our reforms, from late 2026, we will introduce the new private rented sector database and private rented sector landlord ombudsman service. The database will help landlords understand their obligations and demonstrate compliance; will increase transparency and facilitate better access to information for tenants so they can take effective action to enforce their rights; and will support local authorities with effective enforcement. The ombudsman will provide quick, fair, impartial and binding resolution for tenants’ complaints about their landlord and will bring tenant-landlord complaint resolution in line with established redress practices for tenants in social housing and consumers of property agent services.

In the third and final phase of our reforms—dates to be settled following consultation—we will apply a modernised decent homes standard and Awaab’s law to the private rented sector for the first time. Extending the decent homes standard to the sector will give renters safer, better value homes and remove the blight of poor-quality homes in local communities. Extending Awaab’s law will set clear legal expectations about the timeframes within which landlords in the private rented sector must take action to make homes safe where they contain serious hazards.

The Government look forward to ongoing engagement with all stakeholders to ensure a smooth implementation of this transformative Act.

[HCWS1060]