The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 General Committees

[The Chair]

Given the heatwave that we are experiencing, I am happy to give blanket dispensation on the jacket rule, so Members can take them off if they so wish.

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. The order was laid before the House on 4 June. It will establish a centrally led urban development corporation in greater Cambridge, pursuant to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which provides that the Secretary of State may designate an urban development area only when they are of the opinion that it is expedient and in the national interest, and following a public consultation.

As the Committee will be aware, the economic growth of Cambridge over recent years has been a phenomenal success. It now has arguably the most intensive and innovative science and technology cluster in the world, with more than 5,000 knowledge-intensive firms based in and around the city, employing tens of thousands of skilled workers and generating in excess of £18 billion in annual turnover. However, the supply-side constraints that are evident across the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, from infrastructure deficiencies to housing affordability, are particularly acute in greater Cambridge. Its continued position as a world-leading centre of innovation, its ability to make an even greater contribution to the UK economy, and the quality of life experienced by its existing residents are all dependent on removing those constraints.

Local institutions and leaders have worked hard to support the rapid growth of greater Cambridge over recent years. Over the past two years, the Government have intervened alongside local authorities and the greater Cambridge shared planning service to address pressing constraints such as water scarcity. Such action has helped to unlock more than 9,000 homes, 500,000 square feet of commercial space, and a new cancer research hospital.

It is widely accepted, however, that delivering development at the scale and pace necessary to realise the full potential of greater Cambridge is beyond the capacity and powers of existing institutions. It was for that reason that, between 4 February and 1 April this year, we consulted on proposals to establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation—a centrally led urban development corporation with the legislative powers, focus and resources to unlock the area’s full potential. I once again thank all the organisations and individuals who took the time to engage with the process.

The prevailing theme among responses was that infrastructure delivery in greater Cambridge has been slow and piecemeal, or has failed to keep pace with historical population and employment growth, and that that was having a detrimental impact on residents’ quality of life, constraining the region’s ability to scale its globally significant innovation economy, and reducing business and investor confidence. Individuals and organisations widely reported that greater Cambridge has lacked a strategic, co-ordinated and long-term approach to the rapid delivery of primary infrastructure. Complex governance, fragmented decision making and uncertain long-term funding were identified as obstacles to delivering at the scale and pace required.

While fully acknowledging the strong local efforts that have been made and the excellent performance of the greater Cambridge shared planning service, the consultation confirmed the Government’s belief that the scale and complexity of the development challenges faced by greater Cambridge required a bold and long-term approach, and a genuine step change in how infrastructure is planned, co-ordinated and delivered; and that the establishment of a centrally led development corporation, combining responsiveness to local priorities with national leadership and influence, would be the most effective way to unlock nationally significant growth at the pace and scale required.

The development corporation established by the order will unleash ambitious and high-quality sustainable growth in greater Cambridge to the benefit of its existing communities and the country as a whole. Once established, the corporation’s boundary will align with the current combined administrative areas of Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council. This broad development area will underpin the corporation’s ability to deliver its objectives and make effective use of its powers, enabling the scale of growth necessary to deliver on both local and national interests.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The Minister is always very generous with his time. He has just explained the boundaries of the development corporation. Cambridge is going through local government reorganisation. How will that affect the order and the boundaries that he has just described?

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a very good question. In short, although I am more than happy to expand on this response, the development corporation’s boundary does not pre-empt or prejudice the outcome of the recent consultation on local government reorganisation. The Government would, of course, consider, through due process, any changes to the development area that are deemed necessary as a result of any local government reorganisation but, as I say, that does not pre-empt or prejudice what we are taking through by dint of this order.

The Government have worked hard to sustain a constructive relationship with local leaders and key partners. We want the development corporation to be a joint national and local endeavour that combines local insight and input from local democratically elected representatives with national leadership powers and investment. As such, the democratically elected leaders of Cambridge city council, South Cambridgeshire district council and Cambridgeshire county council, as well as the democratically elected Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, will be invited to join the board. The Government also recognise that input from residents and communities will be integral to the success of the development corporation. That is why it will be asked to create exemplary engagement structures to enable broader community participation, including from residents, community representatives, and town and parish councillors.

The order will establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation as an independent corporate entity, allowing it to be granted infrastructure, financial and land assembly powers in due course. The powers and functions order, which my officials are preparing for consideration later this year, will equip the development corporation with planning powers, including the ability to determine planning applications above a minimum threshold of 250 homes, and non-residential applications above 5,000 square metres. Our intention is that the development corporation will eventually take on plan-making powers. However, we believe the optimal way to kick-start growth in the plan-led system is to take a phased approach. As such, the development corporation will exercise plan-making powers only once the draft local plan has been adopted. The Government are clear that adoption of the draft local plan should not limit or delay future ambition for growth and, subject to its adoption, successor plans will be expected to build positively on the draft local plan’s foundations to support continued growth.

The development corporation will also be granted development management powers for strategic sites within its boundary. Only applications for sites of strategic importance will be determined by the development corporation. The vast majority of planning applications will continue to be determined by the greater Cambridge shared planning service. The Government recognise and accept that almost all strategic residential developments will be of over 1,000 houses, flats, or houses and flats. However, to account for the possibility of residential development prejudicing the delivery of sites of strategic importance, residential thresholds will be set at a minimum of 250 houses, flats, or houses and flats. Any application that is determined by the development corporation will still be considered against national and local policy, and subject to public consultation as normal. That combination of powers will provide the development corporation with the tools, certainty and investment needed for sustainable infrastructure-first growth. The model will form an exemplar for integrated powers and funding, and set the standard for housing development elsewhere in the country.

The order will establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation as an entity accountable to the Secretary of State and set out the geographical boundary in which it may operate. The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation will focus on the delivery of strategic, nationally significant growth within its boundary. It will work collaboratively with local authorities both within and bordering its development area, as well as with transport bodies and utility providers, to unlock development opportunities and boost economic growth.

I extend my sincere thanks to local leaders and their officers in greater Cambridge for their hard work and ongoing constructive collaboration in pursuit of our shared objective of supporting ambitious and high-quality sustainable growth in Cambridge and its environs. I also thank Peter Freeman for his continued leadership of the Cambridge Growth Company and commend the CGC for everything it has done to date to help to facilitate the delivery of new homes, infrastructure, and commercial and laboratory space. I hope that hon. Members agree on the value of establishing the development corporation. I commend the order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

That was a long list of perfectly reasonable and fair questions, which I will seek to answer in turn. If I miss any, hon. Members are more than welcome to intervene on me.

I will begin with the questions from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. The order establishes, as a corporate body, a centrally led urban development corporation, not a mayoral development corporation. The sitting Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will have representation, with a seat on the board, but the mayor and his area will not be controlling this development corporation; it is very different from the mayoral development corporation model. I think the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough has designs on a mayoral development corporation for Peterborough, but that would be a delivery vehicle very different from the one we are establishing here. The mayor will, however, have representation on the board along with other local authority leaders.

The shadow Minister asked me about the planning committee modernisation statutory instrument that we voted on today. That will apply to local authority committees in the ways we discussed when we considered that instrument in Committee. As I said in my opening remarks, we expect the vast majority of planning applications still to be determined by the greater Cambridge shared planning service. I will come on to why we have taken the development management powers we propose to in the functions order that will follow in the months to come, and why we have chosen the 250-home threshold, but planning committees are a local planning authority designation. The development corporation, as an entity and delivery vehicle in itself, will take particular development management powers to determine specific sites, which I will come on to in a moment. The same goes for conditions that would be associated with a planning permission.

We think those development management powers are important to accelerate strategic growth in an integrated and co-ordinated way. The decision to grant development management powers to the development corporation for strategic sites reflects the need to balance local and national planning merits to facilitate nationally significant growth in the area. I bring us back to the objective of the development corporation to facilitate nationally significant growth, which local leaders—they have made great efforts over recent years—are quite clear that they are not able to do. When it comes to some very serious constraints—the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire mentioned water scarcity—local leaders have not been able on their own to remove some of these barriers. That is what the development corporation is for.

Development management powers will be granted for sites of strategic importance. We will define what “strategic importance” means at a later date, but as a proxy for a definition of strategic sites, the development corporation will use the minimum thresholds that we outlined in the Government response to the consultation on 3 June. We gave a flavour in the consultation of the type of sites we have in mind. I think we listed seven sites, which are major sites already identified in the local plan. I hope that gives the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire a sense of the type of strategic sites that we are talking about.

We need the threshold because the development corporation can delegate decision making to the greater Cambridge shared planning service, but that service is unable to reverse-delegate the determination of planning applications to the development corporation. As such, we judge that if the threshold for residential development were set at a level higher than 250 homes, the development corporation would be unable to exercise development management powers for any application that fell below that threshold, even if the application could prejudice the delivery of a strategic site.

That is the central objective of the 250-home threshold. We do need the development corporation to have the ability to move in and determine an application on a site that might impact the delivery of a strategic site. As I said to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and the Committee, we will come back and define a “strategic site” in more detail as we take forward the functions order later this year. To reassure him, that functions order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure; we will have a chance to debate and vote on it in the House. [Official Report, 8 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 422.] (Correction.)

The shadow Minister raised a point about boundaries. Again, this is all outlined in the 3 June Government response to the consultation: 42% of respondents to the consultation agreed with our proposed boundaries—the Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council administrative areas—23% felt they were too small, and 33% felt they were too wide. We recognise that there is a wide range of views about what the precise boundaries should be, but we judge that the boundaries as consulted on are a broad development area that will allow and underpin the development corporation’s ability to deliver its objectives and make effective use of its powers, enabling the scale of growth that is necessary to deliver on both local and national interests.

As set out in the consultation, the proposed boundary encompasses the land required to support strategic infrastructure, providing a sufficiently broad geography to maximise funding opportunities and enable land value capture to support social and environmental projects. Aligning the boundaries with those of Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council will simplify the governance arrangements in this area—that has been a real source of challenge over recent years—and enable the development corporation to support the delivery of the draft local plan.

I am glad that the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire mentioned the draft local plan. We are working very closely with the shared planning service and democratically elected local leaders. We want to see that draft plan adopted. On the Secretary of State’s powers as they apply to the development corporation and its ability to take planning powers in the future, we do want it to have those powers; we think that is absolutely necessary to set out a spatial plan for the years to come. This development corporation will exist for at least 25 years, perhaps longer, but we want to see that local plan in place in the first instance, and the Government are doing what we can to support that process and help the authority get the plan in place.

On local government reorganisation, to add briefly to what I said in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Broxbourne, proposals for reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough were received in November 2025 and recently went out to consultation. As I said, the development corporation’s boundary, established by this order, does not pre-empt or prejudice the outcome of LGR in that regard.

I push back quite strongly on the challenge from the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire that we have not outlined in any way the objectives of the development corporation. If he reads the Government response to the consultation, published on 3 June, he will see exhaustive explanations of why we think the development corporation is necessary and the sort of capacity, powers and ability it can leverage in on private finance, land assembly and all these matters to meet the shared objectives for the area. We will build on that with the functions order—we will detail precisely how the planning powers and the development management powers will come through—but to assure him, the development corporation will have powers to directly plan, fund and deliver essential infrastructure to support regeneration, including utilities such as water. Targets for the development corporation’s objectives will be set across the development corporation’s corporate plan, framework document and development plan, and in individual business plans for all projects. We will have a chance to scrutinise those documents, among others.

I hope that I have responded to all the points raised by hon. Members. I think this is a fairly straightforward and simple instrument, which establishes the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation as a legal body and sets the geographical boundaries in which that development corporation will operate. I commend the order to the Committee.

Question put.

Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. The regulations were laid before the House on 1 June and, following a minor correction, re-laid on 8 June.

In considering this instrument today we are not debating the principle of modernising planning committees. The enabling powers for these regulations are contained in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which was subject to extensive scrutiny by both Houses and approved by them. Before I turn to the detail of the regulations, it is important to set out the extensive consultation and engagement that we have undertaken on these measures.

As Committee members may recall, the commitment to improve local planning decision making by modernising planning committees was made in the King’s Speech 2024. Following that announcement, we published a planning reform working paper on planning committees that set out a range of proposals, including three options in respect of a national scheme of delegation designed to bring greater standardisation over the operation of committees and give greater certainty to applicants. Taking into account the valuable feedback we received to that working paper, three measures were introduced to the Planning and Infrastructure Act. The first gives a new power to the Secretary of State to set out which planning functions should be delegated to planning officers for a decision, and which should instead go to a planning committee or sub-committee. The second gives a new power to the Secretary of State to control the size and composition of planning committees. The third imposes a new requirement for members of planning committees to be trained and certified in key elements of planning law and policy.

During the course of the Act’s progress, we undertook a public consultation on detailed proposals in respect of the three measures. Our response to that consultation committed the Government to introduce, through regulations, a two-tier national scheme of delegation to set a maximum cap for planning committees of 13 members, and to undertake further stakeholder engagement with a view to designing a creditable and cost-effective system for training committee members.

As required by the Act, a further statutory consultation on the draft regulations for the national scheme of delegation and cap on committee size and associated guidance was undertaken earlier this year. The Government response confirmed that some changes would be made to the regulations as a result of feedback received, including imposing a size threshold in relation to reserved matters applications, which would determine whether they are in schedule 1 or 2. The result is the draft regulations before us. It is the Government’s considered view that they are integral to driving up rates of house building, and that they will improve, not undermine, the vital role played by planning committees.

As I was at pains to stress throughout the passage of the Act, the Government recognise the essential role that planning committees play in ensuring that decisions about what to build and where are shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. However, in providing essential local democratic oversight of planning decisions, we are determined to ensure that planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on larger and more complex applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions.

I reiterate that these regulations do not alter in any way existing requirements to consult on planning applications, the right of residents and elected councillors in any given local planning authority area to submit representations and make objections in respect of planning applications, or the fact that any such comments must be taken into consideration when determining applications, regardless of the decision maker. They are instead designed to ensure that planning committees function effectively, and that they are focused on the development proposals that matter most to an area, rather than spending time on minor or technical applications that can be efficiently determined by expert planning officers, bound by strict requirements in the way they make decisions on applications.

The principle of schemes of delegation is, of course, uncontested. At present, every local planning authority has its own scheme of delegation to identify the circumstances in which planning decisions are taken by planning committees rather than delegated to officers. Most local planning authorities already delegate a significant proportion of applications to such officers, such that 96% of planning decisions in England are already not made by planning committees. The problem is that there is significant variation across the country, and this creates risk and uncertainty in the system. For those reasons, we are introducing the national scheme of delegation. It will provide greater consistency and certainty across England about who in a local planning authority will be responsible for making planning decisions.

Let me briefly explain how the national scheme of delegation will work. It categorises planning applications into two types: those that must always be delegated to planning officers, as set out in schedule 1; and those that may, subject to a gateway test, be referred to a planning committee, as set out in schedule 2. The types of applications that must be determined by an officer include applications for minor residential development, that is schemes of fewer than 10 dwellings; minor commercial development; householder development; and reserved matters applications from proposals where the outline planning permission is for fewer than 500 dwellings. The types of application that fall into schedule 2 include larger applications for planning permission not set out in schedule 1, reserved matters applications where the outline permission is for more than 500 dwellings, and listed building consent applications.

We anticipate that, in many circumstances, schedule 2 applications will continue to be routinely delegated to officers, as is already the case across the country. However, councils can decide to take them to committee if they feel it would be appropriate. To do so, the application must meet the requirements of the gateway test. It will be the responsibility of a nominated officer, usually the chief planner or equivalent, and a nominated member, usually the chair of the committee, to determine whether an application meets those criteria.

The gateway test will operate as follows. Applications will be determined by a planning officer unless the nominated officer and member agree that it meets at least one of the following criteria: where the application raises an economic, social or environmental issue of significance for the local area; or where it raises a significant planning matter, having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations.

We recognise that for applications involving a local authority itself, or an officer or member of that authority, there may sometimes be cases where, in the interests of transparency, committee scrutiny is merited. To allow for that, we have provided in the regulations that such applications, regardless of whether they would fall into schedules 1 or 2, can be referred to committee with the agreement of the nominated officer and nominated member, even if they do not meet the specific criteria.

To support local planning authorities in implementing the national scheme of delegation, and to ensure a consistent approach, we have published statutory guidance that they must have regard to. We have also asked the planning advisory service to provide support and training to both the officers and the members of local planning authorities in implementing the new approach to the operation of the delegation of decision making. As I mentioned, we are also placing a cap on the number of members who can sit on a planning committee. That is intended to allow committees to have more focused and higher quality debates. The cap has been set at 13 members, to accommodate those local planning authorities that have members from multiple political parties to ensure appropriate representation.

To conclude, planning is and will remain principally a local activity because 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 area has an up-to-date local plan developed through resident engagement, and it is why we remain firmly of the view that planning committees have an integral role to play in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. It is, however, vital that in exercising that democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions.

As I made clear at the outset of my remarks, we have undertaken extensive consultation and engagement on these measures. We published an initial working paper. We held two rounds of public consultation and various roundtables and events, including with local authority officers, chairs of planning committees, house builders and sector bodies. Some of those events were led by the planning advisory service on behalf of the Department. We have listened and given careful consideration to the wide range of views expressed by those who have an interest in the matter. Those views and existing best practice across the country have informed the regulations. I hope that hon. Members agree that the changes we seek to make are a reasonable and proportionate means of improving the quality and speed of decision making in local planning authorities. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I knew that this instrument would provoke strong feelings, and it has done so, but I very much welcome the scrutiny provided by hon. Members and the considered contributions they have made.

The first thing to say is that a principled case has been advanced—as it was during the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—from members of the Committee who do not believe that a national scheme of delegation is warranted in any way. We have heard some of those arguments today, but, quite frankly, the time for those arguments has passed; the Act containing the enabling powers for these regulations passed both Houses after extensive scrutiny. We are talking about the form that the regulations take in implementing the national scheme of delegation, and we have undertaken extensive consultation and engagement to try to get the balance right in terms of the two-tier system we are introducing.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, put a number of questions to me. The first touched on the rationale for the regulations in a fundamental way. As I said, we recognise the important role that planning committees play in ensuring local democratic oversight, and they will continue, once the regulations have passed—if they pass—to play a crucial role in planning decision making in the future. Across the country, we have a plethora of local schemes of delegation with huge variation, and that postcode lottery of schemes of delegation creates uncertainty. It slows down the planning system in important respects, which is why these regulations are required. We have made a raft of changes through our reforms to the planning system and are introducing a new system to bring forward local plans quicker.

The hon. Member for Broxbourne mentioned the importance of local plans, and I absolutely agree with him. It is a travesty that we inherited a system with such low local plan coverage that was up to date. We have made concerted efforts, as he knows, to try and drive up coverage of local plans across the country, to introduce a more rules-based national planning policy framework and to resource planning authorities to ensure that they can do the job they need to. Planning committees will continue to play a vital role in exercising democratic oversight, but we have to ensure that they are operating as effectively as possible and are focused on larger, more complex applications where member input is required.

The Government trust expert planning officers. The question for us is finding the right level of trust and empowerment to allow them to resolve the applications that we propose to put in schedule 1 of the regulations more quickly in the service of residents and businesses. Only 5% of minor residential development applications are determined by committee, but that 5% adds a lot of time to what are, when it comes to residential development for example, quite minor applications. Local input in planning decisions will continue to be incredibly important, including from elected representatives. We believe that the best way for councillors and communities to engage in development is through the local plan process; that is the point at which local councillors can ensure that the local policies that planning officers would have to follow in respect of schedule 1 applications are in place. The changes we are making through the national scheme of delegation will support that plan-led system. They will ensure that planning committees operate as effectively as possible by focusing, as I have said, on those major decisions.

We recognise that some planning applications are potentially complex or controversial. That is why we have created a framework where schedule 2 applications can go to committee for consultation when additional scrutiny is necessary. For example, schedule 2 includes listed building consent applications. In the vast majority of cases, we would expect those to be delegated to officers without any consequence, but there will always be a few cases that raise more significant issues and where members will want to take a view. Where a controversial development is proposed that has not been planned for, councillors can still play a key role in representing the voices of their constituents.

I absolutely refute the Liberal Democrat spokesman’s argument that the regulations completely remove the role of councillors or cause the death of local democracy, as he sought to portray it. Local people will still be able to make representations on individual developments through the application process. Local councillors will be able to submit their views or objections, and, as the hon. Member knows because of his experience in the planning service, those concerns must be taken into account when, in the case of schedule 1 applications, the officer is reaching a decision. We are not changing anything in that respect.

[Gideon Amos]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. As he knows, we fundamentally disagree with these proposals. He has just illustrated the point that councillors will be reduced to the same role as members of the public: they may make representations, but that is it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

And we think that is right on schedule 1 applications. They are a very different proposition from schedule 2 applications, which we think members should be able to take a view on through the gateway test.

[Lewis Cocking]

The Minister mentions local plans and schemes of delegation. If a developer comes forward with a planning application that is not allocated within the local plan, how will that be dealt with? Will it be deal with through schemes of delegation, or would it automatically go to committee?

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a fair question. As I set out in my opening remarks, if such an application were to meet the conditions in schedule 2, it would go in front of the chief planning officer, in most instances, and the chair of the planning committee, and a gateway test would determine whether it meets the criteria that I have set out. If it does, the local authority can put the decision in front of elected members, as happens now with an officer recommendation, so we are not changing that. I have listed the types of application that fall under schedule 1: minor residential development under 10 units, minor commercial development and so on. There might be a principled difference of opinion here, which I respect, but we do think that expert planning officers should be able to take decisions on those matters.

The hon. Member for Orpington challenged me on the impact of the fact that 96% are already not determined by committee. In a sense, he was saying, “What’s the point of these regulations, given that we have local schemes of delegation doing the job?” As highlighted in the impact assessment for these reforms to the Planning and Infrastructure Act, we expect these reforms to have a small but positive impact on the delivery of housing in this Parliament. We have never suggested that they are a silver bullet for all the issues that we face in the planning system. The Act’s impact assessment covered a number of options, including our lead option of delegating when applications are in line with local plans. We explored that issue, but the regulations take a more structured approach to delegating along the lines of application type, so we need to update the assessment to reflect that.

We recognise that only approximately 4% of decisions are made by committees at present, but that percentage represents a substantial proportion of total units in the planning process because many major applications go to planning committee for consideration. Under the circumstances that we have outlined for the gateway test, they might not necessarily do so as they might not meet those criteria. Streamlining the planning process will make a meaningful contribution to the delivery of much-needed housing and sustainable communities.

[Gareth Bacon]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. I understand his point that the 4% of applications contain a significant number of units, but does he have a figure for that? How many extra units will be granted planning permission as a result of this change?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments that I have just made. The impact assessment for the Act was published on the basis of a particular scenario, which we have modified. We need to update the impact assessment and we will do so in due course so that he has a better sense of the impact.

The impact is tangible and real, in terms of what can go through schedule 2. We also anticipate that it will mean less time and resource spent on preparing for committee meetings for smaller applications in schedule 1, so it will speed up the decision-making process more broadly and free up important officer time to focus on larger applications that have a real impact on housing delivery.

Several hon. Members mentioned councillors’ ability to call in applications, which we are removing. The regulations do not require local authorities to put every schedule 2 application through the gateway test. It will be for individual local planning authorities to put in place their own arrangements for how the consideration of cases for referral to committee will operate in practice. In other words, it will be open to individual LPAs to triage their schedule 2 applications in ways that are appropriate for them so that only certain schedule 2 applications are considered by the nominated officer and member. Under those arrangements, it would be open to a local planning authority to include a mechanism for councillors to ask for applications that fall under schedule 2 to be considered under the gateway test, and if they meet that test they can be looked at by committee.

[Chris Hinchliff]

Is that not potentially reintroducing the same level of discretion and difference across the country if local planning authorities choose to use those powers in different ways?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not believe so, because local planning authority schemes must adhere to planning regulations and meet the gateway test—in the sense of what can pass a committee—and the statutory guidance to which they must have regard. In a sense, we want to ensure that applications passing through the gateway and considered by committees are larger, complex and more controversial cases, and that less significant applications are determined by planning officers.

That leads me to the legal obligations on officers. In a sense, the question has been put to me, “Can we trust local planning officers to make these decisions?” I must make it clear that officers working for local authorities are bound by strict requirements in the way they make decisions on applications. They must, by law, take all material considerations into account, including relevant parts of a local plan—that is why having an up-to-date local plan in place is so significant—and national planning policy. The law also requires their decisions to be rational. Planning officers’ actions must adhere to codes of conduct, be they those of the local planning authority or of the professional institutes to which they belong. Taken together, we think that these measures provide strong safeguards to underpin the integrity of decisions.

[Lewis Cocking]

The Minister is being very generous with his time. How can the public deal with planning officers who get it wrong? At the moment, if a planning committee gets it wrong, the public can go out to the ballot box and vote for someone else. They cannot do that with planning officers who make the wrong decisions.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Planning officers routinely make decisions without applications going to committee. We trust them to do so; they are bound by the requirements that I have just set out.

The hon. Member touches on a point that I was going to come to. It is important to ensure that we have a highly skilled planning profession and the right training and support in place for officers. We are investing in good decision making by planning officers in councils across the country. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Department has a planning capacity and capability programme that provides a broad range of support covering recruitment, skills, development, training and funding to ensure that local planning authorities have the capability and capacity that they need. Our approach to supporting planning recruitment and skills is deliberately demand-led, allowing local planning authorities to deploy support in line with their specific pressures. As he will know, councils have the flexibility to use support to recruit specialist skills or to upskill existing staff.

To ensure that I respond to all questions, I will make two final points. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, asked about instances in which the local authority is the decision maker or a local authority member is involved. I addressed that in my opening remarks, but it is worth clarifying again. We recognise that, for applications involving a local authority or an officer or member of that authority, committee scrutiny is merited in some cases, in the interests of transparency. To allow for that, we have provided in the regulations that such applications, regardless of whether they fall into schedule 1 or schedule 2, can be referred to committee with the agreement of the nominated officer and nominated member, even if they do not meet the specific criteria.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North made a powerful speech in support of the regulations. However, he asked how we determined which types of application fall into schedule 1. On the specific question of minor residential development, we took that as the appropriate threshold because, unlike in policy, in legislation—the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015—there is a distinction between minor and major development. With “minor development” being under 10 units, we thought that that was the appropriate level to set when it comes to residential developments. Commercial and housing development also falls into schedule 2.

Importantly, a key addition that we made to the regulations following consultation was the requirement for the regulations to be reviewed within two years of their coming into force. That will give us the opportunity to monitor their implementation and identify any issues or unintended consequences resulting from particular types of application placement. That review will take place by 31 October 2028.

Notwithstanding the range of issues and considerations that we have discussed, let me draw the Committee back to what the regulations seek to achieve. They are about improving the quality and speed of decision making so that the housing and growth that local communities want—and desperately need in many cases—can be delivered more quickly. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Houses in Multiple Occupation

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) on securing this important debate, and I thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for their contributions.

I fully appreciate the concerns my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields raises about houses in multiple occupation, and in particular about their excessive concentration in two parts of her constituency, and the many problems that flow from that, which she described so vividly. HMOs can play an important role in the housing market, providing relatively low-cost accommodation for rent, as my hon. Friend acknowledged. However, it is right that local planning authorities can act, where appropriate, to minimise any negative impacts that such houses may have on local communities.

My hon. Friend made a number of points about the interaction between HMOs and the planning system. As she rightly said, larger HMOs always require an application to the local planning authority for planning permission. However, nationally permitted development rights allow for existing homes to change use and become a small HMO for up to six people without the need for a planning application. Such small HMOs are also able to change back to standard family homes under similar rights. We recognise that the free operation of these nationally permitted development rights is not always suitable for all areas, which is precisely why local planning authorities can remove permitted development rights in a specific area by introducing an article 4 direction, following consultation with the affected local community.

As my hon. Friend made clear, South Tyneside council has introduced a borough-wide article 4 direction, which means that all new HMOs in its area will need a planning application, regardless of their size. She has previously drawn attention to the impact of the growth of HMOs in her constituency, and will therefore welcome that change; I know the role that she played in pressing her local authority to make it.

All planning permission applications are considered by the local planning authority in question in line with the development plan for the area, and in consultation with the local community. It is therefore key that local planning authorities have relevant and up-to-date policies in place. As my hon. Friend will be aware, South Tyneside council last adopted a local plan back in 2007, which means that the policies in the plan are significantly out of date. It is one of the oldest plans submitted in the legacy planning system.

Following the council’s repeated failure to agree to submit its new plan for examination by an independent inspector, I intervened to ensure that the plan progressed to examination. I am pleased to report that the examination hearings have been completed, and we await the inspector’s final report. Following receipt of the inspector’s report, and in line with my intervention direction, the council will need to consider adoption of the plan. Adopting the plan will ensure that the council has up-to-date planning policies in place for South Tyneside, which is hugely important.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government recently consulted on a new national planning policy framework. The consultation included proposals for a more flexible policy on the use of article 4 directions, so that local planning authorities can remove nationally permitted development rights where that is necessary to safeguard the amenity or wellbeing of an area—where, for instance, there is an over-concentration of small HMOs. We are analysing the feedback received on that consultation, and will publish our response in due course.

It is essential that HMOs are safe and well managed, which is why all HMOs are subject to management regulations. These regulations place duties on managers of HMOs to take safety measures, supply and maintain gas and electricity, and maintain common parts, fixtures and fittings. In addition, all local planning authorities must license HMOs with five or more people from two or more households who share facilities such as a kitchen or bathroom. Local authorities also have the power to require HMOs to be licensed where there are three or more people from two or more households sharing facilities. This means in practice that most HMOs can be licensed, where necessary. Local authorities can impose licence conditions to ensure that landlords effectively manage HMOs, and also have the power to inspect properties without notice, where they believe an offence has been committed under HMO legislation.

Furthermore, the licence holder must undergo a fit and proper person test to assure a local authority that they can manage the property responsibly, safely and lawfully. I note my hon. Friend’s concerns about the operation of that test and its potential shortcomings, and I am more than happy to sit down with her and work through some of the examples she provided, so that we can learn more about its operation. If a local authority finds that the licence holder is no longer fit and proper—for instance, where they have committed a serious or repeated breach of licence conditions—it can revoke their licence. Local authorities have additional robust powers to tackle landlords who breach HMO regulations. That includes civil penalties of up to £40,000, rent repayment orders.

[Emma Lewell]

The Minister is right: regulations are in place and there is a fit-and-proper test—but they are not working. That is why I secured the debate and why my colleagues and I are asking for stronger regulation. Everything that is in place is simply not working.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have said, I am more than happy to sit down with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to hear their suggestions on where the regulations need to be strengthened. As a Department, our experience has been that, in some areas of the country, the powers are being properly enforced and the regulations are working. I want to understand more, if she is able to provide the evidence.

[Emma Lewell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way in a second, but let me briefly mention resources, which are really important.

It is vital that councils have the capacity to take action where needed. That is why we have provided £18.2 million in 2025-26 and £41.1 million for 2026-27 to support the new enforcement responsibilities that local authorities have taken on under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We plan to establish a more sustainable funding system for enforcement in the private rented sector over the longer term based on future database revenue fees, but, again, I want to understand the challenges that particular local authorities are facing in that respect.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me just give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields before I come to the hon. Gentleman.

[Emma Lewell]

Can the Minister say how many licences have been revoked?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not have that information to hand. I am more than happy to follow up in correspondence with my hon. Friend, as I said. I will bring that data, and any further data we have available, to any meeting that we might have on this subject.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I suspect the answer to the hon. Lady’s question is “very few indeed.”

The issue in my Bridgwater constituency is that Hinkley Point C—a nuclear power station—is being constructed a few miles away. Many thousands of good workers have come to the town—their number will peak at around 12,000 in the next couple of years. The local council needs the power to restrict the number of HMOs in any particular street or district. Clearly, there is a housing need, so one understands why landlords convert those houses, but the resulting economic pressures bring a change upon the nature of certain areas. Councils need the power to restrict the concentration of HMOs.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Councils have that power. I do not know off the top of my head whether the hon. Gentleman’s local authority has consulted on and put in place an article 4 direction, but if it has not, I strongly encourage him to make that case so that his local authority makes full use of its powers.

This is the crucial point. Are the powers in place inadequate—in which case let us have that conversation among hon. Members—or are individual local planning authorities unable or unwilling, for whatever reason, to exercise properly the powers that they have? If that is the case, we need to understand what more they need in the way of resources, support and guidance to be able to do so.

Let me briefly touch on social and affordable housing. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields rightly said, the ultimate solution to ensure that we have enough housing supply in any given area is to build enough homes of all tenures, including social and affordable homes. She has welcomed our new £39 billion 10-year social and affordable homes programme, the largest long-term investment in social and affordable housing in recent memory. Our ambition is to deliver around 300,000 homes over the lifetime of that programme. As she knows, our target is for at least 60% of the homes delivered to be for social rent, to provide the genuinely affordable homes that families need in her area and others.

We are also taking decisive action to reinvigorate council house building, including a new 10-year housing rent policy, and we have reinstated rent convergence. That will strengthen councils’ capacity and confidence for building new homes. We are taking action to reform the right to buy, including returning right-to-buy cash discounts to between £16,000 and £38,000. Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields knows, we will go further in implementing the next phase of reforms through our Social Housing Bill, which is making good progress in the other place. Its measures include allowing councils to keep 100% of the receipts generated by right-to-buy sales, with increased flexibilities in how they can be spent.

We are already seeing many the fruits of many of the reforms that we have put in place. Data released just this morning by Homes England and the Greater London Authority in respect of affordable housing starts and completions shows that starts are up 26% and completions are up 8% on 2024-25, and we are delivering the highest number of social rent starts since 2010-11.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields mentioned the national scheme of delegation. We are modernising how planning committees function, and we have been very clear about the case for doing so. We want to ensure that in exercising their democratic oversight, planning committees are focused on the applications that require member input, not on revisiting applications and decisions that have already been taken.

We published a working paper on this in December 2024, and we carried out extensive engagement following that. We formally consulted twice on the reforms, once in May 2025, on the principle of a two-tier system with some decisions delegated to planning officers, and once in March 2026, on the draft regulations and guidance. We are to debate those guidelines next week.

I will gently push back on my hon. Friend’s contention that local voices and objections are cut out. Nothing in those regulations will stop local residents objecting to applications or registering their discontent, but we do think that on a certain set of applications, it is right that expert planning officers make the decisions.

I also just make the point that schemes of delegation are in place across most local authorities in the country. The problem is that there is huge variation, which is creating issues in the planning system. We want to streamline that with a simple set of rules across the country and a national scheme.

[Emma Lewell]

I thank the Minister for being incredibly generous and giving way again. Regarding the statutory instrument before the House, of course constituents and residents will still be able to voice their concerns, but will those concerns go to a committee to make a decision, or will all decisions on HMOs go directly to council officers for decision once the SI is in force?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am happy to sit down and run my hon. Friend through the instrument in lots more detail than I can give from the Dispatch Box, but it is the case that the national scheme of delegation does not specify HMOs in particular. However, development not covered by the HMO permitted development right will fall into schedule 1 of the regulations relating to the national scheme of delegation, where those decisions will be delegated to expert planning officers. As I said, we want to ensure with these reforms that planning committees, and their valuable time, are focused on the most controversial applications where their democratic oversight is best placed.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous with his time. One reason why so many HMOs are required is the lack of social housing, certainly around Bridgwater. I have had developers approach me who have completed a private scheme, and they want housing associations or a charity to take those social houses off their hands, but they have not got the funds to do it. I have raised this with the Minister before, and he told me that he set up a register to match housing associations with developers who have social housing to effectively dispose of the units. Could he update us on how successful that register has been?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The register was successful in its aims in terms of providing operators with a chance to submit uncontracted, unsold section 106 units. Roughly over 4,000 units were put into that clearing service, which closed on 1 June. Through the policy intervention we made, we encouraged local authorities to consider how best to get those units moved, cascading to market sale in instances where they felt that they needed to do that. But that small number, which is far below the estimates we heard from some quarters, is a sign that some of the problem is working itself out. We are providing registered providers of affordable housing with greater financial capacity through our rent settlement, rent convergence and all the interventions we are making. Those measures are allowing them to buy more section 106 units and get those stalled schemes moving.

To conclude, local planning authorities already have powers to restrict the proliferation of HMOs. They already benefit from or can deploy licensing powers to ensure that HMOs are safe and well managed, and they do have, we believe, robust powers to ensure that landlords of HMOs comply with all relevant regulations.

As I said, I am very interested to hear from hon. Members about particular cases where they think that their local authority is not able to enforce the regulations that already exist, and of instances of actors circumventing that system—I was very interested in the example that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford gave. Those are the types of things we want to work through. If it transpires through those examples that the regulations are lacking in some way, we will take that into account. I have made it very clear that we keep the regulation of HMOs under review to ensure that the system works in the way that we want to see it work.

Question put and agreed to.

Forest City: West Suffolk

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, please accept my sincere apologies for being slightly late to the Chamber.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Minister, if you were late, you would not be able to respond, so you got here just in time.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Excellent. I am very glad to hear it. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this debate. I assure him that I have heard loud and clear his concerns about the high-level Forest City 1 proposals, and that I will reflect carefully on them. I also thank the other hon. Members who have made contributions to the debate.

Setting aside the detailed criticism made of the proposals in question, the core argument the hon. Gentleman has advanced is that the Government have to date refused to “say no” to it, which I think were his words. I want to respond to this charge head-on at the outset, because as he knows full well, it is not the role of the Government to opine on every development proposal that materialises across the country. For good or ill, depending on one’s viewpoint, we have a discretionary planning system in which schemes of various sizes are judged on their site-specific merits by individual local planning authorities.

The Secretary of State has powers to call in or recover planning applications where they involve matters of more than local importance, and they are exercised where necessary. The Department can also take forward specific initiatives and programmes involving the delivery of large-scale new communities. The recent consultation and decision to establish a Greater Cambridge development corporation and the ongoing work taking place to progress a new towns programme are two good examples, but in each instance the Government clearly set out the parameters of their support and consult where appropriate. What we do not do—indeed, we are obliged not to do it, given the quasi-judicial role of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers in the planning system—is to publicly pass judgment on every unsolicited proposal that the Department receives. The hon. Gentleman looks somewhat confused by that notion, but that is how the planning system operates.

The hon. Gentleman kindly provided me with advance notice of the questions he asked, so in response to each of them, let me give him as much clarity as I can. He asked whether the Government recognised that the Forest City promoters do not seek to go through

“the appropriate local consultations and approvals”,

and plan to rely instead on the legal, financial and political support of central Government. In response, I say to the hon. Gentleman that, while the size and nature of the proposed development would suggest as much, it is not entirely clear from the high-level material published by the promoters. Their website states, for example, that subsidy is not sought. A clear preference is expressed, however, for a development corporation as the delivery model, but it is not made explicit whether they are seeking Government backing for a centrally-led urban development corporation or are interested in a future mayoral or locally-led approach. In short, we simply do not have enough detail about this proposal to be able to say with any certainty precisely how its promoters believe it should be delivered.

When it comes to the east of England, however, the Government’s focus is firmly on the establishment of the Greater Cambridge development corporation and using it to deliver nationally significant growth in Cambridge and its surrounding areas, in partnership with local leaders and communities.

The hon. Gentleman pressed me on whether the Government will take this opportunity to rule out Forest City for good. For the reasons I have just set out, it is not for the Government to rule in or out any proposed scheme in general terms. He is aware that when the promoters of Forest City 1 applied to be part of the new towns programme, officials reviewed the application and concluded that it did not meet the programme’s objectives, specifically the deliverability objective. However, as per the remarks made by Baroness Taylor in the other place on 10 June, which he cited, it is open to the promoters of the scheme to engage with the relevant local planning authorities and communities about their proposals.

[Nick Timothy]

I thank the Minister for his considered answers to my questions. The point is that the Forest City developers are not seeking a process where Ministers consider an application using their quasi-judicial role; it is that they are seeking a policy decision to support the creation of a development corporation with compulsory purchase powers. I think that is a different question, which I would like to press him on. Will he rule that out, or can he not?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which pre-empts the next of his questions that I was going to come on to. He asked me specifically to rule out the establishment of a development corporation and the use of compulsory purchase powers for the construction of Forest City. I believe I have already confirmed to him, in answer to a written answer on 9 February, that the Government have no current plans to consult on the establishment of a centrally-led urban development corporation to deliver the Forest City 1 proposals. I do not think we can be clearer than that. The Government are not exploring creating a development corporation to take forward this speculative proposal.

The hon. Gentleman invited me to provide an assessment of the financial modelling and subsidy gap in respect of the Forest City 1 proposal. It would not be appropriate for me to do so, even if the evidence base on which to make a rigorous assessment existed, which to the best of my knowledge it does not given that a business case has not yet even been put together by the promoters.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me to publish details of all meetings and conversations held between Ministers, officials and advisers and the promoters of the scheme. I can confirm that neither I nor the Secretary of State have met the promoters. I have met some of the board members in the past, but not in relation to the Forest City 1 proposals. The promoters met my officials earlier this year and proposals were reviewed by officials when the promoters formally applied to be part of the new towns programme. As we have discussed, special advisers in our Department have had a single meeting with the promoters with the aim of learning more about the proposals. As he will know, details of meetings that special advisers have with external organisations are published on gov.uk, in line with requirements set out in the relevant guidance.

To conclude, I appreciate fully the hon. Gentleman’s desire to have the Government express an opinion on the high-level scheme proposed, but I am afraid there is not much more to add to what I have set out already. As I have made clear, when it comes to the east of England, the Government’s focus is firmly on delivering high-quality, sustainable growth for Cambridge and its environs. We announced the establishment of the greater Cambridge development corporation on 2 June, and the required statutory instrument was laid two days later. Subject to forthcoming parliamentary scrutiny and approval, the development corporation will be established as an entity. A powers and functions statutory instrument will be laid later in the year, which will grant the development corporation both plan making and development management powers. The development corporation will be expected to work closely with neighbouring local planning authorities, including West Suffolk, engaging collaboratively to ensure that growth delivers positive outcomes across the wider area. On that note, I welcome the support he has expressed for the Government’s focus on Cambridge.

Question put and agreed to.

Home Buying and Selling: Reform Roadmap

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Written Statements

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

My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) has today made the following statement:

Buying or selling a home should be one of life’s most important milestones, yet for too many people the process is frustrating, uncertain and deeply stressful. For too long, people have had to navigate a system where they lack clear information and have little visibility of progress.

That is why I am delighted to announce that Government are reforming the broken home buying and selling system to reduce delays, cut costs and stop sales falling through. The fundamental changes we are introducing to fix this broken system will allow people to move into the right homes at the right time, put down roots in their communities, and relocate more easily for work. They will also save critical time and reduce the costs involved in what is already an emotional process for those buying or selling a home. These reforms will bring benefits not only for families, but also property professionals, the housing market, and the wider economy.

The Government have published a landmark road map setting out how we will transform the home buying and selling process over the course of this Parliament. Alongside this, we published our response to two key consultations—on home buying and selling reform, and on material information in property listings. Together, these publications mark a decisive shift from consultation to delivery, underpinned by strong and widespread support for reform from consumers and professionals across the sector.

The case for change is clear. The current home buying and selling process is slow, costly and uncertain. It takes around 120 days on average to complete once an offer has been accepted, and around one in three transactions fall through, costing buyers and sellers around £400 million each year in wasted costs. These failures create unnecessary stress for households, reduce confidence in the market and impose wider economic costs.

Our reforms will create a system that is more streamlined, less stressful and fit for the future. At a time when households are feeling the squeeze, new changes will cut home-buying times by around four weeks, save first-time buyers an average of £650, and stop the nasty surprises that cost time, money and heartbreak. Overall, first time buyers are set to save more than £200 million a year, and the reforms will support a housing market in which people can move with greater confidence and with less risk of late surprises and failed transactions. They will also support the Government’s wider agenda of unlocking housing supply, improving affordability and supporting the delivery of 1.5 million homes.

The road map sets out a phased programme of action to ensure that change is practical, enforceable and built to last. We will act now where we can, while preparing carefully for more complex changes that require legislation or further market development. This phased approach reflects what we heard through consultation and our continued engagement with industry, and will help ensure that consumers and professionals can have confidence that the system will change in a meaningful and sustainable way.

The core principle at the heart of our reforms is simple: people should know what they are buying before they commit money and time. Sellers and estate agents will have to prepare a sales pack, providing key information before a property is even listed. This will cover the condition of the home, leasehold costs, the status of the chain, flood risk and planning history. Buyers will see the reality up front, before they spend a penny, reducing the risk of transactions being derailed by problems that are uncovered too late.

We will also raise standards and build trust across industry. A new code of practice and our proposed consultation on mandatory qualifications for estate agents will set clearer expectations for this sector.

Alongside this, we will bring home moving into the 21st century, requiring the wider use of digital property logbooks and digital sales packs. These tools store current and historic information on properties, reduce transaction risk by verifying data provenance, and provide consumers with digital property information up front in the sales process.

A modernised system must make full use of digital tools, trusted data and secure information sharing. We will publish a call for evidence this year to identify barriers professionals face when sharing data, and will consult next year on a smart data scheme for property data. We are also taking forward work to support the adoption of digital identity services and qualified electronic signatures to reduce reliance on paper-based and disconnected processes, and will continue to work with HM Land Registry and partners to modernise services and improve access to key datasets.

We are preparing the ground for earlier binding agreements in property transactions. After sales packs are embedded, we will require the use of binding conditional contracts, so that once both sides have committed, they cannot simply walk away without consequence. In the meantime, we will work with industry to support readiness for this change and raise awareness of existing voluntary reservation agreements.

To support leaseholders and homeowners on privately managed estates, we will use powers in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 to make it quicker, cheaper and more predictable to obtain the information needed to sell their homes. This will end the practice of third parties delaying home moves by taking too long to respond, or charging unreasonable amounts for information.

In parallel, we will publish non-statutory material information guidance later this year, so that estate agents understand their responsibilities to provide potential buyers with critical property information. This will be supported by a standardised form and clear, user-friendly guidance.

Taken together, these measures represent a once-in-a-generation programme of reform to create a housing market that works better for all and supports the dream of home ownership.

[HCWS132]

Draft Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026.

It is an absolute pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker—it is my first time doing so, which makes it all the more special. In our manifesto, we promised to overhaul the regulation of an insecure and unjust private rented sector. Our transformative Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which received Royal Assent on 27 October last year, delivered on that commitment.

In the implementation road map, published on 13 November 2025, the Government set out our intention to switch on the provisions of the Act in three distinct phases. As the first phase, on 1 May 2026, we commenced the new tenancy regime. As a result, section 21 no-fault evictions were finally abolished, all fixed-term tenancies transitioned to periodic tenancies; rent increases were limited to once a year, with new rights to challenge unreasonable rent hikes; rental bidding wars were banned; demands for large amounts of rent in advance were prohibited; discrimination against renters who have children or receive benefits was banned, and the right to request permission for a pet was introduced. In the second phase of our reforms, we will introduce our innovative database of private rented sector properties and establish a landlord ombudsman for the PRS to improve dispute resolution between tenants and landlords and avoid costly court proceedings. These regulations concern the latter measure, but do not themselves approve or designate a specific scheme.

As hon. Members may be aware, the 2025 Act provides for the establishment of one or more landlord redress schemes for the private rented sector. These regulations preserve that flexibility, in case it is needed; however, the Government do not intend to create multiple schemes at launch. Our immediate intention is to establish a single designated scheme. Once further regulations are made and that single designated scheme is operational, residential private landlords will be required to join it, giving prospective, current and former tenants a route to fair, impartial and binding resolution where they have a legitimate complaint against their landlord. That will close an important gap in the current PRS regulatory landscape, where agent redress is already mandatory, but there is no equivalent mandatory route where responsibility lies with the landlord.

The regulations are therefore the next legislative step towards establishing mandatory landlord redress for the private rented sector. However, as I mentioned, they do not approve or designate the scheme. This is an enabling instrument that must be put in place before a scheme can later be approved or designated. In the interest of providing clarity to the Committee on precisely what the instrument does and does not do, let me set out further detail. In essence, the regulations set the detailed framework for how a private landlord redress scheme may be approved or designated.

In practice, the regulations will mean that any future scheme must be shown to have robust arrangements around independent decision making, fair complaints handling, binding redress, proportionate enforcement, fair and transparent fees, co-operation and information sharing with other bodies, public reporting and regular reviews, continuity if a scheme closes and access for users who need to engage by post or telephone. To be clear, an approved scheme would be designated and administered by an independent body and approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of mandatory landlord redress. A designated scheme would be administered by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, who would designate it a mandatory landlord redress scheme.

The regulations also set out how a scheme may be amended, so that it can respond to changes in the sector over time—including, but not confined to, changes in landlord and tenant behaviour, operational learning and the needs of the people who use the scheme. The Government’s view is that the framework should be robust, but not so rigid that it prevents a scheme from remaining effective and fit for purpose over time. The regulations also protect continuity of redress if a scheme closes, or if its approval is withdrawn or its designation revoked. That means that there must be arrangements to support an orderly transition, including the transfer of relevant information and records where necessary, so that tenants and landlords are not left without clarity or continuity if a scheme stops operating.

I once again stress that the regulations do not approve or designate a redress scheme; that decision will come later. Their purpose is to establish the statutory conditions that any future scheme must meet, so that it can proceed only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that it meets the required standard. That provides clarity for landlords on what will be expected of them, and for tenants on how complaints can be escalated once the scheme is in place.

The regulations do not require landlords to join a scheme immediately. Next steps will involve preparing and designating a scheme, and subsequently bringing forward separate regulations, specifying which landlords must join and when that requirement will take effect, once the service is ready. It is essential that we establish this framework now because, without it, a scheme cannot be approved or designated and we cannot proceed to the next stage of implementation. However, doing so will also provide clarity, certainty and confidence to the sector.

Subject to parliamentary approval of this instrument, our focus will turn to the scheme itself, ensuring that it is designed to meet the rigorous conditions set out in these regulations and that the Secretary of State can be satisfied that it is ready for designation. The Government’s intention, as I confirmed during the passage of the Bill, is for the Housing Ombudsman Service, which already administers social landlord redress, to operate the private landlord redress scheme too. The Housing Ombudsman will need enough time to develop the service ahead of launch, and we will ensure that we give landlords sufficient notice and clear guidance before any future requirement to join the scheme takes effect, including what will be expected of them in order to comply with the scheme.

To conclude, these regulations put in place the minimum standards and safeguards that the private landlord redress scheme must meet. They are a necessary enabling step towards delivering a fair, impartial and binding redress scheme for private tenants, and a clear route to resolution when things go wrong. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank both the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, for those questions. I will seek to answer them each in turn, beginning with giving the Committee a sense of when things will change for landlords and for tenants.

I made it clear that the draft regulations set out the framework for the redress scheme to come; they do not themselves approve or designate a specific scheme. Much of the detail will follow in regulations. The draft regulations do not themselves create an immediate live complaints route for private tenants and they do not yet require private landlords to join a scheme. As I said, further regulations will be needed before membership becomes mandatory, once the service is ready to go live.

The shadow Minister asked about fees. As we debated at length in the Bill Committee, landlords will be required to pay for the scheme. That is in line with established practice across the sector. The draft regulations require a scheme to include provision for fees, but they do not themselves set fee amounts. The intention is that the scheme document will outline the approach to setting and calculating membership, while details of the fees will be published elsewhere. That will allow administration and membership fees to be managed proportionately, without requiring the scheme to be amended whenever fee levels change. The Secretary of State, however—this is the important point in response to the shadow Minister’s question—will retain oversight of fees, including any increases, to ensure that they remain proportionate and represent value for money.

Again, to respond to the point that the draft regulations do not set out the actual scheme, broadly, the PRS landlord ombudsman will consider complaints from tenants about actions, inactions or behaviours by their landlord that have caused harm or inconvenience. Those may include, for example, complaints relating to property standards and repairs, the landlord’s handling of requests or inappropriate behaviour by a landlord. We have deliberately not set out an exhaustive list on the face of this instrument, however, because the ombudsman will need discretion to consider the facts of individual cases and to respond to a change in the rental market. Again, as the designated scheme comes forward, we will see more detail and more examples of how that will work.

To answer the shadow Minister’s question about fees and compensation, hon. Members will have noted that the draft instrument sets a compensation cap of £25,000 to align with the established cap for mandatory property agent redress. That helps, we think, to support consistency across the housing redress landscape, but the Government will of course keep the operation of the scheme, including the cap, under review as part of our wider governance monitoring and evaluation arrangements, with an initial review required within five years of the scheme being approved or designated.

The shadow Minister touched on local authorities. It is important to be clear that the ombudsman is intended to provide a quicker, cheaper and less adversarial route to redress, where that is appropriate; it is not intended to replace either the courts or local authority enforcement. We have debated local authority enforcement at length on many occasions. He knows what we are doing about new burdens funding coming forward. Also, there is the ability for local authorities to levy fines and to use the proceeds of those fines to fund their enforcement work—we have recently switched those powers on, perhaps even today, although the exact date escapes me. Local authorities will continue to enforce regulatory requirements, with the ombudsman focusing on investigating complaints and, where appropriate, awarding redress to put things right.

I touched on the point about landlords, which the Liberal Democrat spokesman asked me about. The draft regulations themselves do not mandate membership. A separate set of regulations will be needed to specify when landlords must be members of the scheme. We will have a chance to debate what kind of landlords are covered at that point, and I expect he will have a series of questions in that regard at that stage. We will, however, ensure—I think this is important—that landlords have clear guidance and sufficient notice before any membership requirement takes effect.

I think I have answered all the questions. To conclude, while the draft instrument creates a legal framework for future private landlord redress schemes, it does not yet require landlords to join a scheme or create a live complaints route. It is, however, a critical step in delivering the private rented sector landlord ombudsman and our wider reforms to empower tenants. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 27 April. The Government were clear in their manifesto that housing need in England cannot be met without planning for growth on a larger-than-local scale. That is why we committed to introducing effective new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning.

To honour that commitment, we legislated for an England-wide system of strategic plan making in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which received Royal Assent in December last year. The Act inserted a new part 1A into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, placing a requirement on strategic planning authorities—be they mayoral or non-mayoral strategic authorities, or upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities—most of which, but not necessarily all, will be grouped together to prepare a document called a spatial development strategy, or SDS.

An SDS will form part of the development plan that local planning authorities must determine planning applications in accordance with, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Local plans produced by local planning authorities will be required to be in general conformity with the relevant spatial development strategy. SDSs, as we discussed throughout the progress of the Bill in Committee, are not big local plans; instead, they will be high-level spatial frameworks for housing growth and infrastructure investment across sub-regional areas. They will be able to identify broad locations for development and establish the infrastructure required to support it, and they will be able to redistribute housing and other development needs between local planning authorities.

The draft regulations make two minor, consequential amendments to support the implementation of the new strategic plan-making system, which we intend to commence later this year through a package of regulations. The first amendment concerns the procedure to be followed during the examination of a spatial development strategy. Unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise, a draft SDS must be examined by a person appointed by them. The matters to be examined are for the examiner to determine, and the examination does not have to cover every aspect of the proposed strategy.

The draft national planning policy framework sets out that the purpose of the examination should be to assess that relevant procedural requirements have been met and that the strategy is sound, alongside any other matters that the examiner considers appropriate. Draft regulation 2 will amend section 114 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act to allow the Lord Chancellor to make rules under section 9 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, governing the procedures for examinations. Any such regulations will support the effective examination of a strategy.

The second amendment concerns marine plans. Draft regulation 3 amends paragraph 1 of schedule 6 to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to require a marine plan authority to notify a strategic planning authority whose area adjoins, or is adjacent to, marine plan areas, of its intention to prepare a marine plan. That requirement already applies to local planning authorities, and extending it will enable strategic planning authorities to consider how they wish to participate in the marine planning process and to put in place appropriate arrangements for that participation.

I trust that the Committee agrees that these minor, consequential regulations are necessary and that it will support the effective implementation of the new system of spatial development strategies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their considered contributions and questions, which I will try to address in turn.

It is first worth making clear that the two minor and consequential amendments before us do not implement the new strategic plan-making system. We will bring forward a package of statutory instruments in the autumn to switch on the main provisions of that system. As I made clear in my speech, the two minor and consequential amendments do two very simple things. One provides for the Lord Chancellor to make examination rules. The final content will be clear when we lay those rules, which we intend to do in the autumn; they will be largely technical and procedural in nature. The other simply requires marine plan authorities to notify strategic planning authorities as well as local planning authorities that they intend to make a marine plan. I hope that that clarifies what the two amendments are about.

On the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, I do not want to relitigate all the debates we had in Bill Committee; I well understand the concerns expressed by Opposition Members about local input. It is important to reiterate a couple of things. Spatial development strategies will not allocate individual sites. As I said, they are high-level frameworks for housing growth and investment—they are not big local plans. Local plans will have to conform with them, but local planning authorities still have to develop local development plans. That is where decisions about which sites are appropriate come within the context of national planning policy—a “brownfield first” national planning policy.

As the shadow Minister knows, we strengthened the policy requirements on previously developed land in our December 2024 update to the national planning policy framework. We have gone even further in the new NPPF, on which we have just consulted, and we will respond in due course to that.

These are very high-level spatial development strategies. We do not want them all to be London plans; if they were, that would not represent success. London has very particular development needs. The legislative basis for SDSs is the London framework, but as I have said these plans are much more high-level. We are not aiming to replicate the London plan across the country.

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

The Opposition are grateful to the Minister for the Government’s shift on prioritising brownfield.

I seek clarification. The Minister touched on the preparation of marine plans. How do those engage the role of the Crown Estate, which owns the seabed and foreshore around the coastline of the UK? Let me pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex. If, for example, an infrastructure project required the extraction of gravel, the construction of a new port, access to ferries or the construction of a bridge, all those could engage the Crown Estate. Have the Government considered that?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have, to the extent that marine plans impact on spatial development strategies; I will outline the relationship when I respond to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes. To be clear, the regulation power that we are talking about is a simple notification requirement on SDSs to ensure joined-up plan making. The Crown Estate is involved with marine plans, obviously, and I will set out how many there are across the country and how that relates, but this is a simple change in scope.

I touched on brownfield land. I want to make clear where the democratic input comes from and who has to produce spatial development strategies: combined authorities, both mayoral and non-mayoral; combined county authorities, both mayoral and non-mayoral; upper-tier county councils; and unitary authorities. All will have a duty to produce a spatial development strategy. Those authorities, as I said, are known as strategic planning authorities.

The Government, however, will be able to group any of those authorities together to jointly produce a spatial development strategy, through a committee known as a strategic planning board. In those areas where, for example, a mayor is not in place and there is not an obvious geography to take forward an SDS, a combination of authorities will be put together to come up with an SDS through a strategic planning board. Each authority will have a voice on the planning board.

I should touch on the geography of an SDS. As hon. Members will know, in February and March the Government undertook a national consultation seeking views on proposed geographies for which spatial development strategies should be produced. That included proposals about which authorities will be grouped together under a strategic planning board. We intend to publish a response to that consultation in the summer.

Regulations will be needed to establish each strategic planning board. Before the regulations are laid, the affected authorities must be formally consulted. We intend to begin laying regulations to establish those boards after the summer recess, as I said; at that point, we will confirm the geographies. Local people will have a chance to input into the strategies, whether they come through the individual authorities involved or the mayoral link.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes knows, marine planning is the process for managing the use of marine resources in a sustainable and co-ordinated manner. It ensures that the right activities happen in the right place, at the right time and in the right way. To encourage sustainable development, marine plans guide those who use and regulate the marine area, while considering the environment, economy and society.

Marine plans operate alongside land-use planning systems to ensure a holistic approach to managing the coastal and marine environments. The six marine plans in England cover 11 marine plan areas. I come back to the specific change we are making through this amendment: it is just a notification—no veto is involved on the part of the strategic planning authority. It is being made so that we can ensure that, in areas where a marine plan abuts a spatial development strategy area, there is co-ordination and that the marine plan can be taken account of in decision making by the strategic planning authority producing the SDS.

I consider these to be simple, straightforward, minor and consequential amendments. We will have a chance to debate more fully the more substantive amendments that come when we establish the new strategic plan-making system.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not take a sideline into a philosophical discourse on the meaning of a strategy or of a report that I do not think he named and I do not think pertains to my Department. We are introducing a system of strategic planning, on which I think there is widespread consensus across the House.

The removal of any effective mechanism for cross-boundary co-operation has caused a variety of issues. The duty to co-operate does not work effectively and we have to put it back in place. The draft regulations allow us to do that. On that basis, we will have a series of SDSs that provide a high-level housing growth and infrastructure framework.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

If the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention is about the actual regulations that we are debating, I will give way.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

It is about the draft regulations, because they include the word “strategy”. The Minister cannot escape the consequences of that. The report to which I referred was a Liaison Committee report—

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

It is a whole of Government report.

[Matthew Pennycook]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about the whole of Government report that he cites—I do not think that he has mentioned the title—I will happily consider some of the lessons learned from it and how they might apply to my Department. On that basis, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Greater Cambridge Development Corporation

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Written Statements

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

Today I am updating the House on the Government’s decision to establish a centrally led development corporation, to be known as the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation, to promote ambitious, high-quality, sustainable growth and unlock the full potential of Greater Cambridge, for the benefit of its communities and the country as a whole.

Between 4 February and 1 April 2026, the Government sought views through a public consultation on the development corporation’s proposed objectives, governance, geographical boundary and powers. The consultation received over 700 responses, including from residents, local government, businesses and academia. I am grateful to all those who took the time to engage and provide thoughtful and constructive feedback.

Greater Cambridge faces a set of deeply interconnected challenges, particularly in relation to infrastructure and housing provision, with which the majority of consultation respondents agreed. Complex governance arrangements, fragmented decision making and long-term funding uncertainty have made it difficult to plan, finance, and deliver infrastructure to support growth at the scale and pace required.

Sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people. That is why it is this Government’s No. 1 mission. Greater Cambridge has the potential to make an even greater contribution to the UK economy and this Government are determined to make that happen, and it is why the Government have committed £800 million to kick-start development around Cambridge and Oxford and leverage major public-private investment.

The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed) has reviewed the feedback on the consultation proposals, and has determined that establishing the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation is in the national interest and is the most effective way to unlock sustainable, nationally significant growth in Greater Cambridge.

Today, the Government response to the consultation has been published on www.gov.uk, which sets out the development area, objectives, governance and accountability, and powers to be granted to the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation. With direct access to central Government, the development corporation will provide Greater Cambridge with the tools, certainty and investment to bring national and local partners behind shared priorities.

The development corporation will be focused on the delivery of strategic, nationally significant growth in its boundary and will work collaboratively with councils, both within and bordering the development area, transport bodies and utilities providers to help supercharge growth and unlock development opportunities, supporting the delivery of new homes, infrastructure, and business and laboratory space. Accountable to the Secretary of State, the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation will bring together powers, financing and national influence, while working in partnership with local authorities, the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service and local representatives, as part of a joint national and local endeavour.

Delivering nationally significant growth in Greater Cambridge requires a combination of leadership from central and local government, alongside professional expertise in infrastructure and placemaking.

Next steps

The statutory instrument establishing the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation will be laid on 4 June. Following this, subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval, the development corporation will be established as an entity.

Following establishment, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will appoint an interim board comprised of experts in fields relevant to development, such as transport and placemaking, who will sit alongside the local leaders. A full and open public appointments process for the permanent board will be commenced as soon as possible once the development corporation is established.

A powers and functions statutory instrument will be laid later in the year, which will grant the development corporation both plan-making and development management powers.

[HCWS85]

Social Housing Bill

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Written Statements

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

Everyone deserves to live in a decent, safe, secure and affordable home. Yet far too many families in need of a social rented home are languishing on local authority waiting lists, forced to struggle in the private rented sector or in expensive temporary accommodation, driving up rents and housing benefit costs in the process. At the same time, the ability and willingness of social housing providers to invest in the building of new social rented homes is undermined by the steady and significant loss of existing stock through right to buy.

Today, the Government have introduced the social housing Bill. The Bill has three core objectives: first, to protect much-needed social housing stock and thereby incentivise the building of more social rented homes; secondly, to create a fairer system with greater protections for social housing tenants in instances of domestic abuse; and thirdly, to clarify the statute book and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy so that providers can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence.

The Bill delivers on our manifesto commitments to prioritise the building of new social rented homes and better protect our existing stock. It builds on the funding and regulatory certainty that the Government have provided to the sector and supports the delivery of the five-step plan we published in July 2025 to deliver a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing (HCWS771).

Protecting existing social housing stock and incentivising the building of more social homes

At the heart of the Bill are comprehensive reforms to the right to buy scheme. The scheme provides an important route for social housing tenants to own their own homes. However, many of the homes sold under the right to buy have not been replaced. Not only has this depleted much-needed stock, but it has also reduced the motivation and confidence of councils to build, and restricted broader investment in council housing.

Following the reduction in maximum right to buy cash discounts that was announced at autumn Budget 2024, we consulted on further reforms to the right to buy between 20 November 2024 and 15 January 2025. In July last year, we published our response to that consultation and committed to bringing forward legislation to implement proposals when parliamentary time allowed.

Accordingly, the Bill includes a range of further reforms to the right to buy scheme, including increasing the eligibility requirement to 10 years, amending percentage discounts to better align with the new maximum cash discounts, and exempting newly built social housing for 35 years.

The Bill will also strengthen the rules that apply after a social home has been sold. It will extend in perpetuity the right of first refusal for homes sold under the right to buy and right to acquire, so that landlords retain the opportunity to reacquire homes when they are later resold. In addition, the Bill will reform the right to acquire scheme to align with the reformed right to buy scheme, improving consistency.

Alongside the right to buy reforms, the Bill also includes provision to ensure councils and other providers in the area are notified before social homes are sold by private registered providers to maximise opportunities to retain stock by preventing homes being lost to the private market.

Protecting tenants who are victims of domestic abuse by providing them with greater security and stability

All social housing tenants deserve to live in decent homes, to be treated with fairness and respect, and to have their problems resolved quickly. The Bill builds on the extensive programme of Government activity already under way to protect and empower tenants by introducing new protections for victims of domestic abuse living in social housing.

At present, landlords and courts have only limited means to remove a perpetrator from a tenancy while allowing the victim-survivor to remain securely in their home. This can leave victims facing additional hardship, instability and an increased risk of homelessness. The Bill will give landlords and the courts new and strengthened grounds to address domestic abuse and, in joint tenancy cases, remove a perpetrator from the tenancy where there has been domestic abuse allowing victims to remain in their home or move to suitable alternative accommodation where this is available.

Clarifying the statute book and reducing unnecessary bureaucracy

The social housing sector needs long-term certainty and stability to drive up investment and boost supply. The Bill includes a range of measures designed to ensure that providers can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence. It streamlines the outdated consents process, so that councils do not have to seek approval from the Secretary of State when they want to take certain actions to manage their social housing stock. It also repeals a number of unimplemented provisions from the Housing and Planning Act 2016, including the requirement for local authorities to sell high-value social homes, grant flexible (fixed-term) tenancies, and charge higher-income tenants higher rents.

[HCWS1563]

New Developments: Unadopted Roads and Public Amenities

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) on securing this important debate. He is an incredibly hard-working and effective advocate for the interests of his constituency, and he has long championed action to address unadopted amenities on privately managed housing estates. I warmly commend him for his ongoing efforts to secure a fair deal for homeowners living on freehold estates in his constituency and across the rest of England. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (Ms Minns) and for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore), and the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), for their interventions in the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for sharing the experiences, which are clearly unacceptable, of residents on developments in her constituency.

Whether it be roads, street lighting, or sewers and drains, homeowners rightly expect that public amenities on new housing estates should be built to an acceptable standard that enables them, in due course, to be adopted by the local authority or other relevant body. Yet, for far too many homeowners, the experience of living on a newly developed housing estate has been tainted by the hidden and enduring consequences of unadopted infrastructure.

Unadopted roads and private estate amenities are not, in and of themselves, new, as my hon. Friend mentioned. What has changed is their prevalence and the impact of private estate management arrangements on homeowners. Roads, sewers, drains, green spaces and other amenities that historically would have been maintained by the local authority or utility companies are instead now routinely left to be managed by private estate management companies, often with little transparency or accountability. In many cases, the quality of the amenities on such freehold estates is inferior to those adopted by the relevant public authority, and falls far short of what people have a right to expect. Residential freeholders across the country frequently report open spaces not fit for purpose, roads left unsurfaced and drainage systems that are often little more than open ditches. These issues blight people’s lives and, with few of the rights to redress found in other markets and no ability to control the management of the estates on which they live, residents feel that they are being treated as second-class homeowners.

The Competition and Markets Authority, which has been mentioned, published a house building market study in 2024 that identified significant consumer detriment arising from the private management of unadopted public amenities on housing estates, and concluded that without Government intervention, this consumer detriment was likely to increase. This Government believe that homeowners living on freehold estates deserve a fair deal. That is why we pledged in our manifesto to act to bring the injustice of fleecehold private housing estates and unfair maintenance costs to an end. Our objective is clear: we are determined to reduce the prevalence of private estate management arrangements, which are the root cause of the problems experienced by many residential freeholders, and we also want to provide those who currently live on privately managed estates with greater rights and protections, so that the fees they pay are fair, transparent and robustly justified.

As my hon. Friend is fully aware, the Government are taking action to deliver on their manifesto commitments in this area. He rightly referenced the two comprehensive consultations that we launched on 18 December last year, both of which closed on 12 March. I do not intend to summarise the contents of those two quite lengthy consultations—I know that hon. Members have been engaging with them—but in simple terms, they sought views on how best to implement the new consumer protections for homeowners on freehold estates contained in the last Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, and on the ways in which we might reduce the prevalence of privately managed estates over the coming years. We are currently analysing the many responses received, with a view to setting out next steps in due course.

I am clear that our approach must be balanced. Homeowners must be protected. They should know before they buy whether the public amenities they will rely on will be adopted, and what that means for service standards and costs. Local authorities operating under significant pressures must have confidence that adoption is safe and sustainable and provides value for money. In turn, highways authorities and drainage bodies must know that any infrastructure and amenities offered for adoption meet proper standards and are durable.

[David Reed]

Like many other Members, I am exhausted by dealing with the Liberal Democrats on East Devon district council and Devon county council. They seem completely unaccountable, so can I ask the Ministers directly what can be done to make local government more accountable for the adoptions of roads?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I would refer the hon. Gentleman in the first instance to that CMA house building report, which says very clearly that a twin-track approach is needed. We need common adoptable standards. Only at the point that we have common standards can we force local authorities to adopt. I understand, as I know many hon. Members do, the dilemma that local authorities can face when they have substandard amenities and are asked to adopt them and incur all the costs of bringing them up to the necessary standard, as well as the cost of their ongoing maintenance.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister probably know what my question is going to be before I have even asked it: will he share his ideas and his conclusions on the way forward with the relevant Minister back home? If the Minister has a way of doing it better, we need to know it as well.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will happily direct my counterpart in Northern Ireland to the Government’s response when we publish it in due course, having analysed those two consultations.

Where private arrangements exist, they must be transparent and properly regulated. If residents are expected to pay for services, they must be able to see and scrutinise what they are paying for and to access effective routes to redress. We must, of course, ensure that any reforms taken forward work in practise across different types of development and support effective long-term stewardship. But we also have to avoid unintended consequences—for example, implementing measures that would reduce overall housing delivery or that simply shift costs in ways that do not ultimately benefit homeowners.

Alongside the consultations I have referenced, we are bringing forward measures to help those on existing unadopted housing estates, including the removal of draconian enforcement practices that can cause real anxiety for homeowners. Through the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which was published in draft in January and is obviously mentioned in substantive terms in the King’s Speech today, we intend to repeal sections 121 and 122 of the Law of Property Act 1925— a 100-year-old law—in order to bring arrears collection into the modern era.

The Bill also strengthens safeguards around enforcement, including requiring notice before enforcement action can commence. We are acting to ensure that enforcement mechanisms are fair and proportionate, and that people are not faced with undue threats or escalating penalties in relation to their home. In addition, we are sponsoring a Law Commission project to consider longer-term legal frameworks so that residents could be given greater control over the management of their estates. I really do think—alongside the consumer protections that are the short-term answer to some of those unfair charges being levelled, and looking at how, in the long term, we end the prevalence of these arrangements—that control is the vital third leg of that stool, giving residents in such situations control. I know that is what the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin seeks to address.

We are also considering what further steps we can take to strengthen the regulation of property agents because the quality and conduct of the managing agent can make a profound difference to residents’ experience, particularly in respect of communication, responsiveness and the handling of disputes.

This issue also engages the responsibilities of other Departments, including the Department for Transport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Residents do not experience these matters in departmental silos. A road that is not adopted affects safety and accessibility; poorly managed drainage affects flood risk and local environmental quality; and under-maintained public spaces affect community wellbeing and pride in place.

Concerning roads specifically, alongside our consultation, the Department for Transport has commissioned independent research by Ipsos UK into the barriers to road adoption. This will help to ensure that we have a clearer evidence base about what is preventing adoption in practice, whether it be issues of technical standards, inspection and certification processes, funding and commuted sums, long-term liability, or the interaction between planning consents and highways agreements.

That work will help inform my Department’s thinking about next steps, including how we can support local highways authorities and ensure that the system encourages timely adoption where that is the appropriate outcome. In parallel, a Future Homes Hub project is under way that is helping my Department to engage with industry, local government and others on quality, standards and delivery. Ensuring that new estates come with well-designed, durable and maintainable infrastructure is an integral part of building the high-quality places that communities expect.

Before I conclude, I want to briefly mention transparency. It is important to recognise that this debate is not one only about one type of amenity; it is about the whole public realm on new estates—as has been mentioned, the play areas, open spaces, water features, attenuation ponds, sustainable drainage, street lighting, verges, footpaths and the smaller pieces of infrastructure that, taken together, determine whether a development feels like a coherent community. When those amenities are not properly completed, or when their long-term upkeep is not clearly and fairly arranged, residents can feel that the place they were promised has not been delivered. That is why transparency at the point of sale matters so much.

People are making the biggest financial commitment of their lives in most cases. They should be able to understand in plain terms what is intended to be adopted, what will remain private, what services will be provided, how charges will be set, what protections exist if standards slip and what happens if the original developer is no longer on the scene. Certainty and predictability are not luxuries—they are essential.

We know some that private management arrangements can work well, particularly where there is a clear resident-focused governance model and robust oversight, but where such arrangements are used, it is vital that residents are not left exposed to opaque fees, poor service or enforcement measures that feel disproportionate. That is precisely why our reform programme spans both the prevention of poor outcomes, by reducing the creation of problematic unadopted estates, and the strengthening of protections and accountability where those arrangements remain.

In conclusion, the Government recognise the strength of feeling on this issue, and the very real impact that current practice is having on homeowners. We are acting through the two consultations that concluded in March, the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, the implementation of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, our sponsorship of the Law Commission’s project, which I just mentioned, and our ongoing efforts to strengthen the regulation of property agents. I look forward to continuing to engage with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members from across the House as this work progresses, so that we can deliver a system that is clearer for consumers, fairer in practice, and better at ensuring that the places we build come with the adopted, well maintained amenities that residents rightly expect.

Question put and agreed to.