Historical Interim Development Orders
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) on securing this important debate. She has made a strong case on behalf of her constituents in Pilning and other nearby communities, who, while not directly affected, still have an interest in this matter. I appreciate fully the concerns she raises in respect of historical interim development orders on the communities she represents. In the time available, I will seek to provide her with a number of reassurances, although I suspect I will not be able to assuage her concerns in full, for reasons that will become clear.
Planning is principally a local activity, and I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government want local communities to be at the heart of the planning system. That is why we have made a clear commitment to achieving universal coverage of local plans that are shaped by early and effective engagement with communities, and that is why we continue to explore ways to enhance community engagement planning, including through greater digitalisation of the system.
The particular issue that is the subject of this debate has a long and complex planning history, as the hon. Lady made clear in her remarks. Although I am obviously unable to comment on individual planning applications, due to the quasi-judicial role of Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers in the planning system, I will seek to respond to the concerns she has raised in general terms and, to the best of my ability, assuage them, although I suspect that I will be unable to do so in full, for reasons that I will now set out.
Let me make some general comments about planning permissions. The hon. Lady has acknowledged this point, but there really is no way of tackling this subject without dry commentary on some of the historical elements of planning law, but such is the debate we are having—it is an important one. For reasons that I trust are obvious, it is vital that the planning system provides certainty on what can be built and where. It is axiomatic, but nevertheless worth stating, that the grant of planning permission for development is a right to develop. It is important that developers and landowners have the certainty that a planning permission, once granted, will not be readily removed or altered, given the considerable investment committed to it as part of the development process.
When the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 was enacted to establish the planning system as we know it, it was determined that the grant of planning permission would be in perpetuity unless it was explicitly for temporary development. No provision was made for the abandonment or lapse of a planning permission in instances where development did not occur. This issue was partly— but not entirely—addressed in the Town and Country Planning Act 1968, which required, through a mandatory commencement condition, that development must begin within five years in relation to full permissions. The same Act extended that requirement to earlier permissions that had not been built out before 1968. Since then, the default commencement period in England has been reduced to three years for full permissions, to ensure timely build-out of developments. If a development is commenced, the planning permission remains extant, and it is often possible for a developer to carry out the remainder of the development many years later.
However, as the recent Supreme Court judgment in Hillside Parks Ltd v. Snowdonia National Park Authority made clear, it is not lawful to carry out development if the development has become physically impossible to implement—for instance, if a planning permission for another subsequent development has been implemented instead. This means it is likely that many historical planning permissions that have not been implemented cannot now in practice be lawfully carried out, as subsequent development has since been carried out so as to render further development under the historical permission physically impossible.
That said, the Government recognise that it is still possible to carry out the development granted by a small proportion of historical planning permissions—for instance, if there has been a partial commencement. We also recognise that the conditions and obligations related to the development of these historical permissions may not be as comprehensive as a recent permission for the same development would be.
Local planning authorities do have the power, as a last resort, to revoke or modify planning permissions that could be used for historical planning permissions under section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Secretary of State must confirm any revocation or modification, and there must be sound planning reasons for taking such action. As the local planning authority would in such circumstances be unilaterally affecting a land interest’s right to develop, it is worth making clear that in such a scenario the planning authority in question would also be left liable to provide compensation to the land interest for any expenditure incurred in carrying out works and other sustained loss or damage.
Another tool potentially available to local planning authorities is a completion notice under section 94 of the Act. This can be used where development has begun under a planning permission but the LPA is of the opinion that the development will not be completed within a reasonable period. In such circumstances the local authority can serve a completion notice, which works on a “use it or lose it” basis, with the planning permission ceasing to have effect at the end of a specified period of at least 12 months.
As part of this Government’s commitment to provide greater transparency and accountability in respect of build-out rates on housing sites and to speed up the building of homes, we intend to implement the changes made to relevant completion notice legislation under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. This will remove the need for Secretary of State confirmation of a completion notice, making it easier for local planning authorities to use such notices.
It is worth me making some brief remarks about outline planning permissions. As the House will know, outline planning permission establishes the principle of development, on the condition that subsequent reserved matters are to be approved at a later date. When considering an application for the approval of reserved matters, the decision maker must consider these matters of detail within the context of the outline planning permission. Although this does not allow decision makers to revisit the principle of development or the parameters set by the outline permission, local planning authorities can ensure through reserved matters applications that the development constitutes sustainable development and that amenity, design quality, highways safety and flood risk issues are fully considered.
Finally, let me turn to community engagement. Where a new planning permission is sought, planning law requires that local planning authorities provide the local community with the opportunity to make representations about the application through a range of methods. As the principle and therefore substantive planning matters have typically been established through the outline planning permission, there is no legal requirement for local planning authorities to consult on an application for approval of reserved matters. However, I am aware that where the matters raised would warrant input from the local community, local planning authorities do carry out engagement with communities when assessing applications for the approval of reserved matters. In the unique circumstances of an historical planning permission, I would encourage local planning authorities to carry out such engagement. Where relevant considerations are raised by local residents, they must be taken into account by the local planning authority. However, the weight attached to a particular condition is a matter of judgment for the local authority as the decision maker in the first instance.
Although there are clearly cases where historical planning permissions may still be implemented years after they were granted, the Government consider them to be extremely rare. To the extent that such planning permissions remain extant after the development has been commenced, they cannot automatically be extinguished. As I have set out, local planning authorities do have the power to revoke or modify incomplete planning permissions, or issue commencement notices, but only in specific circumstances.
I appreciate, therefore, that the planning system as it has developed in the post-war period and as it is currently constituted does not provide a ready solution for the specific challenge outlined by the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate. With a view to exploring what more might be done within the constraints of the current system, I am happy to ensure that the hon. Lady gets a meeting early in the new year to give the matters relating to these specific applications the due consideration they warrant. As they relate to a specific application, I hope she will accept that in the first instance it would be appropriate for them to be with officials in my Department rather than me personally, but I will make sure that that meeting covers the analogous points she made about mineral permissions and IDO processes. I will also seek, through my officials, to ensure that she gets the requisite engagement with the relevant statutory consultees. In this instance, that will mainly be the Environment Agency, but she is more than welcome to write to me with other bodies that she wants to be engaged, particularly on the flooding issues she raised.
To conclude, I commend the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate once again for securing this important debate. I thank her for the clarity with which she set out her constituents’ concerns and the constructive manner in which she engaged with me on the subject. I will ensure that she gets the required engagement with my Department to explore what might be done in respect of the concerns that she has so ably set out.
Question put and agreed to.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsMonday 8th December 2025
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 View all Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 8 December 2025 - large print - (8 Dec 2025)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move,
That this House does not insist on its disagreement to Lords amendment 33, but proposes amendment (a) to the Lords amendment.
Today is a pivotal day, because, subject to agreement from this House—and, in due course, the other place—on a single remaining issue, the Government’s landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill will have completed all its stages and will therefore shortly become law. That moment will be a hugely significant one for our economy, because this legislation will facilitate a step change in the delivery of the new homes and critical infrastructure that our country so desperately requires.
Let me briefly remind the House again why this Bill is so important. When it comes to house building and the provision of major economic infrastructure, the status quo has demonstrably failed. The process of securing consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects is far too slow and uncertain, and is constraining economic growth and undermining our energy security. The current approach to development and the environment too often sees both sustainable house building and nature recovery stall. In exercising essential local democratic oversight, planning committees clearly do not operate as effectively as they could, and local planning authorities do not have adequate funding to deliver their services. The compulsory purchase order process is patently too slow and cumbersome, and development corporations are not equipped to operate in the way that we will need them to in the years ahead. It is abundantly clear that the lack of effective mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning mean that we cannot address development and infrastructure needs across sub-regions as well as we otherwise might.
We can and we must do things differently, and this Bill will enable us to do so. That is why we have been so determined to ensure that we can make use of its provisions as soon as possible, and why I am delighted that, following today’s debate, it is expected to return for a final time to the other place before becoming law. To that end, I hope hon. and right hon. Members will lend their support to Government amendment (a). Before I turn to the detail of that amendment, let me put on record once again my profound thanks to Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding the Bill through its stages in the House of Lords and for undertaking such broad and extensive engagement with peers throughout its passage.
Lords amendment 33 seeks to make the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure, and Government amendment (a) seeks to give effect to that change. In the debate on consideration of Lords amendments on 13 November, I argued that the affirmative procedure was unnecessary in this instance, in the light of the multiple rounds of consultation that would take place before the relevant regulations were laid. However, I acknowledge the strength of feeling in the other place on this matter, and we have therefore tabled an amendment to give effect to the intention of Lords amendment 33, ensuring that the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation is subject to the affirmative procedure. I thank Lord Lansley for his engagement on this issue, and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for his contributions to previous debates on these regulations.
Government amendment (a) simply removes the unnecessary provisions in Lords amendment 33 in respect of future regulations, for which there are already powers in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Set alongside the existing safeguards built into the legislation, including a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on the draft regulations before they come into effect, I hope the House will agree that Government amendment (a) will ensure that an appropriate amount of parliamentary scrutiny and engagement is able to take place on these provisions ahead of implementation.
I urge the House to support Government amendment (a), and I look forward to receiving the support of Members.
Matthew Pennycook
With the leave of the House, I will close what has been an extremely brief but nevertheless necessary and important debate, which has moved us another step closer to the Bill becoming law. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken for their contributions. In the time I have available to me, I will seek to respond to the points that were made.
The concerns expressed by the Opposition and Liberal Democrat spokesmen have generally been well rehearsed throughout the passage of the Bill, and I do not expect that I will convince them of the merits of its main principles. There is still time for them to change their minds and recognise the benefits that the Bill will bring in terms of productivity, prosperity and economic growth across the country, but the Bill has been debated at length, so I do not intend to comment too widely on those general points—and there is, of course, only a single amendment before us. However, I will make a couple of comments on some points that were raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) referred to the commitment that we made in the other place, and he is absolutely right. On 24 November, during consideration of Commons reasons and amendments in the House of Lords, the Government made it clear that
“the first EDPs will address nutrient pollution only”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 November 2025; Vol. 850, c. 1158.]
and that Ministers would return to the House once those first EDPs are in place to issue a statement on their progress. Only at that point would the Secretary of State be able to take forward any other EDPs on environmental issues.
I made, and stand by, the commitment that chalk streams will be explicitly recognised in national planning policy. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) will not have to wait long to find out what that will entail, but I take on board his points about what he expects to see on chalk streams.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the private sector, which was well made, we recognise the importance and increasing role that the private sector, including land managers, habitat banks and ecological consultancies, must play in supporting nature’s recovery. Such businesses also play a crucial role in the planning system more generally. The Bill has been drafted to enable delegation and partnership working with third parties. That may apply both to the development of EDPs, including ecological surveys and impact assessments, and in the undertaking and monitoring of conservation measures. EDPs obviously also represent an opportunity for growth in nature service markets and revenue diversification for farming and land management businesses. I hope that he is somewhat reassured on that point.
On the substantive issue of the national scheme of delegation, we absolutely agree that planning is principally a local activity. Decisions about what to build and where should be shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. That is why the Government are determined to ensure that every part of the country has an up-to-date local plan that is developed through significant resident engagement, and why the Government of course believe that planning committees have an integral role in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. However, it is vital that in exercising that democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on the applications that really warrant member input and not revisiting the same decisions.
As hon. Members know, we have undertaken a technical consultation on the national scheme of delegation. We got a significant response: nearly 600 responses from local planning authorities and developers alike. Broad support was expressed for the tiered approach that we have proposed, but we will take all that feedback into account in drafting the regulations to come, which we expect to lay in the spring. Just to make it clear once again, the draft regulations will be subject to public consultation, and we will respond to the consultation at the same time as we publish the draft regulations for consultation.
This landmark piece of legislation will enable us to overturn a failing status quo that has hampered the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, and thereby impeded progress towards greater prosperity and rising living standards. I am immensely proud of having developed the Bill and taken it through Parliament. As I argued on Second Reading, 14 years of Tory failure
“left the country with a belief that nothing works, that nothing gets built, and that Britain can no longer do big things. This Government refuse to accept the stagnation and decline we were bequeathed. We were elected on the promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this…Bill, we will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal.”—[Official Report, 24 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 745.]
It would be remiss of me to conclude my remarks without thanking those who have made a vital contribution to the Bill. I express my gratitude to all hon. and right hon. Members and peers in the other place who engaged with the Bill throughout its passage. The expertise and insight that has been brought to bear in both Houses has strengthened the Bill in a number of important respects. I thank the shadow Front-Bench teams for the constructive way in which they approached scrutiny in Committee and throughout all stages.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her unwavering support in the Bill’s early stages, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), the Secretary of State, for his firm support over recent months. I thank all stakeholders, including a wide range of development industry experts and organisations and environmental non-governmental organisations, which have engaged extensively with my Department to shape the Bill.
Finally, I thank all the talented officials in my Department who have devoted considerable time and energy to this landmark piece of legislation. I particularly thank the Bill team, ably led first by Alex Bush and now by Holly Harper; expert officials, including Will Burgon, Alicia Ford, Guy Skelton and Andrew Short; and past and present members of my private office, including Jim Carroll, Grace Doody, Josh Gray, Gabe Allason and Matt Davies, for helping to deliver the Bill in record time.
The imminent prospect of this Bill receiving Royal Assent is obviously only a beginning. Once the Bill becomes law, we need to implement its provisions. In that regard, the House should be in no doubt that we intend to move quickly, so that we can realise the full benefits of this legislation for productivity, prosperity and living standards across the whole UK. I very much look forward to working with hon. and right hon. Members, as well as stakeholders, as we progress the Bill’s implementation over the coming months.
Question put and agreed to.
Mental Health Bill [Lords]: Programme (No.2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Mental Health Bill [Lords]:
Consideration of Lords Message
(1) Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Gen Kitchen.)
Question agreed to.
Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate. I thank him for his enthusiasm: despite the shadow Minister’s attempt to cast doom and gloom on the situation, there is a huge amount to be positive about in the Ox-Cam corridor. Not only is my hon. Friend a powerful advocate for the interests of his city, but he has long recognised the huge potential in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and the high-potential growth sectors within it, as evidenced by his opening remarks. It is therefore fitting that it is he who has given hon. Members the opportunity to discuss this vital matter.
I also thank the many other hon. Members who have spoken. I am really pleased that it has been such a well-attended debate. I have heard lots of bids for recognition of any kind, including from my hon. Friends the Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) and for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis), and support for funding. Support is undoubtedly required when it comes to things like planning capacity and capability, an issue raised by the hon. Members for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). There were also requests, as I expected, for various grant funding pots across Government. I cannot respond to each request directly, but I assure hon. Members that I will make sure that my ministerial colleagues in the relevant Departments are made aware of them.
In the time available, I will respond to as many as possible of the thematic and broad issues that have been raised. I will start by outlining why the Government are so focused on supercharging growth in the Ox-Cam corridor as part of our ambitious plan for change. As we have heard today, the Oxford-Cambridge region is already an economic powerhouse. It is home to world-leading universities, to globally renowned science and technology firms and to some of the most dynamic innovation clusters in Europe. For a region of 3.5 million people, it punches well above its weight by contributing £143 billion annually to the UK economy.
As this debate has evidenced, the corridor is not just a stretch of land between two cities with world-class universities; its strength lies in the combined economic power of the entire region. With its highly productive and thriving tech sector, Milton Keynes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North rightly raised, is a magnet for innovation and investment. Silverstone contributes advanced manufacturing capabilities. Luton brings global connectivity through its international airport and its strong Eurospace and engineering cluster. Culham is now a thriving centre for research, innovation and a world-recognised fusion technology cluster. I could go on—there are many other examples of places that are doing fantastic things. Together, these and other places within the corridor form an interconnected economy that is driving growth, attracting talent and delivering benefits for those places and for the UK as a whole.
However—and there is strong consensus across the Chamber on this point—we have not yet realised the region’s full potential. It has the potential to become one of the most innovative and economically dynamic areas in the entire world, but as things stand, numerous constraints, from inadequate transport connections to a lack of affordable housing, are preventing it from realising its true potential. That is why the Government are determined to do what is necessary and apply clarity and consistency to drive sustainable economic growth in the region, to the benefit of local communities and national prosperity.
As has been said, there are numerous constraints preventing the corridor from realising its potential. We have had a couple of examples today, and I could add to them. It currently takes two and a half hours to travel by train from Oxford to Cambridge; there is no way to commute by rail directly to Cambridge from places such as Bedford and Milton Keynes; and the lack of affordable housing across the region is a major barrier to securing the world-class talent on which world-class companies depend.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge rightly argued, it is now imperative that, after several false starts, we do what is necessary to drive the growth that we need in the region. That is why the Chancellor made it clear in January that the Ox-Cam corridor would be an economic priority for the Government; it is why she appointed Lord Vallance as the ministerial champion for the region.
If we are to drive the growth we need in the region, we must improve its infrastructure. As hon. Members will know, we have reaffirmed our commitment to deliver East West Rail in full. That will provide a direct rail line between Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge, reconnecting businesses and communities and increasing opportunities for people who live and work in the corridor.
More recently, at the end of October, we committed £120 million to reopen the Cowley branch line in Oxford. That unlocked significant private investment from the Ellison Institute of Technology, which has committed more than £10 billion in science and technology as it expands its Oxford site over the next decade. All of that is on top of our existing projects to improve wider transport infrastructure across the region, such as the upgrade to the A428, which is central to boosting connectivity between Cambridge and Milton Keynes. We are also supporting greater international links for the corridor through our championing of the expansion of Luton airport.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge set out, we need to develop a clear plan for infrastructure in its widest sense. We are therefore working actively across Whitehall and with local partners to consider the region’s needs in areas such as energy and water provision.
Layla Moran
I absolutely agree that the Cowley branch line is amazing, but I underline the point that the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) made about the Kennington bridge problem: there is a £70 million hole there. That matters, because the Oxford flood alleviation scheme will protect the Thames valley floodplain, the largest unprotected floodplain in Europe. If the problem is not addressed, the scheme will get held up, which in turn will stifle growth across the region. It is really important—small, but important.
Matthew Pennycook
I have already had a conversation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) about the importance of Kennington bridge to supporting growth and the transformation of Oxford’s west end, and I recognise the significant interdependencies with the Oxford flood alleviation scheme. The hon. Lady should be in no doubt, and my right hon. Friend is in no doubt, that I have made the point to Ministers in the DFT, as my right hon. Friend has done directly. We recognise the importance of the project.
Another key priority for the corridor is affordable housing, which obviously falls within the responsibilities of my Department. We need to deliver ambitious housing with a strong sense of place, creating sustainable communities with a high quality of life. That is why we are taking a strong place-based focus through the work of my Department in Cambridge and Oxford in particular.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned, we have established the Cambridge Growth Company, which is chaired by Peter Freeman, whom I met again this morning, to drive forward plans for nationally significant growth in greater Cambridge. We are committing up to £400 million to this work to deliver more homes, commercial space and jobs, and have recently announced our intention to consult next year on a centrally led development corporation for the area. As my hon. Friend also mentioned, appointing a high-calibre chief executive to that work will be vital. I can assure him that the search for an exceptional candidate will begin shortly.
I appointed regeneration expert Neale Coleman CBE to lead work on the Oxford growth commission, which is supporting a programme of work to unlock stalled development sites and deliver much-needed housing, including social housing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East will be aware that 60% of our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme is targeted at social rented homes. We encourage providers in Oxford and across the corridor to put in ambitious bids when the programme opens in February.
The corridor could also benefit from our wider work on the new towns programme, with three of the 12 areas highlighted by the new towns taskforce—Tempsford, Milton Keynes and Heyford Park in Oxfordshire—identified as potential sites for development. Looking at the opportunities at the sites will be a key priority for my Department in the coming months. As hon. Members are aware, we have already commenced a strategic environmental assessment to explore the programme as a whole and the most appropriate sites to take forward.
We are also putting innovation first by combining public and private investment to unlock growth and support essential infrastructure. That is why we established the UK’s first AI growth zone in Culham, and why we have been able to support the reopening of the railway at Cowley to fully connect Oxford’s innovation districts. As I think the shadow Minister mentioned, that has enabled us to invest £15 million for the Cambridge innovation hub, creating a world-class space for science and entrepreneurship.
The corridor is already a huge focus for international investment. Lord Stockwood is the Minister who leads on investment in the ministerial delivery group, and his door is always open for any investors who want to look at opportunities in the corridor. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware of Universal’s plans to open a world-class theme park and resort in Bedfordshire, which we believe will generate a £50 billion boost for the economy and create approximately 28,000 jobs. That is an example of the Government’s growth mission in practice and of our realising the opportunities for growth, despite the shadow Minister’s pessimism on that front.
We want to go further, however, and to be ambitious in our support for more investment across the region. I was really pleased that the Chancellor launched our new investment prospectus for the corridor at the regional investment summit in October. It showcased a range of significant opportunities across the region and will be key to our ongoing work to attract inward investment and drive job creation across the corridor.
Before I wind up, I want to stress the importance of the environment. As we drive forward our ambitions for the region, it is essential to address environmental constraints and promote sustainable growth. Water scarcity is a key risk to growth in the region. The Government are determined to ensure that we get the infrastructure in place so that businesses and communities can grow and thrive. As I hope hon. Members are aware, we have fast-tracked plans for two new reservoirs in Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire as part of a £104 billion private sector funding package. We are also implementing innovative approaches to water efficiency in Cambridge.
Pippa Heylings
I applaud the Government for confirming and recommitting to those new reservoirs. Will the Minister confirm that the Government understand that the new fens reservoir is enough only for the existing ambitions within the emerging local plan, not for the additional thousands of homes that are being considered by the new development corporation? We need to get the water scarcity group working together now to think about other options. Otherwise, water is a deal breaker.
Matthew Pennycook
I assure the hon. Lady that I understand the potential constraint that water may provide. The Cambridge Growth Company, working with local partners in Greater Cambridge, is looking at solutions that can be taken forward. As I say, water efficiency, as well as investment, is needed for infrastructure of the kind that she mentions.
We are recognising the importance of the natural environment by confirming that a new national forest will be established in the corridor to support nature recovery, create green jobs and ensure access to nature for local communities. That is currently in the planning phase, but further details will be released next year.
Lord Vallance cannot respond as the ministerial champion for the corridor, but I stress that this is an example of what mission-led Government means in practice. We have a cross-Whitehall ministerial delivery group that brings together all interested Departments and ministerial champions to ensure that our approach across the region is consistent, joined up and ambitious.
The hon. Members for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) and for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), among others, asked how we are to bring together and co-ordinate infrastructure and investment. There are nationally significant projects, such as East West Rail, but key in my mind on the planning side are the spatial development strategies that will be enabled through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on a sub-regional level—high-level infrastructure frameworks for investment and housing growth that can pull together and co-ordinate cross-boundary in the way we need, supplementing national interventions.
I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge once again for securing the debate and for all the points that he made. I am more than happy to take up land value capture, skills and issues of interest to him. Given the number of meeting requests that I have had, it is probably time for another. Lord Vallance held some engagement sessions for hon. Members earlier this year; I am happy to facilitate, with him, the scheduling of another drop-in session so that hon. Members get the chance to raise specific issues.
The Government are going further and faster to deliver growth. The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor is not a distant aspiration; it is happening now. It will happen in this decade, to address the point my hon. Friend made in opening the debate. We are building the homes and the infrastructure, delivering the opportunities that the region’s communities deserve and ensuring the corridor becomes a world-class innovation supercluster, driving prosperity for generations to come.
Reforming Local Plan Making
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Following my written statement concerning local plan making and guidance—[Official Report, 27 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 62WS.]—I am today providing an update on the implementation of our reforms to the plan-making system in England.
This Government were elected on a manifesto that included a clear commitment to build 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament, and all areas are required to play their part. In order to deliver the homes and growth that the country needs, we expect all local planning authorities to make every effort to get up-to-date local plans in place as soon as possible.
The plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our planning system. Local plans are the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their areas need. In the absence of an up-to-date plan, there is a high likelihood that development will come forward on a piecemeal and speculative basis, with reduced public engagement and fewer guarantees that it will make the most of an area’s potential. It is for these reasons that the level of up-to-date plan coverage we inherited is so problematic.
As a Government, we have made a clear commitment to achieving universal local plan coverage. To that end, we have been clear that we intend to drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible. That is why we introduced transitional arrangements for emerging plans in preparation as part of the changes we made to the national planning policy framework in December last year, and why we have recently awarded over £29 million in funding to 188 local planning authorities to support the rapid preparation of plans that reflect that updated framework.
However, the current system is optimised neither for speed, nor for community participation. The Government are therefore clear that more fundamental reform to the system is needed, to ensure that local plans are faster to prepare and simpler for end users to access and understand.
In February, we published the Government’s response to the previous Government’s consultation on implementation of plan-making reforms. I am today publishing more detailed information about the design of the legislation required to implement the new system; how we intend to roll it out across the country, and the resources that will be made available to support plan makers to that end.
Designing and implementing new plan-making regulations
We will shortly lay the regulations that will underpin our new approach to plan making. These will reflect our February 2025 response to the previous Government’s consultation on the new plan-making system, and their development has taken into account responses to that consultation, as well as feedback provided through extensive engagement with the sector.
The regulations will set out a new process for producing plans, with clear steps that a local planning authority will need to take. This should support faster preparation of plans and more frequent updates, in line with our aim of universal coverage of up-to-date plans that reflect local needs.
The Government are today publishing a summary of what we intend these regulations to contain. This will provide plan makers and other key stakeholders with the information they need to familiarise themselves with the new system in advance of it coming into force early next year.
Rolling out the new plan-making system
The Government are acutely aware that many local planning authorities are keen to start work on plans in the new system at the earliest opportunity, to give themselves the best possible chance of success and provide much-needed certainty for their communities.
Having considered carefully responses to the earlier consultation, I am announcing today that we no longer intend to roll the system out in a series of plan-making waves. Instead, local planning authorities will be encouraged to bring plans forward as soon as possible following the commencement of the regulations early in the new year.
While authorities will have discretion over how soon they start their plan, regulations will set out final backstop dates for when plan-making must legally have commenced. Local planning authorities covered by the NPPF transitional arrangements will have to commence formal plan making (gateway 1) by 31 October 2026, while those that have a plan that is already over five years old must commence by 30 April 2027. Further information will be set out in the regulations and in guidance.
We will provide a minimum of £14 million of funding this financial year to support local plan making. This is to help local planning authorities get ambitious plans in place as soon as possible and to support those starting work on a new plan early in the new plan-making system. Further details will be published shortly.
Guidance and tools to support local authorities
In February 2025 we launched a new home for local plan-making resources on gov.uk— https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/create-or-update-a-local-plan
This is already supporting plan makers. Today we are going further by publishing, in draft, the first dedicated guidance and tools to support plan makers bringing forward a local plan in the new system.
For this initial release we have prioritised resources that can best support plan makers in the earliest stages of plan-making, aiding their understanding of how the new system will work and what they could focus on now to get ready. Additional practical tools and templates have been provided by the Planning Advisory Service, which will further support plan makers with their preparations. These resources form part of a growing digital offer to support plan makers to deliver local plans faster. It will be followed by the timely release of tools and services both this year and beyond.
Plan making in the current system
The Government have been clear that they want local planning authorities to continue bringing forward plans as quickly as possible ahead of the new system coming into force. For plans progressing to adoption under the existing plan-making legal framework, we will be setting out in the aforementioned regulations that the final date for submission for examination will be 31 December 2026.
As set out in the revised NPPF published on 12 December 2024, local plans that reached regulation 19 stage on or before 12 March and needed updating as they were meeting less than 80% of local housing need, are expected to be updated and submitted by 12 June 2026, unless updating the plan required the authority to return to regulation 18. If this was the case, authorities have until 31 December 2026 to reach submission.
The Government are committed to taking tough action to ensure that local authorities have up-to-date local plans in place. While we hope the need will not arise, we have made it clear that we are willing to make full use of available intervention powers—including taking over a local authority’s plan making directly—if local plans are not progressed as required.
Duty to co-operate
The new plan-making system provided by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 does not include the duty to co-operate that was inserted into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 through the Localism Act 2011 to help bridge the gap in cross-boundary co-operation resulting from the abolition of regional planning. Instead, the new system will rely on revised national policy and the new tier of strategic planning to ensure effective co-operation between plan-making authorities.
The regulations for the new system will also save the current plan-making system for a period to allow emerging plans to progress to examination by 31 December 2026. Given the above, and to help drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible and progress towards our objective of universal local plan coverage, we have decided not to “save” the duty, thereby removing this requirement for plans in the current system.
Local planning authorities should continue to collaborate across their boundaries, including on unmet development needs from neighbouring areas, and we expect planning inspectors to continue to examine plans in line with the policies in the NPPF on maintaining effective co-operation. I have written to the chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate to ask that these matters are made clear to local plan inspectors.
[HCWS1104]
Oral Answers to Questions
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Although Tempsford—along with Crews Hill in Enfield and Leeds South Bank—looks like a promising site, no final decisions on new town locations will be made until the strategic environmental assessment that was commenced on 28 September has concluded. Alongside the SEA process, my Department will continue to engage with local leaders to further develop our understanding of how different locations might meet the Government’s expectations of what a future new towns programme can deliver.
Ian Sollom
I thank the Minister for his answer. St Neots is the nearest town to the proposed east coast main line and East West Rail interchange station that would be central to any new town development at Tempsford. Many recognise the opportunities of our area, but my constituents also need clarity, particularly on health and education infrastructure. With multiple local authorities potentially being involved across county boundaries, will the Minister meet me to discuss how, in the event of a new town at Tempsford going ahead, St Neots will be supported and, in turn, how St Neots can support the new town?
Matthew Pennycook
I stress again that no decisions have been made or will be made until the SEA process concludes. We have been clear that the next generation of new towns must be well connected, well designed, sustainable, healthy and attractive places where people want to live and, importantly, that they must have the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities established from the outset. I am more than happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman at the point when the SEA concludes and we know the final set of sites that we are taking forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The plans for Tempsford vindicate those of us who have long argued for East West Rail and the plans for the area between Cambridge and Oxford, but can my hon. Friend assure me and the House that this Government will be consistent in their support and will not wobble like the previous Government did, which led to a lost decade for these projects?
Matthew Pennycook
We will be consistent. Where we make commitments around large-scale housing development or infrastructure that is required to support it, we intend to bring that forward, and my hon. Friend will know that on Greater Cambridge we are out to consultation on a centrally-led development corporation to take forward nationally significant growth in his part of the country.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
This Government are determined to end the injustice of fleecehold entirely, and we will publish consultations before the end of this year on how we best implement the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, on new consumer protection provisions for residential freeholders and on options for reducing the prevalence of private estate management arrangements. We are also committed to ensuring that residential freeholders and leaseholders are protected from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous property agents.
Lloyd Hatton
At a recent public meeting, people living at the Chesil Reach and Greys Field development in Chickerell told me about the problems they had been facing with the estate management company FirstPort, with large increases to the service charge, little transparency and a failure to fulfil even the most basic obligations. It is all made so much worse because FirstPort is truly terrible at responding to concerns when they are raised by the public. With all that in mind, can the Minister outline what steps are being taken to hold FirstPort to account for its many failings? How can we deliver much stronger protections for everyone living in properties managed by FirstPort?
Matthew Pennycook
As my hon. Friend may be aware, in response to widespread concerns raised in a recent debate on property service charges, I met Martin King, managing director of FirstPort, on 17 November. In our meeting, I pressed Mr King and his associates on a wide range of issues stemming from reports of poor service, and I left him in no doubt that in the Government’s view, FirstPort’s performance is not good enough. I intend to write to FirstPort to follow up on the issues raised, and I will happily deposit a copy of that letter in the Library.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I was contacted by residents of Canford Paddock, who wrote to me about ongoing unregulated estate fees, which particularly relate to a suitable alternative natural greenspace—SANG—that was a condition of the development, as it is near a site of special scientific interest. The privately owned SANG is in the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council area, but is not managed by the council. What protections therefore exist for the residents, who are having to pay for a public site managed by a private developer?
Matthew Pennycook
In my opening answer, I referenced the consultation we intend to launch soon relating to protections for residential freeholders from that type of charge, where it is unreasonable. Those provisions in the 2024 Act provide for greater transparency. They allow homeowners on freehold estates to take the estate manager to the first-tier tribunal if unreasonable rent charges are being levied. The hon. Lady and her constituents will have a chance to feed into that consultation very soon.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The national planning policy framework sets out a sequential approach to flood risk management, requiring inappropriate development to be directed away from areas at highest risk and providing strong safeguards where development is necessary in these areas. The updates to the framework made in December last year expanded the requirement for development to provide sustainable drainage systems. Statutory guidance accompanying building regulations promotes flood-resilient buildings in flood-prone areas through approved document C.
Brian Mathew
Over the past week, I am sure many of us have seen and felt the proof that our weather is becoming more extreme. That is why it is ever more important to be proactive and forward-thinking in our housing strategy. Does the Minister agree that sites that flood frequently, such as the old golf course in Bradford-on-Avon in my constituency of Melksham and Devizes, should not be included in local plans and not be called upon for development?
Matthew Pennycook
I would say a number of things to the hon. Gentleman. First, local plans are tested for their soundness by the Planning Inspectorate. He will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual sites, but I again draw the attention of the House to the strong protections in national planning policy which mean that development that could be vulnerable to flooding should not be allowed in areas of high flood risk.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill takes smaller decisions away from councillors. Last week’s direction, announced in a ministerial statement, will take big decisions involving over 150 homes, such as the decision on Oldway Road in Wellington, out of the hands of local councillors. Do the Government no longer trust local people to shape communities and deliver the housing that we need?
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I think he misrepresents the proposal that has been announced. It is not an automatic removal for all planning applications relating to more than 150 homes; it is simply a referral process, which applies in other situations already, that allows the Secretary of State to call in individual applications.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I recently met representatives of BUUK, a multi-utility infrastructure provider that constructs and operates essential utility assets, and can provide all utilities as a one-stop shop. In view of the Department’s progress on new towns, and the need to rapidly scale up house building, what consideration has the Department given to using innovative delivery models, such as BUUK’s site-wide deployment of utility infrastructure, and thus reducing bureaucracy, streamlining delivery, improving accountability and allowing house builders to get on with building?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Government obviously recognise the importance of ensuring that new housing development is supported by appropriate infrastructure. On the individual company that he references, I will ask my officials to reach out to it directly to discuss its delivery model and find out a bit more about its potential advantages.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order. We are on topicals, and Members are stretching the questions.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. Again, he will appreciate that, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning system, I cannot comment on individual applications. I am aware of the concerns that have been raised by Members from across the House about holding directions, issued in particular by National Highways. He may be aware of the reforms that we are making to the statutory consultation system as a whole, which are now out to consultation.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
In my constituency of Sherwood Forest, we have new housing developments, including in Edwinstowe and Rainworth. Does the Minister agree that when these sites are developed, local authorities and housing companies should ensure appropriate infrastructure is put in place, whether that is GP surgeries, schools or shops, because in the past this has not happened, including in Hucknall?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and she is absolutely right. Local development plans should address infrastructure needs and opportunities. When preparing a local plan, local planning authorities are under a duty to bring forward infrastructure funding statements. However, we realise that there is more to be done to ensure that we get the right infrastructure built in the right time as a development proceeds.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which is topical in that I recently met officials from Cornwall council and Members, including hon. Friends, banging the drum for new homes in Cornwall, in particular social and affordable homes. There is ongoing work, including conversations taking place with Homes England, on how we can better support Cornwall to bring forward the homes it needs.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
If it comes forward, Tempsford new town would offer an opportunity to get infrastructure right while building the homes we crucially need, in stark contrast to the chaotic approach to development seen by far too many of my Bedfordshire towns and villages. If it does proceed, will the Minister meet me to ensure we engage on how we can maximise the infrastructure benefits, not just for Tempsford but for my existing communities that are already feeling the strain?
Matthew Pennycook
I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that and other matters of importance to him in his locality. He is a doughty champion for ensuring that, as we bring forward new homes, we get the essential infrastructure and amenities in place as well.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Matthew Pennycook
If memory serves, I answered another question from the hon. Gentleman on precisely this topic. He knows, I think, that we are out to consultation on the matter. If he wants to write to me in the first instance with further details about the type of changes he is seeking, I would be more than happy to respond.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Matthew Pennycook
As I made clear in answer to a previous question, strong protections in national planning policy mean that development that could be vulnerable to flooding should not be allowed in areas of high flood risk. Where local planning authorities have approved development in spite of initial objections—for example, from the Environment Agency—they will have had to ensure that the development would be safe through, for example, adequate mitigations.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for Housing and Planning for visiting Ebbsfleet Garden City in my constituency last week. Does the Minister agree that, with an additional 10,000 homes to be built in Ebbsfleet over the next 10 years, to create great places to live we have got to build schools, medical facilities and green spaces—
Matthew Pennycook
We fully appreciate the importance of finishing Ebbsfleet Central, and while I cannot pre-empt the Department’s business planning, my hon. Friend can be assured that his championing of Ebbsfleet Garden City will ensure that it receives the support it requires through the new—
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Matthew Pennycook
I am afraid that the hon. Lady will have to write to me and outline which fund precisely she is talking about. I am more than happy to get back to her if she does that.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Mr Speaker. The whole of Cornwall, one of the most deprived regions in northern Europe, missed out on Pride in Place funding, which I can only assume was due to the “trusting your neighbour” indicator being treated as a marker of affluence rather than deprivation in the community needs index. Can the Minister confirm that Cornwall will not be disadvantaged because of that in the next tranche of Pride in Place funding?
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
I thank the Minister for Housing and Planning for his constructive meeting last week on the community infrastructure levy. Could he tell the House whether Liberal Democrat-controlled councils such as mine in Waverley should be charging the community infrastructure levy to private householders who do a straightforward extension on their house?
Matthew Pennycook
As this is topicals, I do not want to repeat the extensive conversation that the right hon. Member and I have had. He knows that we are making good-faith efforts to resolve the issue and to bring some redress forward for his resident freeholders.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
Hillingdon council has applied for exceptional financial support due to years of underfunding under the previous Government and local financial mismanagement. Will the Minister assure me that, as part of our updated funding criteria, councils such as Hillingdon will get more of the funding that they need, and that there will also be improved accountability and management requirements on local councils?
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
In rural areas like my constituency, private renting is very expensive and is unaffordable to many. What is the Minister doing to ensure that more housing is available at social rent rather than market rent, which people can simply not afford?
Matthew Pennycook
We are ensuring, through the new £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, for example, that the types of homes that need extra grant funding have that flexibility—that will include rural housing.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
What is grey belt, and can the Minister tell us what assessment he has made of the risk it poses to the integrity of the green belt in areas such as mine?
Matthew Pennycook
The right hon. Lady continues to ask me what grey belt is; Google is her friend in this instance. I continue to refer her to the planning practice guidance that covers exactly what it means.
Infrastructure: Cramlington and Killingworth
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) on securing the debate. I also note the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery). I remind hon. Members, as I always do at the outset of my remarks, that due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process, I am unable to comment on individual local plans, planning applications or, for that matter, how individual local planning authorities—including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth—may interpret national planning policy.
As my hon. Friend rightly acknowledged, it is also the case that a number of the specific issues she raised are the sole responsibility of the Department for Transport. I understand from DFT officials that proposals in respect of Moor Farm roundabout are being considered by National Highways as part of the road investment strategy pipeline. While my Department and the DFT obviously work closely together on all aspects of legislation, policy and guidance concerning shared priorities, my hon. Friend will, I hope, appreciate that it is not for me to comment in any way on those specific proposals. As my hon. Friend knows, my ministerial colleagues in the DFT are aware of her strongly held views on the matter, not least as a result of the June Westminster Hall debate that she secured on it, but I will ensure that the points that she has made today are drawn to their attention. I will seek to respond as best I can in the time available to the various matters and questions that she raised, in so far as they fall within my responsibilities.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the importance of local development plans. Local plans are the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development that their areas need. Importantly, local development plans should address needs and opportunities in relation to infrastructure and identify what infrastructure is required and how it might be funded and brought forward. This aspect of a plan, including its relationship with housing, is publicly examined by an independent inspector to determine whether a local plan is sound and can be adopted. Planning practice guidance recommends that, when preparing a local plan, local planning authorities use available evidence of infrastructure requirements to prepare an infrastructure funding statement. Such statements can be used to demonstrate the delivery of infrastructure throughout the plan period. It is precisely because up-to-date local plans are integral to the functioning of our planning system that we are determined to drive local plans to adoption, and progress towards our ambition of achieving universal plan coverage, as quickly as possible.
Although I appreciate that all that does not offer any immediate solution to the transport infrastructure challenges highlighted by my hon. Friend, increased local plan coverage will support better land use and transport planning. I understand that North Tyneside council is progressing a plan in the existing plan-making system and intends to submit by December 2026, and that Northumberland county council intends to prepare a new plan once the new plan-making system commences. I know that my hon. Friend will do whatever she can to support both authorities with progressing their plan-making efforts, and officials from my Department would be happy to meet officers at Northumberland and North Tyneside councils to discuss any specific issues of concern they have in respect of their plan-making activities.
My hon. Friend raised concerns about the role of statutory consultees in the planning system. She drew particular attention to the use of holding directions. The Government recognise that the statutory consultee system is not currently working effectively. In far too many instances, statutory consultee engagement with planning applications is not proactive or proportionate, and advice and information provided are not timely or commensurate with what is necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms. In turn, local planning authorities and developers too frequently provide inadequate or poor-quality information or make blanket and inappropriate referrals to statutory consultees. That said, the role of statutory consultees in the planning system is important. When they engage and are engaged effectively in the planning application process, they support good decision making and high-quality development through the swift provision of expert advice and information on significant environmental, safety, heritage and transport issues.
The Government are determined to improve the functioning of the statutory consultee system, to facilitate confident and timely decision making. To that end, we have this very day published a consultation document on reforms to the system. The objective of the proposals outlined in that document is to ensure that statutory consultees are focused on providing practical, pragmatic and timely advice and expertise in respect of what is necessary to make development acceptable, and that local planning authorities are not engaging with statutory consultees where it is not necessary to do so. If taken forward, the reforms would mean that bodies such as National Highways and Active Travel England would need to consider up to 40% fewer applications. That would mean the saving of time and effort for both house builders and councils. This is an important step towards a faster, more efficient planning system that supports housing delivery.
My hon. Friend asked what my Department is doing to boost growth and advance devolution in the north-east. She will know that local leadership and local growth plans, such as the north-east growth plan, are the cornerstone of this Government’s place-based approach to unlocking economic growth. The interventions and investments identified through those plans are focused on addressing key barriers to growth and building on existing strengths and local assets, such as those she mentioned.
Our shared transport priority recognises the need to improve transport connectivity and unlock housing development and commercial activity by ensuring that new development is supported by the public transport network and that pinch points on the road network are addressed.
Ian Lavery
The reality here is quite simple. It is about transport infrastructure versus economic growth. If we cannot get the transport infrastructure right, there is an impact on the potential for economic growth and tens of thousands of jobs in North Tyneside and Northumberland; we will not see any growth in our local economies. Frankly, we cannot afford to allow that to happen. We ask you, Minister—I beg you—to have a look at the impasse. Why is it happening at Moor Farm roundabout when those such as Testo’s roundabout and the Silverlink roundabout, and the roundabouts down the A19 and the Spine Road, have all been given the right investment? We are waiting on something to allow us to develop our areas for our people.
Matthew Pennycook
I well understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. It is not for me, as the Minister of State for Housing and Planning, to make determinations on individual transport projects that are being considered through the road investment strategy pipeline. My Department has additional capital funds of its own to deploy for land and infrastructure in respect of the new national housing delivery fund. That will be part of the integrated settlement for the Mayor of the North East to consider but, in this instance, consideration is being taken forward by the DFT as part of the road investment strategy pipeline, as I said. I am giving my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth and Ashington and for Cramlington and Killingworth my perspective as a Minister in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as to how the planning system in the round considers such matters.
The frameworks I was referring to will help to attract public and private investment, unlocking opportunities for people and business across the region. As the North East takes its plan forward, it should feel empowered to use the plan and our shared priorities as the basis for engaging with the Government, the DFT in particular, and other key partners in the region. The plans are backed by £1.79 billion for the North East combined authority from the transport for city regions funding for 2027-28 through to 2031-32, on top of the wider funding from the city region sustainable transport settlements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth reiterated her long-standing concerns about the various problems associated with freehold estates. She and I have discussed the matter numerous times. We have had debates on the subject and the House considered the issue in some detail recently, on 30 October, so I do not intend to restate the Government’s position in its entirety. Suffice it to say that we remain fully committed to protecting residential freeholders on such estates from unfair charges and to ending the injustice of fleecehold entirely by reducing the prevalence of private estate management arrangements. As we have promised, we will consult on these matters before the end of the year, and my hon. Friend and her constituents can feed into our proposals at that point. We remain on track to bring those consultations forward.
I commend my hon. Friend again for securing the debate. I thank her, as ever, for the clarity with which she made her arguments and in particular demonstrated the link, which we absolutely acknowledge, between strategic infrastructure and housing delivery, and for the passion with which she and my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington spoke in favour of the specific project that they want to see come forward. I emphasise once again that the Government are seeking to drive improvements across the whole system to prevent similar issues in future and to unlock development.
I note the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth on the specific infrastructure projects that she referenced. As I made clear at the start, I have already had a conversation with the relevant Ministers in the DFT, but I will draw their attention to the remarks made today and our Department will continue to engage with the DFT on these and other projects where housing considerations are pertinent.
I look forward to continuing to engage with my hon. Friend to ensure that the changes that the Government have made already, along with those still to come, are to the lasting benefit of her constituents—as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington—and I thank her for bringing these matters to the House’s attention today.
Question put and agreed to.
Renters’ Rights Act: Implementation Road Map
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
In their manifesto, the Government promised to overhaul the regulation of our country’s insecure and unjust private rented sector. The Renters’ Rights Act delivers on that commitment.
The Act will empower renters by providing them with greater security, rights and protections so that they can stay in their homes for longer, build lives in their communities and avoid the risk of homelessness. It will ensure that we can drive up the quality of privately rented housing so that renters have access to good-quality and safe homes as a matter of course. It will allow us to crack down on the minority of unscrupulous landlords who exploit, mistreat or discriminate against renters.
The Act will also provide tangible benefits for responsible landlords who provide high-quality homes and a good service to their tenants. Not only will it improve the reputation of the sector as a whole, but it will also ensure that good landlords enjoy clear regulation, better access to information, and clear and expanded possession grounds, so that they can regain their properties quickly when necessary.
I am announcing the publication of “Implementing the Renters’ Rights Act 2025: Our roadmap for reforming the Private Rented Sector”.
The document, a copy of which I will deposit in the Library, provides an overview of our implementation plans for the coming years and includes detail on how we will phase our reforms and when they will come into force.
We intend to implement the Act in three distinct phases:
In the first phase of our reforms, we will implement the new tenancy regime. This will apply to both new and existing tenancies and will come into force on 1 May 2026. In this phase, section 21 evictions will finally be abolished; we will move to a simpler tenancy structure where all assured tenancies are periodic; the practice of landlords demanding large amounts of rent in advance from tenants will be brought to an end; rental bidding will be prohibited; and tenants will be given strengthened rights to request a pet.
In the second phase of our reforms, from late 2026, we will introduce the new private rented sector database and private rented sector landlord ombudsman service. The database will help landlords understand their obligations and demonstrate compliance; will increase transparency and facilitate better access to information for tenants so they can take effective action to enforce their rights; and will support local authorities with effective enforcement. The ombudsman will provide quick, fair, impartial and binding resolution for tenants’ complaints about their landlord and will bring tenant-landlord complaint resolution in line with established redress practices for tenants in social housing and consumers of property agent services.
In the third and final phase of our reforms—dates to be settled following consultation—we will apply a modernised decent homes standard and Awaab’s law to the private rented sector for the first time. Extending the decent homes standard to the sector will give renters safer, better value homes and remove the blight of poor-quality homes in local communities. Extending Awaab’s law will set clear legal expectations about the timeframes within which landlords in the private rented sector must take action to make homes safe where they contain serious hazards.
The Government look forward to ongoing engagement with all stakeholders to ensure a smooth implementation of this transformative Act.
[HCWS1060]
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsThursday 13th November 2025
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 View all Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 13 November 2025 - large print - (13 Nov 2025)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 2, and Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2.
Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 31, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 32, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 33, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 37, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 38, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 39, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 40, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 4 to 30, 34 to 36, and 41 to 117.
Matthew Pennycook
Sustained economic growth is the only route to delivering the improved prosperity our country needs and the higher living standards working people deserve. That is why it has always been this Government’s No. 1 mission. This landmark Bill, which will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, is integral to the success of that mission, and it will play a vital part in delivering the Government’s plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. The Government are therefore determined to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible, and I am pleased that the House has an opportunity today to renew its commitment to this vital legislation and express its firm opposition to attempts to undermine its core principles.
Before I turn to the amendments before us, let me put on record once again my heartfelt thanks to Baroness Taylor for her prodigious efforts in guiding the Bill through the other place, and my gratitude to peers collectively for the comprehensive and rigorous scrutiny to which they subjected it. The Government made a number of important changes to the Bill in the other place, with a view to ensuring that it will work as intended, that its full potential in respect of unlocking economic growth is realised, and to provide further reassurance that a number of its key provisions will achieve the beneficial outcomes that we expect. In the interests of time, I will update the House briefly on the two most significant areas of change.
The first concerns the package of measures we introduced last month to maximise the growth potential of the Bill. As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill’s impact assessment estimates that it could benefit the UK economy by up to £7.5 billion over the next 10 years. That is an assessment, it should be noted, that was made prior to the incorporation into the Bill of several important pro-growth measures, including the removal of the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for nationally significant infrastructure project applications—a change that could result in cost savings of over £1 billion across the pipeline of projects in this Parliament. The package introduced last month further bolsters the growth impact of the Bill. It included provisions that further streamline the consenting of reservoirs, clarify Natural England’s strategic advisory role, and facilitate the deployment of up to three additional gigawatts of onshore wind and secure the billions of pounds’ worth of investment into UK services that come with that.
The second area of change concerns the package of amendments we tabled in July in respect of part 3 of the Bill, which directly addressed a range of issues that were highlighted in the advice the Government received from the Office for Environmental Protection on the new nature restoration fund. They provided for a number of additional safeguards, strengthened and made more explicit those that were already in the Bill on its introduction, and further clarified how the NRF will operate going forward. I emphasise that none of the changes made will affect the process by which house builders interact with an environmental delivery plan, namely by paying a levy to discharge specific environmental obligations through it, and nor do they undermine the strategic approach that underpins the model.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The housing market is absolutely flat and we desperately need to build more housing. What is stopping all this new building, people moving and creating a healthy housing market? It is the appalling stamp duty that everybody acknowledges is the worst tax. The Minister is not the Chancellor, but will he approach his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the autumn statement and see whether she can steal our clothes and promise to abolish stamp duty?
Matthew Pennycook
The Chancellor will set out her decisions on the Budget in fairly short order and the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that. I am going to be quite strict in sticking to the contents of the Bill and what is in scope, rather than ranging more widely, as he tempts me to do.
The amendments we tabled in the summer package provided greater confidence that the NRF delivers the improved outcomes for nature that are at the core of the model. I take the opportunity to thank all the hon. Members who engaged in constructive discussions with the Government about the NRF during Commons stages, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for his thoughtful participation in Committee, which helped shape my thinking about the package of amendments in question.
I should also make clear that the Government tabled further technical amendments in the other place to ensure that the NRF works effectively across borders, as well as ensuring it is able to operate in the marine environment. Those amendments also ensure that the NRF can be used to support the impact of development on Ramsar sites. In addition, the Government supported an amendment tabled by Lord Banner in the other place to ensure that the NRF can accommodate the development processes associated with large strategic housing sites that are phased.
Turning to the amendments made by peers in the other place, I want to make clear that the Government welcomed the scrutiny and challenge provided, and that we are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas. However, I am afraid that most of the amendments sent back to this place seek to undermine the core principles of the Bill, and for that reason we cannot accept them. Let me make clear precisely why, in each instance where that is the case.
Lords amendment 1 would prevent the removal of existing parliamentary requirements that serve to delay material policy amendments to national policy statements. In short, it is a wrecking amendment designed to frustrate the Government’s intention to streamline the process for incorporating into NPSs changes that have already received public and parliamentary scrutiny. Let me emphasise once again that the intent of clause 2 is not to erode parliamentary scrutiny; it is simply about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the four categories of changes the clause covers. That said, I have always recognised the sincere arguments made by various hon. and right hon. Members, as well as by noble Lords, about the importance of transparency and parliamentary scrutiny in respect of NPSs. That is precisely why I provided the Chair of the Liaison Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) with a number of assurances on Report.
For the purposes of clarity, let me repeat those assurances. When the Government of the day intend to make a reflective amendment to an NPS, a statement will be laid before Parliament announcing a review and the relevant Select Committee will be written to. Ministers will make themselves available to speak to that Committee and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period. Importantly, the NPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. In other words, Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted.
To assuage further the concerns that some hon. Members might have about a reduction in scrutiny as a result of the clause, I am happy to provide a further commitment today: when a statement is laid in Parliament announcing a review, it will include how the proposed change or changes fall within the four categories of changes to which clause 2 applies. I cannot, however, accept Lords amendment 1 for the reasons I have set out, and I urge the House to reject it.
Turning next to Lords amendments 2 and 3, Lords amendment 2 enables faster consenting of major water infrastructure projects. Crucially, it allows third party providers, appointed by water undertakers, to apply to deliver such projects through the streamlined development consent order route.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Apologies, but I want to go back to the point the Minister was making about Lords amendment 1. As Chair of the Transport Committee, I am slightly concerned that we will get less opportunity and time to scrutinise major infrastructure projects. Had these proposals been law when High Speed 2 was first being considered, instead of a hybrid Bill, it is likely that HS2 would have come under them, and the third runway at Heathrow, plus the national infrastructure network, will do so. Does he not agree that this House and its Committees should have sufficient chance, not just to wait for the Minister’s convenience—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady will know that that is a very long intervention.
Matthew Pennycook
I recognise the point my hon. Friend makes, but I do not agree that the change will mean Select Committees do not have the opportunity to feed their views into Government. As I said, what we are trying to do with the clause is ensure that the scrutiny provided is proportionate to the changes being made. These are, in most cases, minor and reflective changes. They do not entail the full amendment of a national policy statement; that would have to come via the normal route. I hope my comments on what we expect of Minister’s attendance at Select Committees and in other areas provides her with reassurance.
Matthew Pennycook
No, I will not give way again. I will make some progress on the next set of amendments, which I need to get to, as I know many Members wish to speak.
As I was saying on Lords amendment 2, the Government support the intent of the amendment. However, subsections (7) and (8) of the new clause would require consents for listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites to be obtained separately from the application for development consent for dams or reservoirs. We cannot support those subsections.
Lords amendment 3 is also problematic. It introduces additional notification and representation processes into the nationally significant infrastructure project regime when 20 or more residences are to be demolished in constructing dam or reservoir projects, despite such matters already being addressed by the Planning Act 2008. Both amendments are contrary to the intention of the NSIP regime, which introduced a streamlined “one- stop shop” approach to obtaining consents. It is the Government’s considered view that the regime already provides ample opportunity for those issues to be considered before the relevant Secretary of State makes their decision. Numerous adequate heritage safeguards and opportunities for communities and interested parties to have their say about dam and reservoir projects are already in place.
In respect of heritage concerns in particular, the national policy statement for water resources contains explicit policy on preserving the historical environment. When deciding whether to grant consent, the Secretary of State is under a statutory duty to have regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building, conservation area or scheduled monument where applications affect these assets. In respect of the demolition of homes, again, the Planning Act already provides sufficient safeguards for the compulsory acquisition of land. For those reasons, I urge the House to support an amendment to remove subsections (7) and (8) from Lords amendment 2 and to reject Lords amendment 3 in its entirety.
Turning to Lords amendment 31, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the Government are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is not in his place, made a strong case on Report for greater accessibility requirements for electric vehicle charge points. As he knows, I made a personal commitment to him to give further consideration to the arguments he made. The objective he sought is echoed in Lords amendment 31, which seeks to amend the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 to enable the mandating of accessibility requirements for public charge points through regulations.
As the House will know, the Government are already working closely with the sector to update the current accessibility standards for public charge points. However, I have been convinced that we should use the Bill to provide further certainty in respect of this matter, and we have therefore tabled an amendment in lieu that is faithful to the original amendment agreed in the other place, with some minor changes designed to ensure that the powers cover all relevant aspects of accessibility for public charge points and that requirements can be placed on all relevant parties that play a role in delivering them. The Government will of course consult before producing and laying the relevant regulations. The Department for Transport looks forward to working with both the Scottish and Welsh Governments on these matters. On that basis, I hope the House will support our amendment in lieu.
Lords amendment 32 would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of current regulation on low-hazard reservoirs and to set out proposals for deregulation of such reservoirs within six months of enactment. An assessment of the impact of current reservoir safety regulation has already been published on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ science search website. Furthermore, the Government already intend to set out proposals for the deregulation of low-hazard reservoirs within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I also commit to clarifying planning practice guidance for the permitted development right that grants planning permission for the development of on-farm reservoirs, giving clarity to farmers about when this permitted development right can be used. Given that the Government have fulfilled one aspect of the amendment already, and I have committed to fulfilling the rest today, we are clear that there is no need to legislate on the matter. I therefore urge the House to reject this amendment.
Lords amendment 33 seeks to make the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise concerns about the use of the negative procedure in respect of these regulations. We have already consulted on detailed proposals to help inform the regulations, and the clause itself imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to consult again on the draft regulations before they are brought into force. This consultation duty will apply not only to the first set of regulations, but for any subsequent changes to those regulations. In the light of the two rounds of consultation planned before those regulations are laid, I urge the House to reject this amendment.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
Just this week at the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the new Secretary of State outlined that the Government will not be urging national development management policies to be non-statutory. That almost seems at odds with the Government’s direction of travel, which is towards speeding up the national scheme of delegation. Will the Minister explain why the Government are taking the approach of making the guidance non-statutory?
Matthew Pennycook
I am afraid that my hon. Friend is conflating two entirely separate issues. We are committed to introducing a new suite of national policies for development management. We will consult on those before the end of the year. The Secretary of State provided a bit more detail at the Select Committee the other day. This particular amendment—Lords amendment 33—refers to the powers in the Bill to bring forward a national scheme of delegation, and I am making it clear that the sufficient consultation already built into the system does not require it to be taken forward via the affirmative procedure. I hope that reassures her.
Lords amendment 37 would exempt assets of community value from the permitted development right for demolition under part 11 of the general permitted development order. I have reflected on this amendment and agree with the intention of further protecting these important assets. We are already strengthening the protection given to them through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and we think there are justifiable arguments for removing demolition of ACVs from permitted development rights. However, PDRs are established via secondary legislation, and it would not be appropriate to use this Bill to change particular development rights without consultation. As such, while we cannot support this exact amendment, I am happy to make a commitment today that we will consult on this change to the permitted development right for demolition at the first available opportunity. We hope that with this assurance, and a view to future opportunity for consultation on the matter, the House will reject Lords amendment 37.
Lords amendment 38 would require a spatial development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm, and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments. While I appreciate fully the positive intent of the amendment and reiterate the Government’s firm commitment to restoring and improving the nation’s chalk streams, I do not believe that it is a necessary or advisable means of protecting those vital ecosystems.
While strategic planning authorities will be expected to work closely with arm’s length bodies like the Environment Agency, they themselves will not have responsibility for regulatory systems governing water abstraction or pollution in catchment areas. The SDSs that they will be required to produce will be high-level frameworks for housing growth and infrastructure investment; they will not allocate specific sites. Importantly, as locally-led spatial exercises, local nature recovery strategies, drawing on river basin management plans, will be able to map out chalk streams and identify measures to enhance and improve them, and SDSs will already be required to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to the strategy area. SDSs will also obviously be tested by an independent examiner against those requirements.
It remains the Government’s view that the protection and enhancement of chalk streams through the planning system is best achieved through the proper application of national planning policy. As I made clear on Report in the Commons, the measures in the Bill will not weaken existing protections enjoyed by those precious habitats, which are already recognised by decision makers in the planning system as valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity value that should be identified and safeguarded through local plans.
That said, we have been giving this matter careful consideration given the strength of feeling expressed by the Commons on Report, and in the context of ongoing reforms to national planning policy. I am happy to make it clear to the House that I am minded to include explicit recognition of chalk streams in the new suite of national policies for decision making, which I referred to in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi)—and, as I said, we intend to consult on those before the end of this year. On the basis of that assurance, I urge hon. Members to reject Lords amendment 38.
Lords amendment 39 seeks to prioritise development on brownfield land, increase urban densities and minimise travel distances. The Government have a brownfield-first approach to development. Through the revisions made to the NPPF on 12 December 2024, we broadened the definition of brownfield land, set a strengthened expectation that applications on brownfield land will be approved, and made it clear that plans should promote an uplift in density in urban areas.
In September last year, the Government published a brownfield passport working paper, inviting views on how we might further prioritise and fast-track building on previously used urban land. Again, we intend to take forward those proposals in the new suite of national policies for decision making that I referred to a moment ago.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Minister is addressing the brownfield-first approach inherent to the amendment. He opened his remarks by mentioning the Government’s target of building 1.5 million homes. The Campaign to Protect Rural England, a very respected independent charity, has identified enough brownfield land in England alone for 1.4 million homes, so why do the Government persist in rejecting their Lordships’ amendments on this matter, against the advice of the CPRE?
Matthew Pennycook
I will come to why we cannot accept Lords amendment 39. I respectfully disagree with the CPRE on this matter—and on a number of others, as it happens. There is not enough land on brownfield registers—certainly not enough that is in the right location or viable to meet housing need across England. That is why we have a brownfield-first, not brownfield-only, approach to development.
Brownfield land is diverse and may not always be suitable. That is why consideration of brownfield land is more appropriately dealt with at the local level, through policy, where a balance of considerations can be weighed up. A legislative requirement for increasing densities does not allow for the consideration of local issues or circumstances, and would risk opening up the possibility of legal challenges to any or every spatial development strategy, which I am sure was not their noble Lords’ intent. On that basis, I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 39.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. He is talking about local pressures for housing delivery and the brownfield-first approach. As he will know, a number of sports grounds in my constituency are increasingly subject to interest from would-be developers. Can he confirm that these proposals will include protections for much-needed sports grounds so that they are not open to that sort of speculative development?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that question—it is an apt and fair one. Such protections are already in place in the national planning policy framework. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him about the matter he refers to, but nothing in the Bill specifically targets the release of sports fields for development and the protections in national policy still apply.
Finally, Lords amendment 40 seeks to restrict the environmental impacts that could be addressed through an environmental delivery plan. Before I explain why the Government cannot accept the amendment, let me remind the House of why part 3 of the Bill is so important. The current approach to discharging environmental obligations too often delays and deters development, and places unnecessary burdens on house builders and local authorities. It requires house builders to pay for localised and often costly mitigation measures, only to maintain the environmental status quo. By not taking a holistic view across larger geographies, mitigation measures often fail to secure the best outcomes for the environment. In short, as we have consistently argued, when it comes to development and the environment, the status quo too often sees sustainable house building, and nature recovery and restoration, stall.
The nature restoration fund will end that sub-optimal arrangement. By facilitating a more strategic approach to the discharge of environmental obligations, and enabling the use of funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in driving the recovery of protected sites and species, it will streamline the delivery of new homes and infrastructure, and result in the more efficient delivery of improved environmental outcomes.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Minister is a very thoughtful individual, and he has a wide view of what is happening in the country. Housing is imperative, but in my constituency there was a proposal for 3,000 houses on what was effectively virgin land, and we established that the habitat of 32 rare and protected species would be irrevocably damaged. Does he agree that biodiversity has to be a central plank of the Government’s intentions, and will he assure the House that, if Lords amendment 40 is disagreed to, future Governments—who might be less caring about the environment—will not be able to use the law to damage habitats such as those I am describing?
Matthew Pennycook
I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual planning applications, but the Government have been consistently clear that meeting our ambitious development targets need not and should not come at the expense of the environment. Part 3 unlocks a win-win for nature and the economy. Although I cannot commit future Governments to anything, we are confident that the nature restoration fund and environmental delivery plans that part 3 facilitates will result in the delivery of more homes and infrastructure in a more timely manner, as well as improved environmental outcomes.
In respect of Lords amendment 40, I would simply say that there is no convincing rationale for arbitrarily limiting the application of EDPs to strategic landscape matters and thereby preventing their use in supporting the recovery of protected sites and species where appropriate. I remind hon. Members that the Bill is now explicit that the Secretary of State can only approve an EDP where the effect of the conservation measures will materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the conservation status of each identified environmental feature. Moreover, both Natural England and the Secretary of State will have to take account of the best available scientific evidence when preparing, amending or revoking an EDP, and EDPs will be subject to robust scrutiny.
On Third Reading in the other place, we amended the Bill to allow the Government to bring forward regulations setting out how EDPs would prioritise addressing the negative effect of developments. Lords amendment 40 would undermine one of the core principles of the Bill —namely, that the alternative approach provided for by the NRF can apply to both sites and species. For that reason, I urge the House to reject the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not, I am afraid, as I am bringing my remarks to a close, but I am happy to respond to any points when winding up the debate.
I appreciate the leave you have given me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to set out the Government’s position on the large number of amendments before us. I urge the House to support the Government’s position, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate.
Gideon Amos
The Liberal Democrats welcome a number of the changes made to the Bill in the other place, but it is disappointing that my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock’s proposal, which was aimed at ensuring that all unsafe residential blocks are fully remediated, and my noble Friend Lord Foster’s proposal on curbing the proliferation of betting shops were not adopted in the other place, where unfortunately the Conservatives were unwilling to support them. It is also disappointing that having removed all pre-application regulations for nationally significant infrastructure projects, the Government have not seen fit to plug the gap with a standard requirement to ensure that communities are properly consulted, as we proposed in Committee. Simply sweeping away consultation requirements is not acceptable.
That said, today we are here to debate those amendments that made it through from the other place, and I want first to acknowledge where the Government have listened and made welcome improvements and concessions. Lords amendment 53, a concession secured by my noble Friend Baroness Parminter, imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out how Natural England should prioritise different approaches to addressing the negative impacts of development on environmental features, which we argued for in this House. I hope that when the regulations are brought forward, the Government will see the sense of referring to the mitigation hierarchy as the accepted standard approach. I remain confused as to why those words were not included in the amendments. We will continue to push the Government to recognise the mitigation hierarchy as a key environmental principle and development that should be enshrined in environmental delivery plans.
I am also pleased to see Lords amendment 29, and that the Government have listened to the points by Historic England and Heritage Alliance that I raised in Committee. That means that heritage protections remain in transport and works projects. However, there remain amendments that the Government wish to reject that we strongly believe the House should accept, particularly with regard to nature and environmental protection, and the role of communities and their local councillors. Lords amendment 40 would limit the application of environmental delivery plans to issues where approaches at a strategic landscape scale will be effective. I am sure colleagues have received many emails about that amendment from constituents, and for good reason. Indeed, the amendment is essential because it ensures that EDPs are used where they can deliver environmental benefits and address problems effectively on a strategic scale.
In Somerset and my Taunton and Wellington constituency, we see only too well the massive issues caused by phosphates, and an EDP approach for phosphates would genuinely be welcome. That problem operates at a catchment or regional level, and site-by-site solutions are not enough. Protected species and biodiversity are rooted in their habitats, and in particular place and sites, and a simple strategic approach is not enough. We cannot save a protected species from going extinct in one location by creating a habitat hundreds of miles away and expect the same outcome.
Matthew Pennycook
May I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to district-level licensing schemes for great crested newts, as an example of where a strategic approach can benefit a species population? I am not sure it stands—has he reflected on the situation where the type of intervention that underpins EDPs is already in existence and is having benefits for nature?
Gideon Amos
I accept what the Minister is saying and that elements of species protection may require strategic approaches. However, the fundamental point for the Liberal Democrats is that if the Government made a commitment to stronger protections within EDPs from the outset, in terms of the mitigation hierarchy and the protection of species on site, then we would be more open to supporting their position, but they have not made that commitment, so we cannot give our support and Lords amendment 40 needs to remain.
Lords amendment 38, proposed by the Bishop of Norwich and supported by Liberal Democrat peers, is equally important. It would ensure that the new spatial development strategies include protections for our incredibly rare and valuable chalk streams. Shockingly, there is currently a lack of protection for these rare and incredible habitats. Around 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in England. They are as rare globally as rainforests, and yet they do not have the required designation as irreplaceable habitats. [Interruption.] I do not know where that voice came from, but I am happy to give way.
John McDonnell
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for leaving the Chamber for a period. I had to chair a meeting upstairs that had been planned for a number of months.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) mentioned the 4 Cs. I will add a fifth: confidence. One problem that we have as a Government —on this issue and on a number of others—is that we need to instil confidence in the general population that not only are our objectives sound but the methods that we are about to use will be effective. I want to stick to the Bill, but let me use a general example. There has been a trend in Government over the past 17 months of policies being introduced that have not maintained the confidence of the general public or of a number of Members. Having destroyed that confidence, we have then gone through a process of reversing the policies and, as a result, not gaining any benefit from them. We just require a bit more political nous as we consider things, issue by issue.
In this field in particular, I do not think that we have taken people with us. What has undermined confidence for people like me is that when Members honestly expressed their views, concerns and expertise, and moved amendments, they lost the Whip. Then, at a later date—within weeks—the Government adopted those amendments as part of the process in the Lords.
John McDonnell
I am happy to take an intervention if the Minister so wishes.
Matthew Pennycook
I am happy to intervene just to make clear that we did not adopt the amendments that were pressed on Report. There are very crucial differences between the package that we submitted and those amendments.
John McDonnell
The Government did not accept the amendments on Report, but the reality is that they had to negotiate with the other House and introduce amendments that were in the spirit of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff)—it is as simple as that. We need to be honest about that and admit when we make mistakes.
That is why I worry about this. If we introduce legislation of this sort, we need to take people with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South referred, in a derogatory tone, to the well-funded environmental groups. I have been working with those groups for nearly 50 years. I have never seen a breadth of unanimity across them on an issue such as this. Some of them cannot be described as anything other than mainstream. What they are asking for, in some of these amendments, is relatively limited, so it behoves us, as a listening Government, to go that one step further and see whether compromises can be reached. I congratulate the Government on doing that for clause 3, in which compromises have been reached. For some reason, however, people are digging their heels in, particularly in relation to Lords amendment 40.
Let me deal with Lords amendment 1 on national policy statements. As I said earlier, confidence must be built when dealing with huge developments. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) has mentioned the third runway at Heathrow. The proposal to build a third runway will never have my constituents’ confidence because, as I said earlier, 15,000 of them will lose their homes, whole villages will be wiped off the face of the earth, and 2 million more people in London will suffer from noise and air pollution —so we will not be able to convince them, to be honest. However, on more general topics, including major infrastructure projects, the role of Select Committees has been critical, as they are able to examine those issues in depth, have Ministers before them and present reports to the House, which we can debate.
In many instances, Select Committee reports and the work those Committees have done has been of such a quality that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) demonstrated in his description of the work his Select Committee does—they have influenced Government, enabled policies to be changed and, as a result, built up confidence in the general public. I am concerned about any lessening of the role of Select Committees in this whole process. The Minister has given us some assurances, and we will see how that works out in practice, but we interfere with that democratic process of this House at our peril when we are in government, because this is how mistakes get made.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I am pleased to speak today in full support of Lords amendments 38 and 40. I would also like to take the opportunity to press the Minister on the Government’s response in the other place to Lords amendment 32, which I will come to shortly.
First, on Lords amendment 40, I am pleased that the Lords altered the uses of environmental delivery plans to better protect species. North Norfolk is proudly biodiverse, and it must be protected. We should all see the shocking decline in our rare swallowtail butterflies—an icon of the Norfolk broads—as an indicator of the nature emergency we face. Protections for wildlife and biodiversity are crucial, and I hope the Government will retain this amendment.
On Lords amendment 38, I welcome the Minister’s statement of future intent, but I am nevertheless in full support of protecting North Norfolk’s chalk streams. I thank my local bishop, the Bishop of Norwich, for tabling that amendment in the other place and for his admirable support for and defence of chalk streams in Norfolk and across the country. He is a great champion for the environment and I thank him for it. Over the summer I went to Letheringsett in my constituency, with volunteers from the River Glaven Conservation Group. The Glaven is a much loved chalk stream locally, and one of many in North Norfolk that we hold dear. As one local councillor told me, in North Norfolk, “we cherish our chalkies.”
I saw the work undertaken to renew and revitalise the river and its floodplain, made as part of the Norfolk Wildlife Trust’s nine chalk rivers project. A 1.2 km man-made channel was dug to reconnect the river to its original path and restore its natural flow after years of human interference. A new wetland near Glandford ford has also been created, generating a vital new habitat for the native crayfish and water vole that can be found there. I also heard of the challenges, from construction silt run-off to sewage discharges. Allowing a unique and precious natural environment to be treated this way in recent years is nothing short of scandalous.
Sadly, this is the situation not only for the Glaven or even Norfolk’s chalk streams; we have heard shameful tales of those historic habitats across the country being trashed and abused by profiteering water companies, without a shred of care for the environment that they are damaging. That is why I believe that Lords amendment 38 is a perfectly sensible and much-needed addition to the Bill. Of course those of us with chalk streams in our local areas want spatial development strategies to take account of them and ensure their ongoing protection. I am yet to hear a convincing argument from the Government as to why this amendment is being so strongly opposed.
Clearly, the status quo is not working, and we cannot embark on a new age of development and infrastructure building without making sure that those aspects of our environment that are already being failed are not damaged beyond saving. There has been a lot of talk in recent months about national pride and the St George’s cross. Well, I am proud that the St George’s cross flies over 85% of the world’s chalk streams. Out of only 200 in the world, the majority are right here in England. We are the custodians and guardians of the vast majority of this special habitat. We have to take that responsibility seriously, and Lords amendment 38 is an important step towards proving that we will.
I have been critical of much of what is included in the Bill, but almost equal amounts of criticism can be levelled against it because of what it lacks. Today we can plug one more gap in it by agreeing with the Lords in their amendment.
I said that I wanted to press the Minister on Lords amendment 32, which may have been unfortunately worded with a slightly predetermined outcome when it was tabled in the other place. In North Norfolk, we have real issues with water abstraction licences. Food processors and farmers need water, and attenuation is the answer. The current permitted development regulation is clearly not working. The Government responded in the other place by saying that they needed to look at PDRs and would return to them. I wonder if I can press the Minister to indicate a few more steps and some timelines.
Steff Aquarone
I am getting an indication that he will not do so, which is a shame.
I support the development of more homes in North Norfolk; there are 2,400 households on our housing waiting list who demand that provision. I am delighted that new residents in Walcott and Bacton will be moving into dozens of new affordable homes in the coming months, supported by our Lib Dem-led council. I want everyone living in North Norfolk, though—in new homes or in old—to be able to cherish our ancient chalk streams for the decades and centuries to come, and I urge colleagues across the House to vote to protect them.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. In opening the debate, I set out at some length the reasons why the Government are resisting the bulk of the amendments made in the other place. In the interests of time, I do not intend to reiterate at any great length the points I have made previously. I will instead focus my remarks on expanding the Government’s arguments in key respects, and on addressing any points raised in the debate that I did not cover in my opening remarks.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially so early in his remarks. I apologise to him and to the House for not being here for his opening remarks, which he has just mentioned. In them, he talked a little about Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 31. I am grateful to him for the concession that the Government are making and for the moves they intend to make. However, can I make just two criticisms of Government amendments (a) and (b)? The first is very minor; Government amendment (a) refers to the
“Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2028”.
That should, of course, be 2018. I know that the Minister will be able to correct that error in due course.
The more substantive criticism is about data collection. The Minister will know that is the only substantive difference left between the Government’s proposal and the one that I made on Report in this place and that Lord Borwick made in the other place. When we seek to improve access for people with disabilities to charging infrastructure, we should be able to keep track of progress. If the Minister is not minded to do that in the context of this Bill, will he consider other ways in which we can be sure that progress is being made in the direction that he and I both want to see?
Matthew Pennycook
I will of course pick up the drafting error that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has identified and rectify that. I am more than happy to take the data point away and reflect further. With the amendment in lieu that we have proposed, there is obviously a process around the regulations that come forward with further opportunities to feed in. I very much appreciate his recognition that the amendment in lieu goes a long way to addressing the points that he raised.
I will pick up a number of the points that have been raised in the course of the debate, starting with those relating to Lords amendment 1. For the purposes of clarity, I will lay out again the reassurances I have given to the House, both on Report and today. Where the Government of the day intend to make a reflective amendment to a national policy statement, a statement will be laid in Parliament announcing a review and the relevant Select Committee will be written to. Ministers will make themselves available to speak at that Committee. On Report, I talked about that being wherever practicable to account for the usual scheduling challenges that all Ministers face, but I hope it is noted that I withdrew those comments. We expect Ministers to make themselves available to the relevant Committee in all instances, and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period.
Importantly, the NPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days. That is 21 sitting days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change proposed through the reflective route should be enacted.
On who makes the decisions, it is the relevant Secretary of State who will decide whether a change falls into one of the four categories, but the categories are closely defined. They include: relevant published Government policy, a change to legislation and a decision of the court. The intent of the relevant clause is not to evade parliamentary scrutiny, but to address the fact that, on average, the Select Committee inquiry process adds around five months to the process of updating a national policy statement. That is as things stand. We want to ensure that Select Committees are engaged and that we have regular and timely updates. I can happily confirm, as I have made clear, that where a Select Committee returns recommendations during that consultation period, they will be taken into account. However, we need this change to make reflective amendments to the NPS to ensure that things can be kept up to date.
Airports are a good example of where a full NPS review would have to take place. That would not be allowed to take place through the reflective amendment process, and that is not the intention of the Secretary of State for Transport. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State must lay the proposed amended national policy statement in full before Parliament and specify a relevant period. If within that relevant period, either House passes a resolution or a Committee makes recommendations on the proposed amendment, the Secretary of State must respond, and that response must be laid before Parliament. There are two different processes.
Turning to chalk streams, we have to be clear about the intent of Lords amendment 38. It is not a broad blanket statutory protection for chalk streams; it implies specific requirements on chalk streams in spatial development strategies brought forward by the relevant authorities. We think there are important practical reasons why those authorities are not the relevant bodies to bring such protections forward.
In his contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) referenced a number of cases where other legislation or other Government agencies are ultimately responsible for addressing some of the problems in question, not the spatial authorities that will bring forward SDSs. We therefore do not think that Lords amendment 38 is the right way to proceed. National policy is the way to proceed in the Government’s view. While I accept that chalk streams are not currently mentioned explicitly in national policy, the NPPF is clear that planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value, and local plans should:
“Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks”.
In addition, when determining planning applications local planning authorities should apply the principle that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, in the last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused. The application of these protections extends beyond strategic plans, to all types of plan and, crucially, to decisions on planning applications. As I said, the Government acknowledge the case for giving explicit recognition to chalk streams in national planning policy, although I cannot go further than the commitment I gave at the Dispatch Box today that we will lay out and consult on proposals to include that explicit recognition and in so doing make clear, unambiguously, our expectations for how plan makers and decision makers should treat chalk streams. That will be part of the consultation.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Minister knows that, across this House and the other place, there is wide recognition of how unique and precious our chalk streams are. He clearly recognises that, as well. Given their importance and the fact that most of them are in the UK, why have the Government not yet brought forward an amendment to reflect the cross-party concerns expressed in both Houses? I know him to be a serious and sincere man, but the Minister is, in effect, asking the House to rely on his good will to do something at some point, and we have no idea what it is.
Matthew Pennycook
I think that is a slightly unfair précis of what I said. I take very seriously the commitments I make from this Dispatch Box. I have committed, in a consultation that will take place before the end of this year, to include in proposed changes to national planning policy explicit recognition of chalk streams and how they will be treated. The full details will be open to consultation. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. We could have a much wider debate about policy versus statute, but we think that in the planning system there are very good reasons to put things in policy, where they can be amended or updated if necessary, rather than in statute. Chalk streams are a good example of where that argument applies.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk made a compelling case for many of the things we are doing outside planning policy to safeguard chalk streams. There are mechanisms to deliver chalk stream conservation, including through our plans to reform the water industry, under which water companies plan to spend more than £2 billion over the next five years to develop targeted actions on chalk streams; through biodiversity net gain, which requires like-for-like compensation or enhancement where development impacts on these areas; and through the system we intend to introduce of environmental outcomes reports, which specifically reference these bodies of water.
Kit Malthouse
I understand the undertaking the Minister is giving, but he will recognise that all of this is guidance; it does not preclude planning decisions that will impact on chalk streams. Given that he is set on his course, which we understand, and his appreciation of the fact that the amendment was proposed in the spirit of addressing the lack of any other sort of protection for chalk streams, will he reassure us that the intention in the planning guidance is to give chalk streams the same sort of protection as was put in place for, for example, veteran trees, which are deemed to be irreplaceable? That is the highest level of protection in planning guidance—I think I introduced this as Planning Minister. In that way, only in very exceptional circumstances could permission be granted for development that would impinge on chalk streams.
Matthew Pennycook
I cannot go beyond what I set out earlier. We will put the proposals out to full consultation before the end of the year. I will address the subject of irreplaceable habitats in this winding-up speech.
In his speech, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of other issues, including the absorption constraint dilemma, viability, housing delivery targets and local plans. Perhaps we should sit down outside the Chamber and have a coffee, as I think I would benefit from his insights, but I shall certainly give further thought to the many points he made.
On neighbourhood plans, they are not referenced in the Bill, other than in relation to an amendment we made specifically in connection with Ramsar sites. Again, I am more than happy to have a wider conversation with him about this Government’s view of the place of neighbourhood plans in the planning system.
On irreplaceable habitats, the national planning policy framework makes it clear that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of such habitats should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Those protections continue to apply; nothing in the Bill bypasses them. Fundamentally, an EDP that would lead to irreversible harm to or the loss of an irreplaceable environmental feature could not be approved by a Secretary of State, as this would fail to secure overall improvement of the conservation status of the relevant feature.
I want to briefly mention the mitigation hierarchy, which was raised by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). Natural England will always consider the mitigation hierarchy when it develops an EDP. That is an important approach when planning for biodiversity, as it is generally more environmentally effective and cost efficient to protect what is already there than to replace it. The requirements for the environmental principles policy statement include the prevention and rectification-at-source principles, which are key to the mitigation hierarchy. The Secretary of State must have due regard to the EPPS when making policy, and will therefore do so when making an EDP. We recognise, however, that we need to provide further reassurance. On Third Reading in the other place, as the hon. Gentleman referenced, we amended the Bill to allow the Government to bring forward regulations setting out how EDPs would prioritise addressing the negative effect of development, providing greater clarity about how the principles of the existing mitigation hierarchy are expressed through the new system.
I will briefly touch on two further issues. On Lords amendment 40, as I said, we do not believe there is any compelling case for limiting the application of EDPs just to the issues that are covered by the amendment: nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality. I think the challenge made by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), was that applying EDPs to species will somehow cause harm. That is not the case.
Limiting the environmental impacts that can be covered is unnecessary because the overall improvement test that I have mentioned ensures that an EDP can be made only where it will have an overall positive impact on the environmental feature. I mentioned district-level licensing of great crested newts, which is an example of where a strategic approach can lead to better outcomes for nature, and that is the approach we are taking forward in this Bill.
Lastly, I must reference the constituency issue raised by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) regarding the Eskdalemuir seismic array. We recognise the interference that onshore wind turbines can cause to seismological monitoring stations and the subsequent safeguarding concerns that operators of seismological arrays can have. We are working closely with the Ministry of Defence to bring forward a resolution to this issue via the working group, which I know he is aware of. We are clear that the array is a key piece of defence infrastructure that is part of international monitoring networks, and that any updated approach to managing onshore wind deployment near the array will not compromise its detection capabilities.
Under a new proposed approach, the Ministry of Defence needs onshore wind proposals to submit specific information and comply with the seismic impact limit, and for determining authorities—the decision makers—to be bound not to approve applications if those limits are breached. I hope that provides the right hon. Gentleman with some further reassurance, but, again, I am more than happy to engage with him further.
To conclude, this Government were elected on a promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this landmark Bill, we will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. Let me bring the House back to what is at the heart of this Bill: we need new homes and we need new critical infrastructure. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) made that point compellingly. The need for those across the country is pressing. This Bill needs to receive Royal Assent as soon as possible.
To that end, we have shown ourselves more than willing to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to compelling arguments, but we are not prepared to accept amendments that undermine its core principles. I look forward to continuing constructive conversations with peers, alongside Baroness Taylor, to secure agreement across both Houses in the near future. I commend the Government’s position to the House.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison—for the first time, I believe. The regulations were laid before the House on 15 October.
The Government have identified data centres, the buildings that store much of the data generated in the UK, as essential infrastructure that is necessary to support, grow and develop the UK economy and that is integral to delivering the UK industrial strategy. As hon. Members know, data infrastructure now underpins almost all economic activity and innovation, including the development of AI and other technology. It is increasingly critical for public service delivery and how citizens interact with one another and the state. For those reasons the Government formally designated data centres as a sub-sector of communications in the list of critical national infrastructure in September 2024—a recognition that their loss or compromise could severely impact the delivery of essential services or have a significant impact on national security, national defence or the functioning of the state, as is the case with other CNIs: energy, water, transport and other sectors.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the planning system effectively facilitates development to meet the needs of a modern economy, including supporting essential digital infrastructure such as data centres. In July last year we consulted on how the national planning policy framework could better support economic growth in key sectors, given their importance to our economic future. In response to feedback from a wide range of stakeholders we announced plans alongside the publication of that revised NPPF in December last year to enable certain large-scale projects within knowledge, creative, high technology and data driven industries to be directed into the nationally significant infrastructure projects consenting regime process. These regulations deliver on that announcement by prescribing data centres as a type of business or commercial project that may be directed into the NSIP consenting regime. In effect, they add data centres to the existing nine prescribed projects set out in the schedule to the Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) Regulations 2013.
The inclusion of data centres as prescribed business or commercial projects means that certain proposed data centre projects are capable of being directed to proceed through the NSIP consenting process under section 35 of the Planning Act 2008. It is important to stress that the regulations we are debating today do not require any or every proposed data centre project to proceed through the NSIP route. The regulations will provide an opportunity for developers of certain proposed data centre projects to choose, should they wish to do so, to request to opt in to the NSIP consenting process. Circumstances where a developer may wish to make such a request include, to provide the Committee with just a few examples, where a proposal also involves associated energy generation; where it may be particularly large or complex; or where it could benefit from the one-stop shop approach that the NSIP consenting process provides for. To be clear, sections 35 and 35ZA of the Planning Act 2008 would require developers of a data centre project to submit a qualifying request to the Secretary of State. They may direct a data centre into the NSIP regime only if they consider that the project or proposed project is of national significance, and that it meets the other requirements set out in section 35 of that Act.
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is drafting, as we speak, a national policy statement for data centres, which will set out the parameters, thresholds or other relevant factors that may indicate whether a particular data centre development proposal could be regarded as one of national significance and so capable of meeting the requirements of section 35. Similar to national policy statements for other sectors of infrastructure covered by the NSIP regime such as energy, transport and water, the NPS that DSIT is currently preparing will also set out a national policy and the policy framework for decision making for data centres. This will provide greater certainty to applicants and decision makers alike.
DSIT is aiming to publish a draft NPS for public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny in accordance with the requirements of sections 7 and 9 of the 2008 Act shortly after these regulations are proposed to come into force. The published draft NPS may also be considered as an important and relevant matter in the decision-making process for any data centre project that has been directed to proceed through the NSIP consenting process. In the meantime, the written statement that was published alongside the existing 2013 regulations states that the Secretary of State will consider “all relevant matters” when considering whether a project is of national significance. That incudes considering whether the project is of a “substantial physical size”, is likely to have a “significant economic impact” or is important for driving growth in the economy.
To conclude, what we are discussing today is merely the mechanism by which certain data centre proposal zones deemed to be of national significance may choose, subject to the Secretary of State’s decision, whether to give a direction to opt in to a different planning route—the NSIP consenting route—rather than going through the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 planning process. The legislation enables developers to request that their proposals be considered under the NSIP regime, subject to the Secretary of State’s direction.
We are taking the proposals forward on the basis of receiving an overall favourability of responses to our consultation on them, and because of the important role that such data centres have in supporting the Government’s economic growth mission. I hope that the Committee will agree that the changes are sensible and proportionate steps in ensuring that the planning system is flexible enough to adapt to emerging priorities.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesman for that series of points and questions, to which I will do my best to respond—I note that some of them stray outside of my departmental responsibilities. We are talking specifically about putting in place necessary changes to the planning regime to allow formal requests to be made for data centres to be considered under section 35. Other things, such as the spatial plans that the Liberal Democrat spokesman just mentioned, are matters for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and the NPS is obviously a matter for Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. However, I will make sure that the relevant Ministers are made aware of the comments of the hon. Members.
I will start by responding to the points made about the draft NPS. That NPS is still in development and testing. Given the time that it may take to comply with the statutory requirements for designation of a new national policy statement, it was considered appropriate in this instance to lay the draft SI in advance. As I made clear, we intend to publish the NPS in draft form near the time at which this SI will come into force. The laying of the SI last month gives an indication to the sector—and the Government think that this is important—and to prospective data centre applicants at a very early stage in their development, who may be interested in using this route, that we are moving forward on delivering against the commitment we made last December. It also recognises the importance that we give to the delivery of data infrastructure more generally.
DSIT aims to publish the draft NPS after these amending regulations come into force, so it is possible that it will be published before any requests for a data centre to be directed into the NSIP consenting regime either come forward or need to be decided. That would mean that the draft NPS would be considered as an important and relevant matter in the decision-making process for any data centre project that is subsequently directed to proceed through the NSIP regime.
The shadow Minister mentioned the changes that we are making through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. We will have a significant amount of time tomorrow to discuss amendments to that Bill. As the shadow Minister will know—and as the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner will know, having been involved in scrutinising the Bill in Committee—we intend to publish pre-application guidance on what developers that want to submit a development consent order through the NSIP route should do. The consultation on the scope and design of our proposed guidance closed on 27 October. The responses to that consultation will inform the development of the guidance.
Applicants will be expected to use engagement to deliver high-quality applications. There will still be an expectation of high-quality, early, meaningful, and constructive engagement and consultation to take place with those affected, but we do believe—we had extensive arguments about this in the Bill Committee—that we need to move away from the rigid statutory requirements to this more flexible, guidance-led approach, which will improve flexibility for applicants to take into account community views and to respond appropriately to get the better outcomes. As we have discussed and as I have said many times, the current system is having a number of perverse outcomes that are not leading to beneficial results for that industry.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I should declare that I have a data centre in my constituency under construction. It went through the normal planning route. Will the Minister confirm to the Committee that if someone wants a data centre to go through the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, the local planning authority and local people will still be able to have a say on the application?
Matthew Pennycook
That is a fair question and the hon. Gentleman pre-empts the next point that I was going to make, specifically about local accountability. This is important. The NSIP consenting process provides substantial opportunity for interested parties, including local communities and local authorities, to have their say on proposals going through that process.
Under the Planning Act 2008, local authorities are invited to submit a local impact report giving details of the likely impact of the proposed development on their area, which the Secretary of State must have regard to when deciding the application. The examination process, which all NSIP applicants need to go through, provides the opportunity for local communities, interested parties and statutory bodies to make representations and for them to be considered by the examining authority in examination of the application and in the subsequent report that will be made to the Secretary of State for a decision on whether to grant development consent.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
This is a little parochial to London, but can we ensure that local authorities in London are consulted, along with the Mayor of London, so that their power to decide is not usurped by the mayor?
Matthew Pennycook
As I said, the NSIP regime provides for local communities, local authorities, other statutory consultees and stakeholders to input into that process. In a similar way to how a local planning authority undertakes a period of consultation to enable views on a planning application to be expressed, the examination process under the NSIP regime—which all NSIP applications must go through—provides the opportunity for local communities and interested parties to make representations to be taken into account by the examining authority in examination of the application and by the Secretary of State when they come to decide whether to grant development consent.
In the time I have, I should respond to a couple of other issues that were raised. Power usage was a point made by the hon. Members for Orpington and for Taunton and Wellington. Energy and carbon footprint are a key issue for data centres. The sector operates under a climate change agreement to encourage greater uptake of energy efficiency measures among operators. The UK has committed to decarbonising the electricity system by 2030, subject to security of supply, and data centres will increasingly be powered by renewable energy resources.
Newer, purpose-built and modern data centres can provide compute at a higher efficiency than older, converted data centres, in terms of the amount of power they draw on, but data centres will play a major part in powering the high-tech solutions to environmental challenges, whether that is new technology that increases the energy efficiency of energy use across our towns and cities, or development and application of innovative new tech that takes carbon out of the atmosphere. We are, however, very conscious that data centres draw on quite a significant amount of firm power, and the Government will take that into account in making decisions as to whether individual applications go through.
Lastly, I should address heat, which the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly mentioned. He is absolutely right to say that data centres produce a significant amount of heat. The technology exists to capture that heat and to use it in district heating networks, or to meet significant demand. There is potential, therefore, for the heat to be captured and used to further benefit than happens currently, but there have already been successful examples—which are worth highlighting—of using data centre heat for hospitals, homes and other uses. One such example is the use of a data centre to heat a local swimming pool in Devon. We will take that into account, as I am sure DSIT did in the drafting of its national policy statement and in its conversations with other Departments. However, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s comments are brought to the attention of the relevant Minister.
Gideon Amos
I intervene simply to place on the record my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I recently undertook a study trip to Denmark to look at waste heat. I probably should have put that on the record, but it is in the register.
Matthew Pennycook
I hope the point is well made that, as part of the NPS process and more widely, we are engaging with developers and operators to determine whether the Government should be making further interventions that are necessary and proportionate to encourage the take-up of such solutions.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
In the States, a lot of data centres have had pushback from local communities, which are seeing an increase in their energy bills. We cannot quite work out why. Will the Minister commit to work with me, DESNZ and possibly DSIT to ensure that when data centres are built as national infrastructure—because of this change in legislation—that will not mean that consumers end up paying higher prices for whatever reason? I welcome the focus on using waste heat to benefit local communities, but I feel somewhat anxious about that increase in consumer bills because of the building of data centres.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, but she tempts me to stray way outside my departmental responsibilities. Instead, I commit to ensure that the relevant Minister from DESNZ is notified about her concerns and that we all reflect, as a Government, on the point made.
In conclusion, notwithstanding the range of considerations about data centres that we have discussed, I wish to draw the Committee back to what the draft regulations seek to achieve. They are merely an enabler for data centres that might be considered of national significance to be capable—only at the request of developers of such projects—of being directed to an alternative mechanism for obtaining development consent. Applications for data centres directed to the NSIP consenting route will undergo a thorough and robust process. As I said, that will include examination by an independent examining authority where local communities and others can participate and register their views before the Secretary of State decides whether to grant consent. I hope that the Committee will agree that it has considered these amending regulations and will be supportive of them.
Question put and agreed to.
Social and Affordable Homes Programme
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
At the spending review in June, the Government announced £39 billion for a new social and affordable homes programme over 10 years from 2026-27 to 2035-36. The SAHP will give registered providers of social housing—both private registered providers and councils—a decade of certainty over the capital funding they will have available to build new, more ambitious housing development projects. It is integral to delivering the Government’s commitment to the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation.
Today I am updating the House on the launch of the full details of the programme as part of the five-step plan we set out on 2 July to kick-start a decade of social and affordable housing renewal.
The core strategic objective of the new programme is to maximise supply—particularly of social rent homes. At least 60% of homes delivered through the SAHP will be for social rent. This reflects the priority this Government accord to social rented housing as the mark of a country that takes seriously its duty to house those for whom the market cannot cater; a platform for families to live, grow, and to build a better life; and as a public good that benefits the nation as a whole. Our ambition is to deliver around 300,000 affordable homes over the programme’s lifetime, with around 180,000 for social rent.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government policy statement on the social and affordable homes programme 2026-36 sets out the programme’s national architecture, which together with delivery partner prospectuses, details how RPs can access funding, the expectations placed on them, and the flexibilities built into the programme to support an ambitious and diverse pipeline of new affordable homes.
Oversight of programme delivery will remain with Homes England and—within London—the Greater London Authority. Up to 30% of the funding over the programme—up to £11.7 billion over 10 years—will be delivered by the GLA in London, with at least 70% available for the rest of England via Homes England.
As per the commitments we set out in the English devolution White Paper, we have worked closely with established mayoral strategic authorities to ensure they set the strategic direction of the programme in their areas. The priorities that each EMSA has identified to guide bids in their areas have been published as part of the Homes England prospectus, and RPs will be expected to demonstrate how they have incorporated these, including tenure preferences and priority sites, into their bids in EMSA areas. To support effective planning, we have also delivered on our commitment to set out up-front indicative spend per EMSA. These figures are intended to guide bids, but they are not a ringfence or a floor.
To increase the diversity of social and affordable housing supply, we have ensured that the programme has the necessary grant rate flexibility to support homes that require greater up-front investment, including council, supported, community-led and rural housing. As part of our commitment to reinvigorating council house building, we have also confirmed the following additional measures designed to support delivery of the SAHP by councils:
Establishing a new continuous market engagement “portfolio” route to assist councils to bid for grant at an earlier stage in the pre-development process and across several sites at once, thereby lowering pre-development risk and encouraging larger, more ambitious development pipelines.
Enabling councils to combine right-to-buy receipts with SAHP funding. No limit will be placed on the level of right-to-buy receipts that can be used and the option to mix receipts with grant will increase the viability of councils’ bids.
Awarding £5.5 million in grant funding to 29 councils through the inaugural round of our £5.5 million council house building support fund, to increase the speed and scale of bids into the SAHP to deliver new council homes.
We will also shortly be contacting councils to inform them of their initial offer under the fourth round of the local authority housing fund and provide guidance on how councils might apply for funding. The LAHF will enable councils to grow their stock of good-quality temporary accommodation, reducing the reliance on expensive and unsuitable nightly paid or B&B accommodation. The fund will also provide homes for some families arriving through the Afghan resettlement programme. In addition to relieving short-term housing pressures, the fund will provide councils with a long-term asset to the benefit of local communities and residents.
The SAHP will also make targeted improvements for those in shared ownership. We know that many shared owners have faced challenges they could not have foreseen, such as high and rising service charges. In the new programme, we will expect RPs to improve the experience for customers, including through giving greater consideration to long-term customer affordability, increasing transparency and fairness on costs, and giving customers the ability to opt out of fees for services that are optional.
Alongside the SAHP, we will also make available £2.5 billion of low interest loans to support the delivery of new social and affordable housing. The loans will be awarded through a bidding process that is closely aligned with the SAHP, and the loans will be administered by the national housing bank and by the GLA in London. The process will be open to private registered providers and will test the additionality that they can achieve with loans. A substantial allocation of the loans will be targeted at London in the light of the acute challenges facing private registered providers in the capital.
In the coming months, we will provide RPs with the remaining information they need to finalise their business and future supply plans—including how we will implement rent convergence at autumn Budget; and our response to recent consultations on a modernised decent homes standard and minimum energy-efficiency standards.
The launch of the full details of the SAHP represents a significant milestone. With the parameters for delivery now clear, we are calling on all RPs to start preparing large and ambitious proposals ready for when bidding opens in February 2026 and to then refine these in collaboration with Homes England and the GLA as the bidding window for strategic partnerships closes in April 2026.
Alongside bids to the SAHP, we are also calling on all RPs to support the effective delivery of section 106 homes. Section 106 agreements are, and will remain, an essential mechanism for delivering social and affordable housing, and it is essential that all parts of the system work in partnership to ensure it is operating as required.
I commend to the House the MHCLG policy statement, individual scheme prospectuses, and the revisions made to Homes England’s capital funding. Following bids, we will set targets for delivery under each partner to make sure delivery remains aligned with local housing needs and the programme’s national ambition.
[HCWS1027]