Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Hobhouse. I wanted to set out briefly the views of the Opposition, in addition to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley has said.

Recently, we listened to views from those with specialist experience in this context. There are a number of ways in which issues about biodiversity net gain and protected species may feature, with the relevant protections, as a consequence of the legislation. Although amendment 54 sets out some reasonable points, it does not address them sufficiently. In particular, there is potential scope to bring some of it within the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provisions, which would enable in many cases more effective enforcement powers than under the existing habitats regulations.

We acknowledge the Minister’s point that it will be important for those responsible for biodiversity net gain and for considering the mitigation hierarchy to be able to deploy the resources that flow from these different types of agreements in a way that reflects the broader national responsibility, rather than a site-by-site basis. That additional flexibility would be required, and we are therefore likely to seek further amendments later in the Bill’s passage that address the specifics of those concerns.

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

It is a pleasure to serve once again with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. Let me respond first to amendment 54, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. I will then turn to clause 61 and schedule 4. The hon. Lady’s amendment seeks to limit the circumstances in which Natural England can receive a nature restoration levy payment in respect of an environmental delivery plan. She made a number of points about the mitigation hierarchy and irreplaceable habitats. I will not repeat the debate we had on a previous clause in relation to existing protections in national planning policy, which will still have effect for irreplaceable habitats.

On the mitigation hierarchy, we share her and the OEP’s view: it is a very important component of environmental law. Natural England will always want to consider the mitigation hierarchy when it is developing EDPs. We anticipate that Natural England will still prioritise avoidance and reduction of environmental harm in the first instance, not least because it is likely to deliver the best environmental outcomes at the lowest cost for developers. However, we do not believe that it should always apply.

The flexibility provided by the Bill will allow for those cases where, in Natural England’s expert judgment, the strict appliance of the mitigation hierarchy would lead to sub-optimal outcomes, and where money could be spent in a far more effective way to achieve better outcomes for nature. The hon. Lady is absolutely right and we have been very clear about this point: it is the Government’s view that the Bill effectively maintains the mitigation hierarchy. As I have said, that is also the view of the chief executive of Natural England. There is flexibility built into the Bill, which we need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

I have two points. The Minister has claimed that the Bill maintains the mitigation hierarchy. Can he point to where that is stated in the Bill? I cannot see it; I have just checked back on clause 53, which deals with the preparation of EDPs, but it is not specified. Where is it specified in the Bill that it maintains the mitigation hierarchy?

Secondly, with respect, there are not only two options here—either to support the Bill exactly as it is written or to support the status quo. I am trying to table constructive amendments to the Bill, recognising what the Government seek to do and their stated aims of ensuring that development and nature protection go hand in hand, and that nature protection is enhanced at the same time as enabling development. I am not necessarily opposed, in principle, to area-wide and strategic approaches—I have already given credit to district-level licensing for newts and similar things that are already happening.

However, my concern is that nowhere in the Bill does it say that the mitigation hierarchy is preserved—nowhere in either clause 61 or clause 53, or anywhere else, is it preserved. It is not just me who says that; the OEP and many nature protection organisations are deeply concerned about the issue. I am proposing a constructive mid-point in my amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me make a couple of points in response. I did not state that a particular clause in the Bill, “effectively maintains the mitigation hierarchy”; I said that that was the Government’s belief as to the effect of the Bill, and it is also the view of the chief executive of Natural England.

We have been very clear that our approach requires flexibility to diverge, and this is where I would gently challenge the hon. Lady. It is all well and good for her to say, “I agree with the objective of a win-win for nature and development.” We can all agree with that. I am challenging her as to where she agrees with the fundamental requirements of how our strategic approach will operate. On this particular amendment, I would make the point that in reinstating as it does—

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not give way again; I will make some progress. In reinstating as it does the requirement for site-by-site assessments before a levy could be accepted, the amendment is contrary to that strategic approach and would hamper it. In proposing a strategic approach, as I have said before, we have been careful to ensure that this is taken forward only where there is a clear case that the benefits of the conservation measures under an environmental delivery plan outweigh the negative effect of development.

That is precisely why clause 50 requires Natural England to set out the negative effect of the development to which the environmental delivery plan applies, alongside the conservation measures that Natural England will take to address the environmental impact and contribute to an overall environmental improvement. Only when it is satisfied that the conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development can the Secretary of State agree to make an environmental delivery plan.

In establishing an alternative to the existing system, as I have said, the Bill intentionally allows for a more strategic approach to be taken to environmental assessment and flexibility to diverge from a restrictive application of the mitigation hierarchy. Without that flexibility, it will not operate as intended.

[Ellie Chowns]

And my amendment is sensible.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not going to give way, but the hon. Lady can make a further contribution. However, this will be only where Natural England consider it appropriate and would deliver better outcomes for nature of over the course of a delivery plan. The hon. Lady’s amendment would remove that flexibility and undermine the purpose of these reforms, which is to maximise the impact of measures at a strategic scale. We are confident that this more strategic approach to the assessment of negative effects and delivery of conservation measures strikes the right balance and will result in better outcomes. As I said, and am more than happy to continue to repeat, I understand the importance of ensuring that this flexibility is used only where it needs to be, and that everyone can be confident that harm is being avoided wherever possible. I am giving further thought to ways to underpin that confidence.

Clause 61 establishes the framework that will allow developers to pay the nature restoration levy, setting out the process by which developers can make a request to Natural England to pay the nature restoration levy in respect of their proposed development. If accepted by Natural England, the developer will then be committed to make the relevant payment, as set out in the charging schedule that will be published as part of the environmental delivery plan.

The clause then sets out how the making of that payment affects the developer’s environmental obligations. For example, the legislation makes clear that the commitment by a developer to pay the nature restoration levy in respect of an environmental delivery plan addressing nutrient pollution removes the need for the developer to consider the impact of the development on an environmental feature in respect of nutrient pollution. Where payment of the levy is made mandatory by an environmental delivery plan, the clause removes the ability of a developer to discharge the relevant environmental obligation in any way other than through the payment of the nature restoration levy.

In those circumstances, Natural England must set out the reasons why it considers it necessary to mandate the payment of the levy under the EDP. That will form part of the consultation on the draft EDP, and has been included to address situations where the environmental outcome can only be achieved with payments from all relevant developments, or where failing to capture payments from all relevant developments would render the EDP economically unviable. The nature restoration levy is central to our new strategic approach, ensuring that Natural England can secure funds to deliver conservation measures and to provide certainty to developers that the making of the payment discharges the relevant environmental obligation.

I will come back to the shadow Ministers, the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, as I have given a commitment in relation to previous clauses on their points about the interactions between the provisions in this Bill and those in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. That is a very complex matter, and we will set out more detail where we have it.

In general terms—I say this with the proviso that regulations will bring forward further detail on how the levy will operate—the request and the payments are intended, essentially, to meet the scale and type of development that the EDP relates to. They cannot just be made on the basis of the discretion of what Natural England decides it wants. They have to relate to the conservation measures being put in place. We do, however, want to get the balance right between levy rates that ensure that development is economically viable—otherwise the EDP will not come forward in some instances—and not setting a rate that allows for gold-plating of projects, where that is not required. We will discuss that in more detail on future clauses.

I turn to schedule 4. In establishing the nature restoration fund, there is a need to provide legal certainty on how the new approach interacts with existing environmental requirements. Critically, there is a need to establish that where developers make a payment to the nature restoration fund, that relieves the decision maker of any obligation to consider the impact on the environmental features that the EDP addresses, as those obligations will now be discharged on a strategic scale by Natural England.

Schedule 4 achieves that by making clear that for each environmental feature identified in an EDP, be it a protected feature of a protected site or a protected species, the paying of the nature restoration levy removes many of the requirements for the developer under existing legislation. For example, where an EDP covers the impact of nutrient pollution on a protected site, and a developer pays the nature restoration levy, they will no longer be required to consider that environmental impact through wider environmental assessments. Similarly, where a protected species is identified as an environmental feature under an EDP, the making of a levy payment will mean that the developer will benefit from a deemed licence based on terms set in the EDP, which removes certain associated requirements for the developer under existing legislation.

Crucially, the legislation is clear that the making of a payment will only be capable of addressing the environmental impact on the protected features covered by an EDP. Although we expect coverage to build up over time, it is only right that the discharge of environmental obligations is limited to the matters addressed in the environmental delivery plan. Therefore, if the development has other environmental impacts that are not covered by the EDP, they will continue to be assessed in the usual way.

It is important to stress that the removal of the need for the developer to meet those environmental obligations will apply only when Natural England has sufficient evidence to draft an EDP, the Secretary of State has concluded that the EDP is sufficient to outweigh the impact of development, and the developer has committed to making the necessary nature restoration levy payment. Given the targeted nature of the changes to the regulations and Acts, and the need to provide legal certainty for the nature restoration fund to operate, I commend clause 61 and schedule 4 to the Committee.

[Ellie Chowns]

The Minister asserts that the Bill maintains the mitigation hierarchy, but that is not set out anywhere in the text. The words “mitigation hierarchy” appear nowhere in the Bill. The word “mitigation” appears four times, always in relation to climate change. The word “avoid” appears only once, in relation to unavoidable delays to nationally significant infrastructure projects, and the word “harm” appears only once, in relation to commercial interests. If the Bill does not say anything about the mitigation hierarchy, mitigation or avoiding harm in relation to nature, how can the Minister claim that it upholds the mitigation hierarchy?

Amendment 54 specifies that a developer needs to demonstrate taking

“reasonable steps to appropriately apply the mitigation hierarchy”.

The Minister emphasised his desire for the legislation to have flexibility. My amendment offers that flexibility; his Bill offers no support for the mitigation hierarchy. For that reason, I will not withdraw the amendment, because it is fundamentally important. I would like to press it to a vote.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Briefly, it is worth my putting on the record the following so that the Committee is clear about the Government’s position. The mitigation hierarchy is still a requirement of the national planning policy framework. It is established through that, and it continues to operate. But we think—I have been very honest about this—that the new approach in the Bill requires flexibility, where appropriate—

[Ellie Chowns]

The Bill overrides that.

[Matthew Pennycook]

No—the amendment is entirely at odds with the purpose and intent of clause 61, which is to disapply the requirement for assessment of environmental impact of a feature covered by an EDP once the development has committed to pay the nature restoration levy. In our view, therefore, the amendment would fundamentally undermine the operation of our approach, and for that reason we cannot accept it.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

I will try to speak briefly. Amendment 92 is particularly important considering the conversation that we have just had about my previous amendment. Effectively, the nature restoration fund offers the opportunity for developers to buy the right to pollute in one location if that money is used to create habitats or support remedial action in another location. But clause 62, as it is currently drafted, makes the payment into the NRF subject to a viability test, which undermines the polluter pays principle, which is one of the fundamental environmental principles to which the Government are supposed to be sticking.

The amendment reinforces the polluter pays principle. It is a well-established environmental policy doctrine endorsed by international agreements, numerous national frameworks, and the Government’s own environmental principles. It asserts that those who cause environmental degradation should bear the costs associated with its mitigation and restoration.

Removing the economic viability constraints means that, in principle, a developer could make their own assessment of whether paying into the NRF would undermine their capacity to pursue a development. Therefore, the viability caveat undermines the environmental goals. It dilutes the effectiveness of the nature restoration levy by tethering it to this ambiguous economic viability standard. It is a subjective and, frankly, developer-biased filter that might lead to inconsistent applications of the levy or weakened environmental commitments in the face of commercial pressures, and in so doing, could prioritise short-term developmental gains over long-term ecological resilience.

Allowing economic viability to act as a limiting factor to the NRF creates a dangerous precedent, because it implies that environmental restoration is, in effect, a negotiable, secondary or optional cost that could be trimmed if profit margins are tight. Again, that would surely not be compatible with the Government’s stated aims for establishing this policy approach. Frankly, in the context of a rapidly escalating biodiversity crisis, the approach is both irresponsible and unsustainable. I warmly encourage the Minister, yet again, to consider my helpful amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Lady for speaking to amendment 92, which, as she set out, seeks to remove the duty on the Secretary of State to consider economic viability when making regulations in respect of the nature restoration levy. We believe that it is important to consider viability in the setting of that levy, because excessive costs will mean either that developers will not want to pay into the nature restoration fund, or if they are forced to, that less development will come forward. This will be a particular issue for small and medium-sized housebuilders. Without developers paying into an EDP, the conservation measures that it sets out will not be delivered.

The hon. Lady’s amendment also includes the aim of establishing a requirement that all conservation costs are funded entirely by the developer. Introducing requirements that all funding for conservation measures come from developers will also undermine Government’s ability to step in and provide funding should conservation measures not deliver the necessary effect. That is likely to lead to an increased cost for developers, or to force them to avoid using an EDP and to rely on existing systems that do not provide the same benefits for the environment as the nature restoration fund. For that reason, we cannot accept the hon. Lady’s amendment.

Clause 62 is essential to the operation of this new strategic approach. It will empower the Secretary of State to make regulations in respect of the nature restoration levy. I therefore commend it as currently drafted to the Committee.

As hon. Members will be aware, clause 70 will allow the Government to provide guidance to Natural England on the operation of the levy. It enables the Secretary of State to give guidance in relation to any matter connected with the nature restoration levy, and provides that Natural England, or any other public body to which such guidance is given, must have regard to it. Such guidance will provide clarity as to the operation of the nature restoration levy and speed up implementation. For those reasons, I commend these clauses to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 129, in clause 64, page 95, line 4, at end insert—

“(1A) When considering the rates or other criteria to be set out in a charging schedule in the course of preparing an EDP, Natural England must not include any potential capital costs for the purposes of acquiring land.”

Clause 64 stand part.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 63 forms part of the wider group of clauses that provide the necessary powers to make regulations governing the operation of the nature restoration levy. The clause specifically deals with issues of liability and provides regulation-making powers to set out who is liable to pay the nature restoration levy and when that liability arises. Given the breadth of environmental circumstances and types of development that may be covered by an environmental delivery plan, the detailed operation of the levy is best addressed through regulations, with the powers to make regulations suitably constrained. Technical matters of liability, such as the withdrawal and cancellation of liability, will be set out in the regulations, with the clause providing the relevant powers. To provide certainty and clarity to developers, those regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Clause 64 is another limb in the group of clauses that will govern the operation of the nature restoration levy. In particular, the clause provides the powers to make regulations in respect of how Natural England calculates and sets the nature restoration levy. Those regulations will, for example, frame how Natural England determines the cost of conservation measures to address the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature and the subsequent levy rate for developers. In doing so, regulations made under the clause will ensure matters of economic viability form part of the setting of rates under the charging schedule.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Does the Minister share my concerns? When developments are proposed, there are obviously negotiations under section 106. Although I agree with the principle of the levy, I do not want developers to move money from other 106 obligations —healthcare, roads and education—into it. Has he given any thought to how we can prevent that from happening? This levy should be additional, rather than cutting the pie in a different way.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. In the correspondence I will send to the Committee, I am more than happy to try to give hon. Members a sense of how the provisions in the Bill do or do not interact with the existing developer contribution system. However, section 106 agreements are a very different proposition from what we are discussing. We are talking about a nature restoration levy payment, managed by Natural England and directly for use on conservation measures that form part of an EDP. So section 106 is an entirely separate issue.

I recognise—I think this is the hon. Gentleman’s point—how issues of viability will be addressed in the calculation of the levy payment. What I would say to that is that this is a regulation-making power; the regulations will come forward with further detail, and we have made them subject to the affirmative procedure. We will have further debate in the House on the technical detail of how those regulations look when they are published. This is just the regulation-making power that will allow the levy to be charged. On that basis, I hope I have somewhat clarified the issue.

[David Simmonds]

This is a slightly technical question, but what consideration will be given to regional and local variation in the levels of cost? My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne highlighted the point about the interaction with section 106, which the Minister has accepted. One of the calculations under section 106 is child yield, which reflects the number of children we would expect in a development. Through the formula, that produces a payment in respect of the cost of provision of school places. Clearly, that cost will vary significantly depending on which part of the country the development takes place in. I would like to be confident that if, for example, a developer undertakes development in a very high-cost area, we will not see a significant corresponding reduction in the environmental yield from such a negotiation, and that viability will not, in practice, become such a barrier that developments do not go ahead or we end up forgoing the expected yield in some of these crucial areas in order to make housing viable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for that intervention. I will say two things. First, I again slightly caution against reading section 106 agreement provisions directly across into the clause we are debating. Secondly, the point he makes about regional variations in viability challenges is a good one, and it will, I am sure, be one of many issues the regulations have to consider. However, the full detail of those regulations will be forthcoming in due course, once the Bill receives Royal Assent.

As I said, clause 64 and the regulations that flow from it will play an important part in ensuring that the setting of the levy reflects the appropriate administrative costs in connection with the environmental delivery plan, as well as ensuring that processes are integrated wherever possible. In addition, the clause provides the necessary flexibility to ensure that the nature restoration fund is capable of accommodating different approaches to the setting of charging schedules—a point that relates to the discussion we have just had. That will ensure that environmental delivery plans can, where appropriate, deploy different approaches to calculating the levy rate—for example, reflecting the fact that some environmental issues are better considered on a per-dwelling basis, whereas others may benefit from calculating the levy based on the footprint of the development. In designing the measures, we have sought to ensure that we have the flexibility to tailor our approach to the unique circumstances on the ground as they pertain to each individual EDP.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, may address amendment 129 in due course, but I will turn to it now. The amendment, which was again tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), would prevent Natural England from including the cost of acquiring land when considering the nature restoration levy rate that developers will be required to pay. The nature restoration fund model will need to operate on a full cost recovery basis, as we have discussed, so excluding the cost of land from the levy price paid by developers would shift the burden of developers’ financial responsibilities to the state.

Under the existing system, developers are required to meet the cost of mitigation measures, which would include the cost of purchasing the land. That is the situation as it stands. That shows that the capital cost of land is not an additional cost that is being added on to developers. If land purchase could never form part of a levy-funded environmental delivery plan, Natural England would be required to rely on other measures, which may be more expensive and less effective in addressing the impacts of development. On that basis, I hope the shadow Minister will not press his amendment, and I commend both clauses, as currently drafted, to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I entirely agree with him, which is why, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, we make a dream team that is in fast competition with the Minister. He should watch this space—it is four years and counting. [Interruption.] I am joking with the Minister.

What I would say to my hon. Friend is that that is the key reason why we have concerns about clause 63. We understand the Minister’s intentions, and we will not press the amendment to further complicate the clause. However, we are concerned that the lack of clarity in the Bill could, in a very complex EDP involving multiple parties, damage the clause’s intent to enhance environmental protection. The number of planning permissions going through could increase, but the end result would actually be that the delivery was not there. That is a key area where the Minister needs to look at strengthening the wording in the Bill. That aside, we will not push our amendment to a vote.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me make a couple of comments in response. First, I understand the point that has been made, but a fair amount of the detail will come through regulations. The House will have an opportunity to scrutinise those, and they will, as I said, be under the affirmative procedure. Secondly, to refer the shadow Minister back to clause 62, I think issues such as phasing and complex development are dealt with in subsection (2).

My other, wider point goes perhaps not to the kids in schools, but certainly to the species that existing arrangements are designed to provide for. Developers are already paying a separate type of fee to discharge their environmental obligations. The Bill proposes a smarter way of doing that, and the levy will proceed on the basis of that smarter way to discharge those obligations.

I have not had the chance to say this, and it is worth doing so, but it is the Government’s clear intention that the aggregate cost of conservation measures to developers under an EDP is no greater than it is under the status quo for existing mitigations. The Government’s intent is not to charge developers more. This is a more effective, strategic and efficient way to discharge existing environmental obligations on a strategic scale. However, further detail will be forthcoming.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65

Appeals

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 65 will allow a right of appeal in relation to the calculation of the amount of the levy payable by a developer. As environmental delivery plans include charging schedules, which can set out the levy rates for different types of development, there is a need to ensure that there is a route for developers to appeal if they believe that the levy payable has been miscalculated. Crucially, the levy rates will be part of the draft environmental delivery plan, which will provide clarity as to the cost for developers, but we want to ensure that if developers believe that the rate has been miscalculated, they have a right to appeal. The appeal process will be set out in regulations, and the clause provides the detail of what those regulations may include. This is a simple and straightforward clause, and I commend it to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

I have a brief question. I understand that the Minister wants to bring forward regulations backed by the affirmative procedure, and that is welcome. I am slightly concerned by the wording in subsection (3):

“In any proceedings for judicial review of a decision on an appeal, the defendant is to be such person as is specified in the regulations (and the regulations may also specify a person who is not to be the defendant for these purposes).”

I seek reassurance from the Minister that once the Bill receives Royal Assent, he will err on the side of being liberal about who can bring an issue to judicial review, and that he will not seek to restrict a category of person from taking such actions. I would be grateful if he could give that assurance.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate—as, no doubt, the development sector will—the hon. Gentleman’s concern for developers and the right of appeal. I do give him that commitment. I will go away and think about the point he raises.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66

Use of nature restoration levy

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 66, page 96, line 20, at end insert—

“(1A) The regulations must require Natural England to ensure that use of money received by virtue of the nature restoration levy is not unreasonably delayed.”

The amendment would ensure that funding would be available for upfront nature restoration and mitigation on development sites.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

We will not press amendments 130 to 132, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley, to a vote. On clause 66 more generally, we accept that it sets out how funding collected by Natural England through the nature restoration levy must be used. In broad terms, it is to be spent on relevant conservation measures, as well as on the administrative costs that arise. However, there is an absence of clarity that could lead to potential concerns about the transparency and accountability of fund distribution. Without clear guidelines, there is a risk that administrative costs could disproportionately consume the funds meant for conservation, thereby undermining the levy’s effectiveness in achieving its environmental objectives.

Furthermore, we have a concern that the clause provides no safeguards to ensure that the funds are spent efficiently or effectively, and nor does it establish any oversight mechanisms to monitor the use of the funds. We would argue that a more detailed breakdown of how the funds will be managed, with clear priority given to conservation over administration, would help build trust in the system and ensure that the nature restoration levy delivers the intended environmental benefits.

Additionally, and lastly, there should be a requirement for periodic reporting on how the funds are used, which would provide necessary transparency and reassurance to stakeholders.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me work through each of the amendments that have been tabled and spoken to. I will start with amendment 9, which was tabled and set out by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. It requires that funds gathered through the nature restoration levy be spent without unreasonable delay.

An environmental delivery plan will have had to meet the overall improvement test, as we have debated at length, to have been made. In designing the conservation measures in an environmental delivery plan, Natural England will have been aware that delivering measures at the earliest point in time is usually the easiest way to achieve that outcome. However, the appropriate timing to deliver a conservation measure may depend on the specific circumstances of each case and the nature of the conservation measures that represent the best outcomes for the environment in the view of Natural England, as the body preparing the EDP. Natural England’s discretion in these determinations should not, in our view, be unduly restrained by an obligation to spend money quickly, rather than well and effectively, to achieve the outcomes under the EDP. There is an option for Natural England to establish—

[Gideon Amos]

Both are possible.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Both may well be possible in some instances, but may not be in alignment in others. We our principally concerned that money is spent well on the most effective conservation measures to achieve the best outcomes for nature. There is of course an option for Natural England to establish some mitigation measures prior to development starting.

Furthermore, the Bill contains provisions requiring National England to report on its progress, to ensure that there is transparency over how money secured through the levy is being used. We discussed that in a debate on a previous amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, which had overlooked the fact that EDPs have a set timeframe. The shadow Minister will know that EDPs are required to be reported on twice over the EDP period. It is worth making the point that Natural England must also publish annual reports setting out how it is spending the money received via the levy and the effectiveness of any EDPs. That requirement is a minimum and, as we have discussed, Natural England may publish reports at any other time. With that explanation, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley was particularly concerned about a situation where, in order to fulfil the requirements of the EDP, the compulsory purchase of land that had specific characteristics would be necessary. Therefore, that would potentially drive a very significant increase in the value of the land because it was the only way in which that EDP could be fulfilled, and that would significantly increase the cost to the public purse. What measures does the Minister have in place to ensure that where that type of situation arises—because, for example, there is a blanket bog or a particular type of pond that is required to fulfil the EDP—it is delivered at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think I understand the shadow Minister’s point. Obviously, the normal process for compulsory purchase would apply. We will come to CPO provisions later. If I have not covered it, I am more than happy to go into further detail at that point.

As I have set out, in order for an environmental delivery plan to be made, there must be sufficient certainty that the conservation measures are deliverable to allow the EDP to pass the overall improvement test. The possibility of using compulsory purchase where other options are not available is, in our view, essential to the operation of the nature restoration fund. That does not change the fact that, in practice, compulsory purchase will always be the least preferred delivery option, with a negotiated procurement of land use or management changes being the natural starting point, wherever those are required.

While talk of compulsory purchase can raise concerns—I understand those, and we debated them on Second Reading —we expect farmers and land managers to benefit, with the nature restoration fund providing opportunities to diversify their business income. We will debate Natural England’s compulsory purchase powers more fully when we reach clause 72. Given the environmental and practical need for these limited powers, I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees to withdraw the amendment.

I turn to amendments 131 and 10, which seek to remove the ability for regulations to make provision for Natural England to reserve money for future expenditure. By removing the circumstances in which Natural England can reserve money for future expenditure, the amendments would limit the flexibility for Natural England to secure the most appropriate conservation measures and would prioritise haste over environmental outcomes. In our view, they would also restrict Natural England’s ability to plan for unforeseen circumstances and allow money to be made available to react to changing circumstances.

The Bill provides a number of additional safeguards to the use of the nature restoration levy, which will ensure that money is spent effectively and transparently. I will set those out when we reach the debate on clause 66. Natural England will, of course, not wish to unnecessarily delay the procurement of conservation measures once levy funding is received, and preventing prudent financial management would not assist it in that endeavour. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Members will agree not to press their amendments.

I turn finally to amendment 132, in the name of the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley. This would require any unused funds to be returned to developers where an EDP no longer requires funding. We recognise that a requirement for Natural England to return any unused funds could reduce the cost to developers. However, we do not expect Natural England to be left with significant residual funds at the end of an EDP. Natural England will be encouraged to ensure that the costing of conservation measures is clear from the start and, as I have said, subject to consultation.

In the event that there are unspent funds that are not required to secure the conservation measures under the EDP, those funds will be directed towards additional conservation measures and securing additional positive environmental outcomes. Should the EDP period elapse before the outcome is achieved, the funds will continue to be invested until the required environmental outcome is achieved.

In addition, any system of dividing up and returning residual funding would risk making environmental delivery plans more expensive and would distract Natural England from focusing on developing and delivering them. It is important to emphasise again that developers are not paying for specific conservation measures on a site-by-site basis. They are providing a contribution to secure the package of conservation measures required across the EDP geography to outweigh the impact of development covered by the plan. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington might consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Gideon Amos]

I note in particular the Minister’s concern about proceeding with undue haste—I am sure that that is the furthest thing from the mind of this Committee. Without wishing to proceed with undue haste, I suggest that he is imputing to our amendment words that it does not contain. He is suggesting that it would deprioritise effectiveness and prioritise timeliness over the measures taken being effective. However, our amendment actually says “not unreasonably delayed”, which is well-known legislative wording. It does not prevent things being done well and, if not with undue haste, in a timely fashion.

We believe that the amendment is eminently sensible. I believe in it as strongly as I did when I stood up a few minutes ago.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me give the hon. Gentleman further reassurance. There are two things. First, we genuinely do not believe that that line would strengthen the legislation in any way, in the sense that it is ambiguous and would be an additional expectation on Natural England. More importantly, it is likely only to limit Natural England’s options in bringing forward the conservation measures under EDPs. I will give him an example: it would make it more difficult to do things such as pooling levy payments to fund larger-scale, more beneficial interventions over the EDP geography. I ask him to reconsider on that basis.

[Gideon Amos]

As always, I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. I would argue that it is possible to carry out the actions that he described without unreasonable delay, which is what our amendment seeks. The Government cannot have it both ways: on the one hand, it is ambiguous; on the other hand, it would definitely mean that timeliness is to the detriment of the quality of the actions. I do not think those two arguments stack up.

I believe in the amendment as strongly as I did a few minutes ago. However, in the interest of the progress of the Committee, and based on my understanding of maths, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I offer some brief remarks to complement the excellent ones of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington in support of new clause 18.

The new clause would provide for independent oversight of Natural England’s administration of the proposed nature restoration levy. We know from testimony to this Committee that we as a country have not prioritised nature and fully understood the importance of protecting habitats. Although we cannot correct those mistakes, it is important that we look to the future, in terms of nature restoration, to bring back what we had. Not only is that crucial for a healthy planet by helping to mitigate climate change, but there is a benefit to human wellbeing. Restoring natural ecosystems can enhance food production, improve water quality and quantity, reduce flood risks, and offer socioeconomic benefits such as tourism and sustainable jobs.

As my hon. Friend said, this is not about criticising Natural England but about recognising two things: first, Natural England is resource-constrained; and secondly, there is quite a lot of evidence from around the world that schemes intended to offset carbon emissions or promote nature in other forms can, if not properly scrutinised, often not achieve their intended benefits. I do not question the Government’s intentions with the proposals, but it is important that the nature restoration levy does not end up being greenwash.

We see so many examples of that. I was bewildered by a LinkedIn post a few years ago in which some people were applauding an intercontinental airline that was expanding its services for its commitment to the environment by eliminating plastic cutlery on their planes—talk about throwing a tiny starfish into an ocean. It is very important that we do not make such mistakes with the nature restoration levy. I hope that the Government will consider our new clause 18 to ensure that Natural England receives the independent oversight that it needs to discharge its objectives fully.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank hon. Members for setting out the rationale for this group of proposals so clearly. From memory, we have already discussed at length, on a number of clauses, the resourcing issue for Natural England. To be clear—I have been candid about this—in setting up the nature restoration fund, we are asking Natural England to do a lot. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington referenced the £14 million allocated in the Budget to its work in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister for the Government’s response to the proposals. I can only restate some of the concerns we have about potential conflicts of interest in relation to Natural England administering, collecting and spending the money, and judging its own effectiveness. The fact that the Secretary of State is the only arbiter above it would not necessarily bring confidence to those who are most concerned about the natural environment.

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire reminded us of a cast list of former Secretaries of State for the Environment. I am a little older, so I remember another one: Nicholas Ridley. Or let us think about the future: perhaps there could be a Secretary of State from the Reform party—goodness me, wouldn’t that be a prospect? What reassurance would that provide on regulating and overseeing the effectiveness of the nature restoration fund, the levy, the spending of the levy and the actions of Natural England?

For such a broad range of significant Government functions, and the significant spending of public money, it makes eminent sense to have an oversight body. It might add somewhat to the cost, but, in our opinion, that cost should be borne by developers. It is a worthwhile amount to be spent for a small regulatory function. We wish to press that point further, because it is an important way of strengthening the system, making it more robust and giving it more integrity in delivering its outcomes.

[Matthew Pennycook]

May I leave the hon. Gentleman with a point to reflect on? Natural England already undertakes a range of duties and makes interventions in support of positive nature outcomes, not least in terms of nutrient pollution, which we have discussed. It cannot do that through the approach we are talking about. Oversight of that is provided by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and that would remain in place. I ask him to reflect on the existing situation as it applies to Natural England, and how its very beneficial work is overseen at present.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to respond to our concerns, but, as I said, such a concentration of functions so closely related to each other—establishing the EDP, collecting and spending the funds, and monitoring its effectiveness—in what is a single system surely requires some separate oversight, rather than relying on future Secretaries of State. We will press the amendment to a vote.



Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have debated various amendments to clause 66, so I will be brief. I will just put on the record the Government’s case for the Bill.

The clause sets out that Natural England must spend money received through the nature restoration levy on conservation measures. More detail may be specified in regulations, as I have said, including the conservation measures that may be funded, maintenance activities and what can be treated as funding. In allowing Natural England to receive levy payments, it is vital that the payments are used to fund conservation measures that address the impacts of development on the environmental feature or features in relation to which the levy is charged. That is critical not only to ensuring that the impacts on the environmental feature are properly addressed, but to giving developers confidence that their contributions are not being used to replace wider action to restore nature. Such fairness is central to this model.

In designing the nature restoration fund, we have had to account for a range of circumstances that could arise. For example, it may be necessary to allow Natural England to use money received through the levy to reimburse actions already taken to prepare for anticipated environmental impact. Similarly, there will often be circumstances where it is necessary to make sure that funding is sufficient to extend beyond the end date of the EDP to ensure that conservation measures put in place are properly maintained for the appropriate time period.

The clause provides for such possibilities through subsection (4) and will support the delivery of the package of regulations that will underpin the nature restoration levy. The clause also ensures transparency on how levy payments will be used. That is why subsection (3) will require Natural England, through regulations, to publish a list setting out the various types of conservation measures that it may seek payment for and the procedure for doing so. The regulations will also be able to restrict Natural England’s spending of money received via the nature restoration levy on certain other activities.

The measures are further supported by subsection (5), which allows regulations to specify monitoring and reporting practices that Natural England must take, including that it accounts for money received via the levy separately from its other funding sources. That is an important point. Importantly for developers, such transparency will mean that when it comes to reviewing the charging schedule, they will be able to understand clearly not only what they have been asked to contribute, but how it will be used. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67

Collection of nature restoration levy

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 67, page 97, line 35, leave out from “levy” to end of line 38 and insert “.

(4A) Provision under subsection (4) must include a condition that the nature restoration levy must be paid before development begins.”

This amendment would require that the nature restoration levy is paid before development begins.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We heard evidence from the chief executive of Natural England, and in case she is listening, I say again very clearly that I make no imputation about the way she or the organisation are doing their job, but the language that she used was very loose. Without that financial certainty, there is a question about whether the organisation will be able to cope with all the responsibilities that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington outlined. As my hon. Friend just mentioned, the Minister has also admitted—if he wants to intervene, that is fine—that no additional funding means that Natural England will be relying on the spending review even more than we thought at the beginning of the evidence session.

[Matthew Pennycook]

indicated dissent.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister is shaking his head, so I will give way.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am shaking my head, for the following reasons. I have made it clear that the nature restoration fund will ultimately work on the basis of full cost recovery. To be clear, these are costs for introducing compensation measures and discharging environmental obligations that Natural England at present does not handle; developers do them on a site-by-site basis. Although I do not underestimate the resourcing challenges across Government, the full cost recovery for the service provided will not impact on Natural England’s wider work. There will be full cost recovery for the preparation and delivery of environmental delivery plans for Natural England. I hope that that addresses the matter.

In that sense, I do not think the shadow Minister is right to say that we are giving Natural England an additional responsibility, on top of its existing responsibilities, outside the provisions of the Bill here, for which full cost recovery will apply. There is a specific, direct link with the levy that is going to be raised.

Broadly, I say to the shadow Minister—I am just flicking through the explanatory notes—that he has challenged me, and I accept the challenge, that there is not enough specificity in the regulation-making powers in the Bill. I have committed to regulations coming forward under the affirmative procedure. If he could go away and help my reflection by guiding me to another piece of legislation that has included the specificity around regulation-making powers that he would like to see, that would very much aid my deliberation.

[Paul Holmes]

I am a very aspirational, can-do, go-getter politician—[Interruption.] Yes, it is everyone else who needs to say that. I am willing to sit down with the Minister and guide him in any way I can—perhaps over a double espresso—to make sure that the gist of what the Bill seeks to achieve is matched in the specificity about what is required in regulations. I do not think I am being ungenerous to the Minister; I have accepted that he has been very good in saying that we will consider them under the affirmative procedure. But as we discuss the key driving force behind the Bill, we seek reassurance on some of the unclear elements of Natural England’s responsibilities.

The Minister, who is driving this legislation forward, could indicate to the Committee verbally or in writing afterwards where he will give more specifics on enforcement action, on costs, on raising powers and on other things. I am not being mean to him; I am just saying that if he spent years writing this while he was shadow Minister, he should know what he wants Natural England to do now that he is Minister. I have full confidence that he can do that, and I cannot be any more complimentary to him than I have been on this Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As complimentary as the shadow Minister is being about me, I think it is a stretch—even for someone such as myself, who has lived and breathed this for years—to have been setting out while in opposition the fine details of collection for nature restoration levy regulations forthcoming. That is a level of detail that I did not get into, and would not be expected to, and that the House can consider when those regulations come forward.

[Paul Holmes]

If the Minister has lived and breathed this for the many years for which he has wanted to write this legislation, and he has then got to the dizzying heights of a red box and a ministerial desk, he should know what he wants to do—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

I will be brief. I strongly support amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. Accepting the amendment would go a long way towards addressing the concerns about enforcement, late payment and so on. Let us adopt it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington argued, amendment 6 is designed to ensure that developers pay the nature restoration levy before a development can progress.

The timeline of payment has been carefully considered by the Government, and the payment and timing of the levy will be agreed as part of the wider process of planning consent, and before development can progress. However, in developing the legislation, we recognise that EDPs will cover a broad range of circumstances, so there is a need to allow the payment of the nature restoration levy to be tailored to reflect the type and scale of development in each instance. For example, this would allow large, multi-phased developments to pay in line with development milestones, as opposed to there being a requirement for the total levy to be paid up front. That will ensure that the environmental delivery plan is a viable option for developers, which in turn will ensure that we are able to deliver the improved environmental outcomes through the nature restoration fund.

Clause 67 already allows regulations to be created regarding the imposition of planning conditions to require payment of the levy—for example, allowing a condition that development cannot commence until the levy has been paid. If we took an overly prescriptive approach to the payment of the levy, we would risk reducing the overall impact of the new approach and driving more developers into using the existing process, which delivers less for nature, as we have argued previously. Having given that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will consider withdrawing his amendment.

Clause 67 establishes a requirement for nature restoration levy regulation to include provision relating to the collection of the levy. It also stipulates further provisions, including matters such as when and how the levy is to be paid. The regulation-making powers in the clause are vital to ensure that the levy can accommodate different scenarios, such as enabling other public authorities to collect the nature restoration levy on behalf of Natural England, and to provide for refunds in case of overpayment.

Importantly, and as I have just set out, the regulations also allow for the imposition of planning conditions to require payment of the levy—for example, a condition that development cannot commence until the levy has been paid. We believe that that is the most appropriate mechanism to secure collection of the levy and for that reason I commend the clause to the Committee.

I turn finally to clause 68, which continues to build the system of regulations that will govern the operation of the nature restoration levy and ensure that effective enforcement procedures are put in place. Ensuring that levy payments are properly captured is vital to ensuring that Natural England is able to deliver the conservation measures required under the EDP, in order to secure the necessary positive environmental outcomes.

As the levy is the way in which the EDP is funded, it is vital that mechanisms are available to Natural England to enforce payment when a developer has breached their commitment to pay the levy. Although we expect the vast majority of developers to engage with the new process in good faith, non-payment of the levy could result in insufficient funding being available to address the environmental impact of development, which is unacceptable. That is why clause 68 sets out that regulations must include provision relating to enforcement of the levy, with consequences for late or failed payment. It also sets out that regulations may include provisions around penalties and charges, granting enforcement powers such as powers of entry, information collection and prosecution, and provisions regarding replications of existing tax enforcement measures and appeals.

It is important that there is effective enforcement of the nature restoration levy. I have taken up the challenge put by the shadow Minister. I hope that he comes forward with further detail. As a former shadow Minister who has sat in the hon. Gentleman’s place while considering many pieces of legislation, I would argue that these regulation-making powers are sufficiently detailed. I count 13 subsections under clause 68, for example, with further detail in regulations to come. On that basis, I commend these clauses to the Committee.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to Committee members for responding to our amendment about payment of the restoration levy up front. The Minister raises the objection that it might prevent multi-phase payments. In response to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage made very clear that the intent of our amendment is to ensure that works occur up front, at the early stage, and that funds are there to make that possible.

I recognise that, for the Minister, resisting amendments is the order of the day, week, month and all the rest of it, but I did hear him refer to regulation. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we earnestly hope that those regulations will take account of the principles that we have advanced in this amendment—that funds should be provided up front and early enough for mitigation works to happen early in the process. We will be looking carefully: if that occurs, we shall be very pleased to have had raised those issues in this debate. We shall be watching the regulations carefully. Given the assurance that regulations are coming forward, which we hope will achieve the objectives of our amendment, we will not seek to push it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 67 and 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69

Compensation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 69 is a further building block in the system of regulations that will govern the operation of the nature restoration levy. Whereas regulations made under clause 68 will enable Natural England to take enforcement action to address non-payment of the nature restoration levy, clause 69 ensures that, where appropriate, any persons who have suffered loss or damage as a result of such enforcement action will have a route to compensation.

The compensation process, including when and how a claim for compensation can be made and how the amount of compensation will be determined, may be set out in regulations, with the clause providing the framework for that process. Through the development of a new system, we intend to guard against such circumstances, but it is only right and prudent to provide for them. For that reason, I commend the clause to the committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 69 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71

Administering and implementing EDPs

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 73 stand part.

Clause 74 stand part.

Government new clause 65—Transfer schemes in connection with regulations under section 74(1).

Government new clause 67—Power to enter and survey or investigate land.

Government new clause 68—Warrant to enter and survey or investigate land.

Government new clause 69—Powers of entry: further provision.

Government new clause 70—Powers of entry: compensation.

Government new clause 71—Powers of entry: offences.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 71 sets out the broad functions of Natural England in respect of the nature restoration fund. As will have become clear from earlier clauses and previous debates, Natural England will administer environmental delivery plans; that is, it will do everything required to prepare the documents themselves, as well as take them through the processes of consultations and scrutiny before they are made by the Secretary of State. This will include its administrative responsibilities in monitoring and preparing reports on an environmental delivery plan’s progress.

Natural England will also be responsible for securing the delivery of the conservation measures necessary to implement what is set out in the environmental delivery plan, to ensure that it meets the necessary overall improvement test, and delivers positive outcomes for nature. This clause makes it clear that these functions may include the development of land, for example, to create a certain habitat to improve the conservation status of a protected site.

There will be instances where it is more prudent, cost-effective or timely for another body, whether public authority or private business, to carry out certain measures, so the clause gives Natural England the ability to pay another person to take conservation measures. That will ensure that Natural England can work with other providers where needed to ensure the timely and effective delivery of conservation measures, and for that reason I commend the clause to the Committee.

Throughout the development of the nature restoration fund, we have been clear that that Natural England must have the appropriate powers to deliver on the ambitions of the reforms. That is why we have tabled Government new clauses 67 to 71, which will ensure that Natural England has sufficient powers of entry to survey or investigate land. That will allow Natural England to conduct surveys, take samples, or conduct any exploratory works necessary to produce an environmental delivery plan or deliver conservation measures.

We recognise that such powers should be provided only with appropriate constraints. With that in mind, the powers are not exercisable to enter a private residence and entry must take place at a reasonable time. Where land is occupied, Natural England or the Secretary of State must give at least 24 hours’ notice in writing to the occupier, unless the occupier of the land is a relevant statutory undertaker, where the notice period is 21 days.

If, in seeking to exercise powers of entry, Natural England has been or is likely to be denied entry, the amendments also provide for the courts to issue a warrant to enter land. They create two relevant offences relating to the power of entry: intentionally obstructing a person acting in exercise of this power, and disclosing confidential information obtained in the exercise of a power of entry for purposes other than those for which the power was exercised. These powers are crucial to ensure that Natural England is able to carry out its functions effectively, and for those reasons I commend the new clauses to the Committee.

Clause 73 provides that, as well as preparing environmental delivery plans, Natural England must produce an annual report on the exercise of its functions in respect of the nature restoration fund. As previously set out, environmental delivery plans have a dual purpose in facilitating the development the country needs to meet its ambitious goals for housing and growth, while contributing also towards the restoration of our natural environment. Given the central role environmental delivery plans will play, it will be important that the Secretary of State, as well as the public and Parliament, are provided with regular information across a range of matters relating to the plans. Clause 73 establishes an appropriate proportionate requirement for Natural England to prepare an annual report to fulfil this purpose.

The Secretary of State will prepare guidance with further detail on how the report should be prepared, with this clause setting out core matters that the report must include, such as where environmental delivery plans are in place, and an assessment of each one that is in force. This report will be published and laid before Parliament so that it can receive appropriate scrutiny from all hon. Members. This is an important step to ensure transparency and to provide information to support the ongoing delivery of EDPs, as well as the design of future environmental delivery plans. For these reasons, I commend this clause to the Committee.

Turning to clause 74, Natural England has a central role to play in preparing and implementing EDPs and is already planning how to deliver the first tranche. However, as we have discussed, circumstances may arise in which it is prudent or necessary for another body to assume some or all of Natural England's functions in this space. Clause 74 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make the necessary changes to allow another public body to exercise the same functions as Natural England in respect of environmental delivery plans. That includes the ability to confer powers granted to Natural England under part 1 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 on an alternative body for the purpose of administering and implementing EDPs. In designating an alternative body, it may also be necessary to transfer certain rights, assets and liabilities from Natural England for those functions to be carried out. Government new clause 65 provides the mechanism for doing so.

Throughout these clauses we have sought to ensure the nature restoration fund is fit for purpose today, but also able to adapt to changes in the future. It is on that basis that we have proposed the inclusion of a power to designate another body to exercise the functions of Natural England. I commend these clauses to the Committee.

[The Chair]

Before I put the question, I would like to make hon. Members aware that we have now debated clauses 73 and 74, on which I will put the question later today. We have also already debated new clauses 65 and 67 to 78, on which a question will be put at the end of proceedings next week.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 71 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 72

Power to acquire land compulsorily

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I understand why the shadow Minister has sought to press me on this point, as I hope I have conveyed on previous clauses where we have touched upon compulsory purchase. We expect Natural England to use compulsory purchase orders as a last resort, and subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight. It will need to be authorised by the Secretary of State. I hope I can reassure him up front that Secretary of State oversight of the CPO process, as it applies through the nature restoration fund, is the same as in the existing process. Schedule 5 makes it very clear that the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 applies.

More generally, clause 72 provides Natural England with powers to compulsorily purchase land. As we have set out throughout this sitting, to be successful in delivering a win-win for nature and the economy, it is vital that Natural England has the necessary powers to secure and implement the conservation measures needed to protect the environment and enable Britain to get building. Although it is necessary to equip Natural England with those powers to ensure conservation measures can be delivered, they can be used only if the land is required for the purposes connected with a conservation measure set out in an environmental delivery plan, where attempts to acquire land by negotiation have failed, and where there is a compelling case in the public interest for use of the compulsory purchase powers.

As a further safeguard, the use of those powers will need to be authorised by the Secretary of State. Equipping Natural England with compulsory purchase powers is not unusual or novel. I sought to address that point on Second Reading. Many public bodies with statutory powers have compulsory purchase powers, and Natural England can already make compulsory purchase orders in some circumstances.

Clause 72 is supported by schedule 5, which applies the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and makes necessary modifications to compulsory purchase compensation legislation to accommodate these changes. Government new clauses 112 to 118 support this approach to compulsory purchase by making a number of technical amendments to ensure the operability of the new powers. That includes protections in respect of the use of CPO powers where the use of them may affect those carrying out statutory functions.

Finally, the package of amendments removes certain terms that are a hangover from outdated regulations and makes adjustments to the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 to allow for powers of entry where notice has been given. As the Committee has already heard, the Government have taken a cautious approach to extending compulsory purchase powers but are clear that they need to be available in the context of the nature restoration fund to ensure that there is sufficient certainty that, where necessary and appropriate, compulsory purchase can be used to ensure conservation measures are delivered.

I turn now to amendment 150, tabled by the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), which would restrict Natural England from utilising compulsory purchase powers for land that forms part of a dwelling or private garden. If I heard the shadow Minister correctly, it is a probing amendment, but I am more than happy to provide him with some further detail on the Government’s position. We agree that it will be crucial for the use of compulsory purchase powers to be appropriately constrained. That is why we have made sure that the current clauses provide that these powers can be used only where attempts to acquire land by negotiation have failed and there is a compelling case in the public interest for use of the compulsory purchase powers.

That is supported by the further safeguard that the use of the powers will need to be authorised by the Secretary of State, which will include considering whether the public interest benefits of the acquisition justify interfering with the private rights of those affected. It is highly improbable that conservation measures in private gardens could form an ecologically essential component of an environmental delivery plan. I do not say it would be impossible, but it is highly improbable.

Any restriction, however, of the use of the power where land contains an occupied dwelling or forms part of a private garden would be an unusual restriction on CPO powers, and would introduce unnecessary risks of complexity and delay when they are exercised. Any private dwellings will already benefit from additional protections, as I am sure the shadow Minister will know, under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. For that reason, and the existing safeguards within the Bill itself, I hope that the shadow Minister will withdraw the right hon. Lady’s amendment.

Finally, I turn to new clause 107, which would provide for circumstances where Natural England must return land that has been compulsorily purchased. In providing Natural England with new powers to acquire land through compulsory purchase, the Government have been at pains to ensure that the powers operate with effective safeguards, as I have said, and are in line with the wider approach to compulsory purchase. As raised elsewhere in the debate, we are clear about the need to ensure that Natural England can, where appropriate, use such powers to secure land to deliver conservation measures.

The new clause would undermine the efficacy of the proposed targeted powers by requiring land to be returned, at a loss to the taxpayer, where Natural England had to spend more money on conservation measures than the original contract price offered to the landowner. That would leave a hole not only in the public purse but in the environmental delivery plan in question, which would need to secure additional land to implement additional conservation measures that would have been secured on land now returned to the original owner.

We share the desire of the shadow Minister to see the effective use of the powers—that is why the safeguards are in place—but I hope that, with that explanation, he will withdraw the amendment.

[Paul Holmes]

We are satisfied with and appreciate the Minister’s response, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Compulsory acquisition of land under Part 3: supplementary provisions

Amendments made: 112, in schedule 5, page 148, line 36, at end insert—

“5A (1) Paragraph 3(2) does not apply to—

(a) any right vested in statutory undertakers for the purpose of carrying on their undertaking,

(b) any apparatus belonging to statutory undertakers for that purpose,

(c) any right conferred by, or in accordance with, the electronic communications code on the operator of an electronic communications code network, or

(d) any electronic communications apparatus kept installed for the purposes of any such network.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) ‘statutory undertakers’ means persons who are, or are deemed to be, statutory undertakers for the purposes of any provision of Part 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and ‘undertaking’ is to be read in accordance with section 262 of that Act (meaning of ‘statutory undertakers’).”

This amendment secures that the things mentioned in the inserted paragraph 5A are not affected by paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 5, which would otherwise provide for their extinguishment or acquisition when land is compulsorily acquired under clause 72.

Amendment 113, in schedule 5, page 152, line 10, leave out “or restrictive covenant”.

This amendment and amendment 114 remove erroneous references to a restrictive covenant from paragraph 11 of Schedule 5. Paragraph 11 relates only to the compulsory acquisition of a new right over land under clause 72.

Amendment 114, in schedule 5, page 152, line 14, leave out “or enforcing that covenant”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 113.

Amendment 115, in schedule 5, page 152, line 14, after “sections” insert

“11A (powers of entry: further notices of entry), 11B (counter-notice requiring possession to be taken on specified date),”.

This amendment secures that the modification of section 11 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 made by paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 affects sections 11A and 11B of that Act, as well as sections 12 and 13.

Amendment 116, in schedule 5, page 152, line 29, at end insert—

“New rights: application of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981

13A The Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 (‘CP(VD)A 1981’) applies to the compulsory acquisition of new rights under section 72—

(a) with the modifications specified in paragraph 13B; and

(b) with such other modifications as may be necessary.

13B (1) The modifications of CP(VD)A 1981 referred to in paragraph 13A(a) are as follows.

(2) References to CPA 1965 are, in appropriate contexts, to be read (according to the requirements of the particular context) as referring to, or as including references to—

(a) the right acquired or to be acquired; or

(b) the land over which the right is, or is to be, exercisable.

(3) References to CPA 1965 are to be read as references to that Act as it applies to the compulsory acquisition of a right under section 72.

(4) Section 8(1) (vesting, and right to enter and take possession) is to be read as securing that—

(a) a general vesting declaration in respect of any right vests the right in the acquiring authority on the vesting date; and

(b) as from the vesting date, the acquiring authority has power, exercisable in the same circumstances and subject to the same conditions, to enter land for the purpose of exercising that right as if the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a) and (b) of section 8(1) had arisen.

(5) Section 9(2) (right of entry under section 8(1) not exercisable in respect of land subject to certain tenancies unless notice has been served on occupiers of the land) is to be read as requiring a notice served by the appropriate authority under that provision to refer to the authority’s intention to enter land specified in the notice in order to exercise the right.

(6) In section 10(1) (acquiring authority’s liability on vesting of the land), the reference to the acquiring authority’s taking possession of the land under section 11 of CPA 1965 is to be read as a reference to the authority’s exercising the power to enter the land under that provision as modified by paragraph 11 of this Schedule.

(7) Schedule A1 (counter-notice requiring purchase of land not in general vesting declaration) is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraph 1(1), for ‘part only of’ there were substituted ‘only the acquisition of a right over’;

(b) paragraph 1(2) were omitted;

(c) references to the land proposed to be acquired were (subject to paragraph (e) below) to the right proposed to be acquired;

(d) references to the additional land were to the house, building or factory over which the right is proposed to be exercisable;

(e) in paragraphs 14 and 15, references to the severance of land proposed to be acquired were to the acquisition of the right; and

(f) in paragraph 15, after ‘in addition to’ there were inserted ‘or in substitution for’.”

This amendment secures that the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 applies in relation to the compulsory acquisition of a new right over land under clause 72, subject (a) to the specific modifications in paragraph 13B (designed to secure that certain provisions of that Act work correctly in relation to that case and (b) any other modifications necessary to secure that result.

Amendment 117, in schedule 5, page 152, line 32, leave out

“with the necessary modifications, in”

and insert “—

(a) with the modification specified in paragraph 15, and

(b) with such other modifications as are necessary,

in”.

Paragraph 14 of Schedule 5 secures that the enactments relating to compensation for the compulsory purchase of land apply to the acquisition of new rights over land under clause 72 with the modifications necessary to make them work correctly in relation to that case. The amendment makes clear that the modifications include the particular modification of the Land Compensation Act 1961 set out in the new paragraphs 15 inserted by Amendment 118.

Amendment 118, in schedule 5, page 152, line 35, at end insert—

“15 Section 5A (relevant valuation date) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 is to be read as if for subsections (5A) and (5B) there were substituted—

‘(5A) If—

(a) the acquiring authority enters on land for the purpose of exercising a right in pursuance of a notice of entry under section 11(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (as modified by paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025),

(b) the acquiring authority is subsequently required by a determination under paragraph 13 of Schedule 2A to the 1965 Act (as substituted by paragraph 9 of Schedule 5 to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025) to acquire an interest in the land, and

(c) the acquiring authority enters on and takes possession of that land,

the authority is deemed for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) to have entered on that land when it entered on that land for the purpose of exercising that right.

(5B) If—

(a) a right over land is the subject of a general vesting declaration,

(b) by virtue of paragraph 11(2) or 16(2) of Schedule A1 to the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981, the declaration has effect as if it included an interest in the land, and

(c) the vesting date for the right is different from the vesting date for the interest in the land,

the first of the vesting dates is deemed for the purposes of subsection (4)(a) to be the vesting date for the whole of the land.’”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This amendment sets out a modification of section 5A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 as it applies in relation to the compulsory acquisition of new rights over land under clause 72. The amendments ensure that section 5A works correctly in relation to its application to the acquisition of such new rights.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 73 and 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75

Duty of co-operation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 76 stand part.

Government amendments 103 and 104.

Amendment 121, in schedule 6, page 157, line 34, leave out paragraph 41.

Government amendments 105 to 111.

Schedule 6.

Clause 77 stand part.

Government amendments 99 and 100.

Clause 78 stand part.

Government new clause 73—Application to the Crown.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Environmental delivery plans will, by their very nature, cross administrative boundaries and require input from a wide range of actors from across the system, be they local authorities, regulators or other public bodies. It is vital that Natural England can rely on their support and input to develop and implement environmental delivery plans.

Clause 75 will establish a stand-alone duty to co-operate in respect of environmental delivery plans to ensure that relevant public bodies and public authorities engage and co-operate with Natural England. The duty will require such public bodies in England to provide reasonable assistance to Natural England and have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State about how the duty needs to be complied with. Of course, we recognise that such bodies will want to proactively engage on such matters, but a legislative duty will provide reassurance to local communities, environmental groups and developers that all parts of the system will work together to ensure that the plans can be put in place and properly implemented. The clause provides an important safeguard to ensure that all parts of the public sector work together to design and deliver EDPs.

Clause 76 relates to Ramsar sites, which I am sure hon. Members are aware are wetlands of international importance designated under the convention on wetlands. In England alone, these amount to over 300,000 hectares of land. To date, in England, these sites have been given the protection of the habitats regulations assessment process, through policy as set out in the national planning policy framework and in Government guidance, rather than through legislation.

To support the effective operation of the nature restoration fund work, we propose to place protections for Ramsar sites on a legislative footing, with clause 76 providing for Ramsar sites to be treated in the same way as European sites under the habitats regulations assessment process. Obligations relating to Ramsar sites will therefore have a legal basis, allowing environmental delivery plans and payments into the nature restoration fund to cover the impact of development on Ramsar sites. That is important, given the importance of the sites, and will mean that, going forward, such sites of global importance can benefit from the environmental uplift secured through an environmental delivery plan.

In order to ensure the operability of the nature restoration fund, schedule 6 makes various necessary amendments to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Part 1 of the schedule places the protection of Ramsar sites, the country’s most important wetlands, on a statutory footing. That will apply the statutory protections of the habitats regulations assessment process to Ramsar sites, mirroring existing policy requirements set out in the national planning policy framework and national guidance. That approach will not only strengthen protections but ensure that Ramsar sites can be adequately covered by EDPs.

Part 2 of schedule 6 makes various minor and consequential amendments to the Acts I have mentioned. In respect of the Protection of Badgers Act, those are to allow for the granting of a deemed licence, which can cover the activities necessary to allow development and to implement an EDP. The amendments also provide for greater alignment with licences granted in respect of other species. This part makes further amendments to provisions on wildlife licensing, again to ensure workability with an EDP.

Part 2 of schedule 6 also excludes the preparation of EDPs and the implementation of conservation measures from the requirement to produce a strategic environmental assessment and the requirement to conduct an assessment under part 6 of the habitats regulations. Similarly, the schedule excludes the application of regulation 9 to the exercise of those functions. That approach reflects the fact that we have embedded the requirements in the process of the environmental delivery plan itself. For example, EDPs will consider alternatives, conduct robust public consultation, and carry out appropriate monitoring and reporting. By their very nature, EDPs will result in better outcomes for nature, but will do so by adopting a different approach, as we have discussed at length.

Amendment 121 will be set out in more detail by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. It seeks to remove the Government’s consequential amendments to the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The Government recognise that badgers are an iconic British species and have already started immediate action to bring an end to the badger cull by the end of this Parliament. Our consequential amendments to the Act under schedule 6 to the Bill will ensure that the nature restoration fund is operable for badgers. As part of the fund, we are ensuring that any licences granted as part of an environmental delivery plan in respect of badgers will be in line with licences granted under the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Without the changes, environmental delivery plans could not be put in place to address the impact of development on badgers.

In developing the new model, it is vital that Natural England is empowered to achieve the best possible environmental outcomes. That is why schedule 6 also gives Natural England the necessary range of tools to undertake conservation measures that support badgers. We will be guided by the evidence and Natural England’s expertise on which species are best suited to strategic approaches and how to apply the new tools. At this stage, however, we need to ensure that the legislation remains capable of supporting badgers. Given that explanation, I hope the hon. Member will not move amendment 121.

I turn now to clause 77. In establishing the new system, the Government have been mindful of the appropriate role for Parliament in scrutinising regulations made in respect of the nature restoration fund. In drafting this clause, we sought to secure the appropriate parliamentary procedure for the making of regulations under this part of the Bill, which must be made by statutory instrument. As with all Bills, we have tailored the approach to reflect the significance of the regulations, with the most important being subject to additional scrutiny through the affirmative procedure.

With that in mind, regulations relating to the nature restoration levy, regulations relating to the designation of a delivery body other than Natural England, and regulations making consequential amendments that amend an Act of Parliament will need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. Any other statutory instruments containing regulations that are made under this part will go through the negative procedure. They will therefore become law unless there is an objection by either House of Parliament in the form of a resolution to annul. We think that strikes the right balance and makes the best and most appropriate use of parliamentary time. For that reason, I commend clause 77 to the Committee.

Finally in this group, I turn to clause 78. In establishing the nature restoration fund, the legislation relies on a number of terms and phrases that define the core features and operation of the model. This clause acts as a reference list, bringing together the various definitions used in this part of the Bill. This clause is designed to assist the House and the public to navigate the clauses. Following introduction, we have sought to address minor issues in the drafting to ensure the effective operation of the statute book and to address any minor errors. Government amendments 103 to 111 make minor but necessary technical changes. I therefore commend clause 78 and the relevant Government amendments to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 121, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I will not repeat all the arguments that he made so powerfully in favour of it. It is clear that the amendment would mete out unnecessarily hostile treatment to badgers, as the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner pointed out. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say to explain why the provision is needed, because it seems clear from the arguments that have already been made that it is not required.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I did address this in some detail—the intention behind these clauses has obviously passed hon. Members by—but I would just like to make very clear, for the Guardian article that will no doubt appear tomorrow, that I have no particular animus against badgers in whatever form. However, we need these amendments to the Protection of Badgers Act to ensure operability under the nature restoration fund. They bring badger licences granted as part of an EDP in line with licences granted under the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act. In essence, all we are trying to do is to ensure that the licensing approach is relevant across all relevant species. I am happy to write to Members with more detail. I really do think, and I say this with all sincerity, that their concerns in this area are unfounded. I am happy to set out more detail in respect of badgers specifically.

[Gideon Amos]

I understand that interference with badgers is sometimes necessary for development or perhaps for environmental measures, but can the Minister explain why the existing powers are not sufficient? These are powers that enable interference with a badger sett, which may indeed mean the badgers are killed, and the sett to be destroyed. All those powers are there. Why is it necessary to have the additional power to kill them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Member is right that those powers are there. The reason the new clauses are required is to ensure the operability under the nature restoration fund. To provide him with a little more detail, which I hope might be helpful, in respect of the Protection of Badgers Act the new clauses extend which prohibited activities may be covered by a licence to cover what will be needed for an EDP.

The new clauses also provide for a greater alignment between licences granted under the existing Protection of Badgers Act and those granted in respect of other species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. EDPs will set the terms of a licence, but we need these new clauses to ensure operability under the nature restoration fund. As I said, I am more than happy to write to hon. Members to reassure them on this point, but I do think their concerns are somewhat unfounded and I do not think the interpretation they are placing on the Government is correct.

[Lewis Cocking]

As Broxbourne’s emblem is a badger, I would like the Minister to write to me so I can have some more reassurance that these powers will not be used unnecessarily.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is late in the day, Mrs Hobhouse, and people are running away with themselves in various respects, but I do want to provide members of the Committee with as much reassurance on this point as we can provide as the Government. I will be able to set out the reasons I think their concerns are unfounded and why I think the interpretation they have put on these new clauses is not accurate, and why, for reasons of operability, we need to ensure they are in place. As part of that, I also commit to write to the shadow Minister on the specific and fairly technical series of questions he has put to us about public bodies in respect of clause 75. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6

Amendments relating to Part 3

Amendments made: 103, in schedule 6, page 156, line 35, leave out

“, as it applies in England and Wales,”

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 101.

Amendment 104, in schedule 6, page 156, line 35, at end insert

“(see also section 95(1A) (extent of this paragraph is England and Wales only)).”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 101.

Amendment proposed: 121, in schedule 6, page 157, line 34, leave out paragraph 41.—(Gideon Amos.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 119, in clause 55, page 88, line 7, leave out “are likely to” and insert “will”.

This amendment would mean that an EDP would only pass the overall improvement test if it is certain that the proposed measures will outweigh any negative environmental effects caused by the development.

Amendment 14, in clause 55, page 88, line 7, after “sufficient to” insert “significantly”.

This amendment would require that conservation measures within Environmental Delivery Plans significantly outweigh any negative effects of development.

Amendment 20, in clause 55, page 88, line 9, at end insert—

“(4A) An EDP does not pass the overall improvement test—

(a) where the environmental features affected are qualifying features of a European site, European marine site, European offshore marine site or a Ramsar site, unless—

(i) the Secretary of State is satisfied that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the relevant site from the delivery of development to which the EDP applies, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, with the same standard of confidence as if the EDP were being assessed as a plan or project under Regulation 63(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017;

(ii) it has not been possible for the Secretary of State to be satisfied under sub-paragraph (i) but the provision of measures to offset any unavoidable harm to the relevant features significantly outweighs the negative effect of the development;

(iii) there is an overriding public interest in permitting the EDP to be made and no alternative approaches to meeting the public interest that would result in less harm to the relevant site;

(b) unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that Natural England has demonstrated that all reasonable opportunities to avoid or minimise negative effects caused by development within the scope of the EDP have been taken;

(c) unless Natural England has demonstrated that—

(i) any measures to avoid or mitigate negative effects caused by development will be delivered and functioning prior to any such negative effects occurring, and

(ii) any proposed compensation measures will be delivered to prevent any irreversible harm to the conservation status of relevant ecological features.”

This amendment outlines when the Secretary of State must find that an EDP does not pass the overall improvement test.

Government amendment 98.

Clause stand part.

Clause 56 stand part.

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

It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Dr Huq.

I was speaking to this group of measures at the tail-end of yesterday’s sitting. I discussed clause 55, I spoke to the purpose and effect of clause 56, and I mentioned Government amendments 97 and 98. I will now turn to the other amendments in this group, beginning with amendment 119, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, which seeks to amend the threshold for when the Secretary of State may make an environmental delivery plan.

Amendment 119 speaks to the shift from site-by-site assessments to our strategic approach. In developing an alternative to the existing system, we need to recognise that a strategic approach that covers a potentially large amount of development over a number of years is a materially different proposition from assessing the impact of a single development. We must therefore approach that proposition in a different way. Put simply, we cannot be as unequivocal about outcomes as we would be on a site-by-site assessment basis.

The drafting of the clause reflects that, as it would not be appropriate to replicate the approach applied to assessments of individual sites. Instead, the Bill provides a wider package of safeguards, such as appropriate monitoring, the ability to deploy back-up measures and the ability to amend environmental delivery plans, to ensure that plans deliver the positive outcomes over the plan period.

That is also why clause 50 requires that an environmental delivery plan must set out not only how conservation measures will address the environmental impact of development, but how they will contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the environmental feature in question. It is also why clause 52(2) requires a draft environmental delivery plan to set out why the conservation measures selected are “considered appropriate” to meeting that goal.

As we have said since the Bill’s introduction, it is about delivering more for nature, not less. As I said in a previous sitting, we are therefore carefully considering the advice of the Office for Environmental Protection and its support for the intentions of the reforms. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Lady will in time agree not to press amendment 119.

Amendment 14 seeks to introduce a new threshold for when the Secretary of State may make an environmental delivery plan. Again, in developing the new approach, we have always been clear that the nature restoration fund will deliver more for nature, but that is not a substitute for wider action to support nature recovery. While it is right that we seek to do more and to outweigh the impact of development, we must ensure that we are not asking developers to contribute more than their fair share. That is not a check on ambition, but an acknowledgment that positive results can be realised only if environmental delivery plans are a viable option for developers.

The test in clause 55(4) ensures positive outcomes, but it cannot be set at a level that would make it impossible to bring forward an operable environmental delivery plan—that would be a lose-lose situation for the economy and for nature. Again, on that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will not press amendment 14.

Finally, I turn to amendment 20, also tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. This amendment seeks to amend the operation of the overall improvement that the Secretary of State must consider before making an environmental delivery plan. As I have already clarified for the Committee, the nature restoration fund will provide a different route for developers to discharge existing environmental obligations. In establishing this new approach, it is necessary to depart from existing process.

As I have outlined, the new approach will go further than the existing system, which requires measures only to offset harm to achieve neutrality. By taking this new approach we will deliver more for nature, not less. Although the Bill does not require a restrictive application of the mitigation hierarchy, we believe it nevertheless effectively maintains that hierarchy, as does the chief executive of Natural England, who gave oral evidence to the Committee.

Moreover, the flexibility that the Bill provides in respect of the hierarchy will be used only where Natural England considers it appropriate, in line with the overarching objective of delivering better outcomes for the relevant environmental feature over the course of the environmental delivery plan. The hon. Lady’s amendment would remove that flexibility and tether the nature restoration fund to the existing status quo that we know—I emphasise that again—is not working for our sites and species.

I also emphasise, however, that I understand the importance of ensuring that the flexibility is used only where it needs to be, and that everyone can be confident that harm is being avoided. I very much understand the concerns about the certainty of outcomes. We want everyone to be confident, so I am open to considering ways to underpin that confidence in a way that still allows the model to work as we want it to and as it needs to; my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke also asked yesterday what more the Government might consider in that regard. With that explanation, although I know further debate is forthcoming, I hope that the hon. Lady will consider not moving her amendment.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Dr Huq. I thank the Minister for his comments. He emphasised that his intention in the Bill is to continue to protect nature at the same level, but differently. He emphasised a different but not worse approach. I share his desire to ensure that even if it is different, it is not worse, but I am concerned about the way the Bill is framed.

In clause 55, we are really getting to one of several cruxes of the matter. The Secretary of State’s environmental statement on the front of the Bill states:

“the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law.”

A completely different opinion is expressed, however, in the letter from the Office for Environmental Protection, whose people know about this issue. I am glad that the Minister said yesterday that he is considering very seriously what the OEP said; I read the letter again in detail this morning—it is really hard-hitting.

The Minister points out that Natural England thinks there is no problem with the application of the mitigation hierarchy, but that is not the opinion of the Office for Environmental Protection. Given that Natural England will effectively have a conflict of interest under the Bill’s provisions, we need to pay serious attention to what the OEP says. I very much look forward to his promised comprehensive response to the OEP’s advice.

Amendment 20 is essential to ensure that the overall improvement test applied to EDPs, which is mentioned in clause 55, is robust, scientifically grounded and consistent with domestic and international environmental law. It is about making sure that when we talk about overall improvement, we really mean it—not on paper, not in theory, but in reality.

Amendment 119 makes a simple but essential change. Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, as set out in the OEP’s advice, there is a high degree of certainty established in statute and case law that environmental standards will be maintained beyond reasonable scientific doubt. In the overall improvement test in clause 55, however, conservation measures need only be “likely” to ensure that the environment is maintained. That leaves huge leeway for ministerial subjectivity, and it opens the door to damaging development. It is a clear regression in environmental law. Again, that is emphasised very clearly by the OEP, which states that the test in clause 55

“would be considerably more subjective and uncertain than under existing environmental law.”

How is that compatible with the statement on the front of the Bill? It cannot be.

Given that the Minister has assured us that it is not the Government’s intention to weaken environmental protections, amendment 119 would fix the loophole by replacing the words “are likely to” with the word “will”. That would mean that an EDP would require an objective test that conservation measures will achieve an overall improvement.

This amendment is not about gold-plating; it is simply about matching the level of certainty that currently exists in law and assuring the House that environmental protection will be maintained. I would be deeply worried if the Bill passed as it stands, with the weakening in certainty, because that would clearly be contrary to the Government’s statement on the front of the Bill.

Amendment 20 sets the minimum legal and scientific thresholds that must be met before an EDP can be said to pass the overall improvement test. Again, the advice from the OEP is very robust—there needs to be scientific certainty. Amendment 20 would specifically introduce safeguards when protected nature sites are involved, such as European sites, Ramsar wetlands and other internationally important conservation areas.

Amendment 20 would ensure that the Secretary of State must apply a standard of evidence equivalent to the rigorous integrity test under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. This is not new law; it is a reaffirmation of the protections that have guided habitat conservation for decades, ensuring that there is no regression, as per the Environment Act 2021. The amendment is absolutely necessary, otherwise clause 55 risks watering down the existing protections.

Let us not forget what is at stake here. The UK has 658 designated special areas of conservation, special protection areas and Ramsar sites across the four nations. They include places of global ecological importance— the Norfolk broads, the Severn estuary and the north Pennines—and places that are very dear to my own heart, such as the River Wye and its catchment. These places support rare and endangered species, and are central to our commitments under the Bern, Bonn and Ramsar conventions. However, many of them are already in unfavourable condition. Natural England’s latest data shows that only 38% of England’s sites of special scientific interest are in favourable condition and many of those overlap with European sites.

This amendment would provide three layers of safeguards. First, it says that an EDP cannot be approved if it would harm the “integrity” of a European or Ramsar site, unless that harm is either fully avoided or meets the high bar set under existing habitat regulations. Secondly, it would require Natural England to demonstrate that “all reasonable opportunities” to avoid or minimise harm have been taken.

Thirdly, the point about the mitigation hierarchy is really important—we will discuss it again when we debate a future clause. It is a key concern for the Office for Environmental Protection and all who care about nature. The mitigation hierarchy means that we avoid environmental harm before we go to mitigation or offsetting. The problem with EDPs, as they are set out under part 3 of the Bill, is that they shift straight to offsetting. As I tried to explain yesterday, some things cannot be offset; irreplaceable habitats cannot be offset.

In addition, unless we are certain that offsetting is done in advance and that the habitat is linked to the one being destroyed, that could lead to the inadvertent destruction of species—for example, dormice, as I said yesterday. It is important that the Bill strengthens the commitment to the mitigation hierarchy and that that strengthening is written into the Bill, as well as ensuring that the overall improvement test is compatible with the existing level of protection under existing environmental law.

The expert advice of the OEP directly supports the points that I am making. It concluded that the overall improvement test, as currently drafted, would weaken existing legal protections, and has consequently called for amendments to ensure that the test aligns with environmental law and principles.

We also need to ensure that the UK remains compliant with international and trade obligations. Under the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, we are bound not to weaken environmental standards in ways that affect trade or investment. Removing or diluting protections for SACs and SPAs through a vague or permissive improvement test could fall foul of that requirement and expose the Government to legal challenge.

Fundamentally, the amendment also reflects the will of the public. More than 80% of people support strong legal protections for nature sites, even when development is proposed. I fully agree with the Minister’s articulation of the view that development does not have to come at the expense of nature—it is absolutely possible to build the houses that we need in a way that respects and indeed improves nature protection—but we can do that only if the legal framework ensures that development takes place in that way. Otherwise, there is a serious risk that the clear weakening of environmental protections, as outlined in the current drafting of the Bill, will lead to the opposite of what the Government say they want to do on the front of the Bill.

These two amendments do not prevent development. They simply ensure that development is compatible with the integrity of our most protected sites, give effect to long-standing legal protections, uphold the Office for Environmental Protection’s recommendations, and ensure that the overall improvement test is not a loophole but a genuine environmental safeguard. I strongly urge hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to support both amendments if we are serious about development going hand in hand with nature protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I acknowledge that this is an important part of the Bill and that some organisations have expressed concerns about the matter. I agree with the hon. Members for North Herefordshire and for Taunton and Wellington pointing out what the OEP has said about this part of the Bill, but we should acknowledge that what the Minister said yesterday and his speech today could not have been clearer: the Government are reviewing and reflecting on the OEP’s advice, and they have set out their incredibly clear intention to ensure not only that nature is not worse off, but that it is better off as a result of the Bill.

The Minister has been crystal clear that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s advice. The latter came through seven working days ago yesterday. We are now on the eighth working day since it provided its advice. I urge colleagues to take the Minister at his word and to allow the Government to respond to the OEP. If colleagues across the House are not content with their response, that can be dealt with on Report, but we should take the Minister at his word when he says that the Government are taking the OEP’s comments incredibly seriously and reflecting on them.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, although I do not expect hon. Members to just take me at my word; I think they should both interrogate the Bill and the provisions and reflect on my further comments. Although I caveat everything by saying that we are grateful to the Office for Environmental Protection for its recent advice and its support for the intention of these reforms—let us be clear: it supports the intention and we are carefully considering its advice —we are clear that this approach will deliver more for nature, not less. The important thing is that those improved outcomes—and they are improved outcomes; we are not talking about merely maintaining the status quo—can be achieved only if we are willing to do things differently. That is why the Bill establishes an alternative to existing processes, but only where that will lead to better outcomes.

I should make a brief comment about Natural England, as the other body that will be involved in the design and implementation of environmental delivery plans. It is slightly unfair, if I may say so, for the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to suggest that there is a stark conflict of interest here. As I have said in previous sittings, Natural England has the expertise and ecological skills to make the right judgments. It will put in place suitable propriety barriers to ensure that it can act effectively as both an advisory body and the body tasked with preparing, designing and implementing EDPs.

[Ellie Chowns]

I have a genuine question and concern. Under the Bill, Natural England has responsibility, as advisers, preparers, developers and deliverers, to implement the EDPs, and it is also judge and jury on the effectiveness of EDPs and whether they are doing the job that they are intended to do. That is a lot of functions to give to one body. There are not checks and balances within that system. This is no comment on the expertise and commitment of Natural England. I am certain that everyone working for that body shares my and the Minister’s desire to see the natural environment thrive and improve, but the reality is that the Bill’s structure and the responsibilities that it gives to Natural England span the full gamut, from implementing to checking, and that is effectively a conflict of interest, is it not?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not think it will be, for the reasons I have given: suitable propriety barriers will be put in place and the House will be able to take a view on whether those are sufficient. I would also slightly push back on the idea that Natural England is judge and jury when it comes to EDPs. The Secretary of State has responsibility for judging whether an EDP meets the outcomes test on the basis of advice from Natural England.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will make a bit of progress, then I will be happy to give way.

Hon. Members may say that those safeguards are not sufficient, but we trust elected Members in ministerial capacities to exercise their judgment, in line with the ministerial code and taking into account their obligations under both international and domestic law. We trust them to do that. If hon. Members take issue with the basic fact that a Secretary of State can exercise judgment, then we disagree.

[Ellie Chowns]

I have two points. The first was raised by the Office for Environmental Protection in its advice. I was going to come to it when discussing clause 58, because it is specifically about the amendment of EDPs. Only Natural England and the Secretary of State get to decide if an EDP should be amended. There is not even any requirement for consultation. There is no mandatory requirement to assess whether an EDP is doing its job. If we are to trust Natural England and the Secretary of State to do that, when they will both have an in-built interest in declaring that an EDP is doing its job, there is no mechanism for ensuring that an EDP is actually meeting the outcomes that are envisaged.

The Minister asks us to trust in the good judgment of the Secretary of State, but I remind the Minister that previous environmental Secretaries of State—who would, under these provisions, have been expected to make these decisions—include Liz Truss from 2014 to 2016, Owen Paterson from 2012 to 2014, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), and Thérèse Coffey. Those are not people who necessarily share the Minister’s espoused commitments, and not necessarily people who everybody who cares about nature protection might automatically trust to make important and sensitive judgments about whether environmental protection is taking place.

The entire point of a Bill—we talked about this in a previous sitting—is that it sets out what has to happen and why, because we cannot simply trust whoever happens to be in the seat of Secretary of State to always do the right thing. That is why we have law. I beg the Minister to recognise that we cannot simply trust the judgment of whoever happens to be Secretary of State for the next however many decades. The Bill must be written correctly, so that it embeds environmental protections and does not leave the door open for activity contrary to the Minister’s stated aims.

[Ellie Chowns]

I apologise.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Lady tempts me down a path of commenting on past Secretaries of State—I would enjoy that, but I will not do it. She is absolutely right that we must ensure that this legislation can be exercised appropriately by any Secretary of State, whoever they might be, in years to come.

Where the hon. Lady and I slightly differ is on what legislation is required to do in all circumstances. We rely on Ministers to exercise their judgment in line with the relevant legislation and other obligations, for example on call-in decisions that the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers in my Department are asked to make. They are judgments. They are exercised on the basis of a recommendation by the Planning Inspectorate, and of the relevant material considerations, but a judgment is still exercised. We are saying that the Secretary of State has to exercise a judgment on the “overall improvement test” but on the basis of advice from Natural England, once consultation has been carried out.

As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington mentioned, clause 55 gets to the heart of this approach. We are reflecting on the points made in the letter from the Office for Environmental Protection. I want to set out why we feel our approach is right, and that the necessary safeguards are built in. I will deal briefly with the amendments in turn, starting with 119.

Changing “are likely to” to “will” would require a greater deal of certainty from the Secretary of State before they would be able to make an environmental delivery plan. That does get to the heart of the difference in approach. In moving away from a site-by-site assessment to trying to improve outcomes for nature in the round, over a wider geographic area, we have to move away from a time period in which those conversations, or offsets, can be delivered on those sites specifically. By its very nature, the approach requires a degree of, if you like, gazing into an as-yet-unknown future. The test of “likely” makes that difficult to achieve.

[Gideon Amos]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will finish this point first.

That is why there are safeguards built into the process in terms of monitoring, the backup measures that can be taken in terms of amendment or revocation, and the ultimate judgment made by the Secretary of State on the basis of advice on whether the EDP is having the relevant outcomes. We cannot, unless we are determined not to attempt this approach in any way, apply near-impossible tests for an EDP to meet.

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

I have total sympathy with what the Minister is saying, and understand the point that the Member for the hon. Member for North Herefordshire is seeking to address. Does the Minister agree that one of the lessons from section 106 is that, in many cases, funds end up being returned to the developer, as it is impossible to spend on the mitigation because of the specificity for which it is provided?

The Opposition agree with the Minister that there will be occasions when, in the view of the Secretary of State or Natural England, it is impossible to build the specified badger, bat or newt mitigation on a specific site, and that it would be better to spend that money somewhere else to create a better overall environmental benefit. It is therefore important to provide for that flexibility in the legislation.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The shadow Minister makes my case for me, because we want to allow Natural England to have that flexibility.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

If the hon. Lady will let me respond to this point, I will then address her point.

It is precisely that flexibility that we want to allow Natural England to use, because over that wider geographic area, it can look at which conservation measures, in the round, will have the most impact, rather than costly gold-plating, which happens now in certain circumstances— I will not repeat the individual cases, but we hear about them in the press a lot—and often leads to bad outcomes, and which flows from the site-by-site assessments that must take place.

What gets to the heart of the approach, and is the reason why some of these amendments are deeply problematic, is that, under this approach, we cannot be as unequivocal as we can currently on the basis of individual site-by-site assessments. There needs to be the opportunity to take a forward view as to what will have the likely effect of having an overall benefit for nature in the round across the EDP area.

[Ellie Chowns]

With respect, I do not think that the point made by the shadow Minister does make the Minister’s case for him, because it was about taking a site-by-site approach, which is not a good analogy here. We already have capacity under existing environmental law to take a district-wide approach—for example, district-level licensing for newts. I am not opposed to that at all; it is a very good idea. That is not the issue here; the issue is the degree of certainty.

If the Minister maintains his position that EDPs must only be subject to an “are likely to” test, how is that compatible with the absolute certainty on the front page of the Bill that it will not result in any decline in environmental protection? How can lots of “are likely tos” add up to the certainty that the Secretary of State sets out on the front page of the Bill? They simply do not.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We think the Bill provides that certainty, which is why the Secretary of State felt able to make that statement, but—this is really important— while the hon. Lady has clearly indicated that she, like us, is unhappy with the status quo, and while I think she recognises the limitations of the impact we can have in terms of beneficial nature outcomes using the current, individual site-by-site-assessment basis, her amendment 20 would, in practice, result in the continued need to assess development on a case-by-case basis and would require conservation measures to address the specific impacts of each development. It does not provide the necessary flexibility that will lead to better outcomes for nature, while at the same time unlocking development and allowing it to be accelerated.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Gideon Amos]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give someone else a chance, but I am happy to come back to the hon. Lady.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister; I will give him an opportunity to move on to our amendment 14, which I hope he agrees is in the spirit of that approach. I sympathise with the point made by the shadow Minister, and I understand the qualitative difference with a site-by-site approach, in which outcomes may more easily be predicted than in a nation-wide or region-wide approach. Does the Minister agree that wording that retains “are likely to” but introduces “significantly” raises the bar in a way that is in tune with the Government’s approach in the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Without in any way denigrating the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, the hon. Gentleman’s amendment is a subtler way of attempting to constructively suggest how the Bill might be improved, but we still think it is problematic, for the following reasons. It would apply a higher threshold to the improvement test in clause 55 —namely, that measures are likely to be sufficient to “significantly” outweigh the negative effect of development.

The addition of “significantly” into the improvement test would mean that measures would need to be likely to significantly outweigh the negative impact of development, and that would require more than a marginal improvement. It would also introduce uncertainty as to what could be classified as “significantly” outweighing the negative impact—as well as, I might add, an associated risk of legal challenge.

In that sense, in seeking to press EDPs to deliver far in excess of the impact that arises from development, amendment 14 risks undermining the efficacy and placing an undue burden on developers, notwithstanding the legal risk I have just mentioned.

[Gideon Amos]

Does the Minister know that the same “significant” test under the Environment Act 2021 has not been subject to a single legal challenge?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not sure how comparable they are. We are very mindful—this is something I was aware of before becoming a Minister, but it has certainly been brought home to me since—of the impact of specific wording in legislation. It is incredibly important.

In the interests of moving on, Dr Huq, I will probably finish here. I think we have had an extensive debate.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way to the hon. Lady one last time, then I will address the point made by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington.

[Ellie Chowns]

It is important: the whole point of Committee is to look at the detail and really get to grips with it.

Replacing “are likely to” with “will”, as my amendment seeks to do, would not make it necessary to conduct a site-by-site assessment. It relates to the wording that clause 55 applies to the EDP overall. It is about the degree of certainty that an EDP will deliver—that a habitat-wide approach to delivering environment improvements will deliver—as in subsection (5), in relation to

“the maximum amount of development to which the EDP may apply”.

With respect, the Minister said a few minutes ago that the amendment would effectively take us straight back to a site-by-site approach. That does not apply here.

The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim that this legislation will result in not just the maintenance of, but an improvement in, environmental protection while pursuing wording that explicitly and significantly weakens environmental protection. That is the point that the Office for Environmental Protection makes, it is the point that a number of nature protection non-governmental organisations have made, and it is contrary to the Minister’s stated intentions for the Bill, and contrary to what the public want. We can have development and nature protection together, but only if the legislation specifies that it must happen, not that it may possibly happen.

[Matthew Pennycook]

To be clear, in assessing that the amendment in question would result in the need for continued assessment on a site-by-site basis, I am referring to amendment 20. I am absolutely certain that that is what it implies. Amendment 119, which I think the hon. Lady has just spoken to—there is a slight risk of conflating the two—is problematic for other reasons. As I have said, it introduces an inappropriately high bar that will, in effect, make it incredibly difficult for the Secretary of State to meet the test.

There is, as I have said, a necessary degree of future gazing here, in terms of the change in approach. I certainly do not want to curtail debate, but I do want us to debate the other clauses in the Bill. I think I have firmly set out the Government’s position—why we think the Bill does achieve the very clearly stated intentions that we have set out—but I go back to the fact that we are very cognisant of the concerns in this area. We want to ensure that sectors have confidence in the operation of environmental delivery plans, and that is the reason— I am more than happy to debate it with the hon. Lady outside the Committee and at later stages of proceedings on the Bill—why we will reflect on the very specific points that the OEP has made on a number of clauses.

Amendment 97 agreed to.

Amendment proposed: 119, in clause 55, page 88, line 7, leave out “are likely to” and insert “will”.— (Ellie Chowns.)

This amendment would mean that an EDP would only pass the overall improvement test if it is certain that the proposed measures will outweigh any negative environmental effects caused by the development.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Missing in action and not winning here. I know that the Minister is very keen that we expedite this Committee today because of the semi-final play-off with Charlton tonight. I hope that his team does well in that, because we would like to invite him down to the Den to watch a match between Millwall and Charlton, if Charlton are promoted. The Minister is always welcome down to the Den.

I turn to amendment 126, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). We absolutely agree with the Minister’s sentiments on EDPs, and we wholeheartedly agreed with the majority of what he said on the previous clause. We accept that EDPs will be a step change in environmental delivery across the United Kingdom.

One of our concerns, and the reason why we tabled amendment 126—I will come to amendment 127 in a minute—is that at the moment the legislation says that there will be two reviews into the EDP: one at the mid-point and one at the end. We simply want to see whether the Minister would entertain the idea of review periods at five-yearly intervals and a report on an EDP covering the previous five-year period. That is for a number of reasons.

First, with only two reports—one at the mid-point and one at the end—there could be long gaps during which important issues or shortcomings in implementation go unaddressed. In rapidly evolving environmental contexts, more frequent reporting would allow for timely adjustments and a greater responsiveness to emerging challenges. What would happen under the current proposals if a mid-term report showed a failure to deliver in conservation outcomes? Also, are the two required reports sufficient for long-term monitoring and public accountability?

We have a slight concern that the clause does not seem to specify the content or required level of detail in those reports. I hope that the Minister will be able to elaborate slightly on what he and the Secretary of State would expect in terms of the detail when a report is published. It is also important to state that although the Bill will have to meet equality legislation, it does not meet the standard for public accessibility or independent review. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about that. Without these safeguards, the report could become a box-ticking exercise rather than a meaningful tool for transparency and continuous improvement.

I turn briefly to amendment 127, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley. Given what the Minister said in our discussion of the last clause about the impact that the wording will have on legal definitions and measurements if those were to be challenged, I do not intend to press amendment 127 to a vote. We think that the wording

“the local economy and community of the relevant area”

is not defined enough, so we will have to look at whether we need to tighten it up, bearing in mind what the Minister said about the language in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. But I would like to press amendment 126 to a vote.

On amendment 127, I hope the Minister will say something about community benefits and the local economy in the relevant area. I hope he looks favourably on amendment 126, which stipulates more transparency and a clearer guideline for the process of reviewing EDPs. I look forward to his response.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me start by setting out our overarching intentions behind clause 57. Once an environmental delivery plan is made, it is crucial that Natural England can effectively monitor the performance of the conservation measures put in place and report on its progress. It is vital that key information, such as the performance of conservation measures and remaining development capacity under the environmental delivery plan, are made available. That is why clause 57 sets out that, as the shadow Minister just said, Natural England must publish reports at least twice over the environmental delivery plan period: once covering the period from commencement to its mid-point, then a second report covering the mid-point to the end date. The reports must be published no later than two months after the period the report covers, and Natural England may publish reports at any other time.

The reports are intend to demonstrate how an environmental delivery plan is progressing. They must cover specific topics—I hope this gives the shadow Minister some reassurance—including how much development has been agreed to, how that compares to the total amount of development that could be agreed to, what conservation measures have been implemented and the effect that they are having. The report must also specify the amount of money received through the levy and whether that is in line with expectations. That transparency will ensure that proactive steps can be taken if an environmental delivery plan is underperforming, and it will allow the Secretary of State to consider amending an environmental delivery plan to accommodate continued demand. I will come to clause 58 shortly.

Those reporting requirements are also important to ensure transparency as to whether delivery is aligning with the expected costs, and how the levy is being set and spent. By legislating for appropriate levels of reporting, we are ensuring that developers, local communities and environmental groups will be able to continue to engage with environmental delivery plans across their lifespan, ensuring they can be adapted as needed.

Amendment 126, tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, seeks to require Natural England to publish a report at five-yearly intervals that covers the previous five-year period of an environmental delivery plan. I very much share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to ensure that Natural England appropriately monitors the performance of the conservation measures put in place and reports on the progress of the environmental delivery plan. However, as drafted, clause 57(1)(a) and (b) already provide adequate safeguards by requiring appropriate levels of reporting. Under the existing drafting, Natural England is required to produce reports for each EDP. As I have set out, the first report will cover the start date to the mid-point, and the second will cover the mid-point to the end date of the plan.

As the maximum length of an environmental delivery plan is 10 years, the latest a report will be published is in year five, and then year 10. As such, the proposed requirement to provide a report every five years would not add further value. Where the duration of an environmental delivery plan is less than 10 years, a prescriptive timetable for reporting could create duplication. However, we recognise the need to ensure that Natural England can tailor reporting, which is why clause 57(3) allows it to publish a report at any other time.

On amendment 127, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, the Government share his desire to ensure that EDPs make a positive impact on the regions they cover, but we are clear that they should be judged first and foremost on their delivery of the environmental outcomes they are designed to achieve. That is why the legislation focuses on reporting on the environmental performance of EDPs. However, through subsection (6), the Secretary of State can publish guidance that Natural England must consider when producing a report. That gives the Secretary of State the ability to introduce new elements of reporting where appropriate.

The core focus of these reports is to provide the Secretary of State and the public with confidence that an EDP is providing the necessary environmental benefits to bring about an overall positive environmental outcome. Adding a new metric to cover the impact on the local economy and community, we believe, risks extending the scope of reporting and losing focus on the core objective of these reforms. Local economic benefits would, to a degree, be covered by the existing requirement to report how much of an EDP’s development capacity has been utilised. With that explanation, and the assurance that I always give the shadow Minister that I will go away and reflect on whether the wording is the best it can be, I hope he will withdraw the amendment.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister, as always, for his clarity on the amendments. He has said many times in Committee that he will be reflecting; I hope that he finds time to do things other than reflect. Given his assurances, I will have a word with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley so that he might have a proper look at where in the Bill the timescales are already set out; that may be a lesson for cross-shadow ministerial working in the future. Given the Minister’s assurances, I will not press the amendment; as I have said already, we are content with what he said on amendment 127. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Amendment of an EDP

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I rise to speak to amendment 128, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley—let us hope this one goes slightly better.

We understand the reason for clause 58 and for outlining the provisions for amending an environmental delivery plan. The clause clearly lays out the process the Secretary of State must go through to amend an EDP, which they may do either on their own initiative or at the request of Natural England.

The reason why my hon. Friend tabled amendment 128 is that, in some cases, the Secretary of State may choose to revoke an EDP. We will come to compulsory purchase orders later, but we would like to tighten up the wording of the Bill, so that when an EDP is revoked, the Secretary of State must seek to return any land obtained under a CPO for the purposes of that EDP to the original owner.

Will the Minister outline his thoughts on those proposals, which relate to cases where land has been CPO-ed and what happens to it afterwards? I hope he will see amendment 128 as a minor adjustment to the Bill and that he will give me some satisfactory answers, as he has this morning. We support the clause in general, but we just seek to tighten the language.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me set out for the Committee the intentions behind the clause, which gives the Secretary of State the power to amend environmental delivery plans in specific circumstances, where it is necessary to do so, and lays out the process that must be gone through.

The ability to amend may be required, for example, to reflect new environmental information or to extend an environmental delivery plan to accommodate additional development. The Secretary of State may amend on their own initiative or at the request of Natural England. It is right that environmental delivery plans can be amended, but our intention is that, where development has already contributed to the environmental delivery plan, any future amendment does not expose such development to requests for additional funding.

In providing a power to amend, we have also included proportionate requirements to consult on amendments. Crucially, however, in making an amendment to an environmental delivery plan, the Secretary of State will be bound by the same overall improvement test and will need to be satisfied that the conservation measures in the amended plan are likely to sufficiently outweigh the negative effect of development on the relevant environmental feature.

If the Secretary of State wishes to amend an environmental delivery plan, other than to amend only the charging schedule, they may first direct Natural England to consult on the environmental delivery plan as proposed to be amended. That allows environmental delivery plans to adapt and reflect changing circumstances, while ensuring that they are subject to sufficient scrutiny and oversight.

Turning to the amendments, I will begin with amendment 11, as set out by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I recognise the concern he highlights that, in a certain scenario, an amendment could be made that reduces the environmental outcomes and lowers the amount of protection. There are of course many important reasons why an environmental delivery plan may need to be amended, but we recognise that that ability to amend needs to be carefully considered. That is why existing clauses already offer a number of safeguards.

The central safeguard is that, where amended, an environmental delivery plan is still required to pass the overall improvement test. That means that, when amending an environmental delivery plan, the Secretary of State will not be able to reduce the amount of conservation measures without amending the scale of development that can rely on that environmental delivery plan.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

To clarify, if lots of environmental delivery plans are amended, who checks that Natural England and the responsible bodies in this process recommend the right things in the first place? I assume that we do not expect loads to be amended, but if plans consistently need amending because they are not producing the environmental benefits and the protection of nature they set out to, who will look overall at how many are amended in totality?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It will be for Natural England to determine what conservation measures are in place. There are reporting requirements on Natural England in terms of the overall body of EDPs. On the flexibility that is required—this speaks directly to the amendment from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington—it is unlikely that a Secretary of State would be able to reduce the number of conservation measures provided without reducing the development capacity of the plan, as that would not meet the overall development test. But there may be circumstances where the development capacity and the environmental conservation measures need to be reduced, and we need scope to be able to amend plans.

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire pressed me to refer to the concerns highlighted by the OEP about there being no requirement to consult on amended EDPs. As I have said, amendments to EDPs could be for a variety of reasons and could be extremely minor. In such cases, it would not be appropriate to require a consultation in every instance. Instead, there is provision for the Secretary of State to direct Natural England to consult on an amended EDP where expertise is required to inform its decision on the overall improvement test—for instance, if there is a material change to the development included or the conservation measures proposed. We think that that is a more proportionate and tailored approach to different EDPs.

[Ellie Chowns]

Where in clause 58 does it specify that consultation should or should not happen? I cannot see it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will happily write to the hon. Lady on where that is set out but, as per previous debates, I will not pre-empt our reflections on the OEP- specific points.

I again make the general point that, through regulations and guidance, further detail on many aspects of the Bill will be brought forward. However, the central point is that we do not think that it is proportionate or effective to require consultation on every amendment to an EDP, which in some cases could be very minor.

The central safeguard here is the overall improvement test that an EDP is required to pass. That means that when amending an EDP, the Secretary of State would not be able to reduce the amount of conservation measures without amending the scale of development that can rely on the EDP in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is the Chair’s job to say so, but I do not think the hon. Lady can intervene on an intervention. I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. It would not be the best use of our time if I were to flick through the Bill while on my feet and attempt to find the relevant subsection. I will happily write to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to set out how the requirements in clause 58 operate.

In designing the legislation, we have sought to avoid situations where the Secretary of State would be forced to revoke an environmental delivery plan where it would still meet the test of securing better outcomes for nature. A practical example of where it would be right to allow such amendment is where an EDP has proposed conservation measures to cover more development than is subsequently expected to come forward. There may be instances where the level of development is reduced, and then it may be appropriate to amend the EDP. In such circumstances, it would be right to amend and to reflect the reduction in the scale of development covered and the corresponding conservation measures. Amendment 11 would prevent that and would force the Secretary of State to revoke the environmental delivery plan or to keep the inaccurate plan in place.

In the event of a substantive change to the environmental delivery plan, both a public consultation and approval by the Secretary of State would be required. That would give the opportunity for environmental groups and local stakeholders to have their voices heard, and for Natural England to present evidence that provides assurance that the overall improvement test would continue to be met. With that explanation, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Clause 59 establishes the process for revoking an environmental delivery plan, and the circumstances under which the power will be used. When the Secretary of State approves and makes an environmental delivery plan, they are taking a decision at a specific point in time. However, we recognise the need to retain the ability to revisit this decision if necessary and ultimately to revoke an environmental delivery plan if the overall improvement test is no longer met.

[Lewis Cocking]

On a point of clarity, if the nature recovery strategy includes land or a scheme that is not next to or near the development where the developer has paid into creating that nature recovery strategy, who does the Minister intend to consult when these plans are changed? The people where the proposed nature site is, the residents of the development that contributed to it or both?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I set out, there is a requirement to go out to public consultation when significant amendments are made. That would be a general consultation, in the sense that we are moving beyond a site-by-site assessment. Again, it is for Natural England to set out how the EDP will function across the whole area. To return to the point raised by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, we do not think there is a requirement to consult in every instance, when some changes could be minor.

If an overall improvement test is no longer met, revocation is of course an option of last resort, and the Bill includes various safeguards to ensure that we do not reach that point. Those safeguards include the ability to deploy back-up conservation measures if monitoring indicates underperformance of the primary conservation measures, and the option to amend an environmental delivery plan or to reduce the capacity of development under the environmental delivery plan.

If, however, a decision is reached to revoke an environmental delivery plan, the legislation is clear on two fronts. First, development that has relied on the environmental delivery plan prior to revocation is not affected by the decision to revoke. Secondly, the Secretary of State will consider appropriate actions to ensure that the negative effect of development on environmental features, where a developer has already committed to pay the levy before revocation, is suitably addressed. That will provide certainty for developers that they can rely on environmental delivery plans, and certainty for local communities and environmental groups that the environment will be protected in all situations.

That links to Government new clause 66, which provides the Secretary of State with the power to make a compulsory purchase order in fulfilling their obligations when an environmental delivery plan is revoked. To deliver any appropriate conservation measures, it may be necessary to utilise powers of compulsory purchase. The new clause provides the Secretary of State with the necessary powers to ensure that they can fulfil that duty as part of the wider package of safeguards that underpin this new approach.

Similarly, Government new clause 72 ensures that the Secretary of State can take the steps necessary in the event of revocation, by granting them powers of entry when they are delivering conservation measures where an environmental delivery plan has been revoked. We recognise that such powers should be provided only with appropriate constraints, which is why the clause includes appropriate safeguards. With that explanation, I commend clause 59 and the new clauses to the Committee.

I should also touch on amendments 15 and 128. Amendment 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would raise the threshold for the actions the Secretary of State must take on revocation of an environmental delivery plan. The safeguards I have just outlined already ensure that we secure positive environmental outcomes. In seeking to require the Secretary of State to take actions to “significantly” outweigh the impact of development, the amendment, as per previous debates, would place an undue burden on the state to go beyond the overall improvement that sits at the heart of this new approach and that already delivers more than the current system. I hope the hon. Gentleman is sufficiently reassured on those safeguards and will not press his amendment.

Amendment 128 was tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, and I hope that, in this instance, it is at least coherent internally, even if it is not aligned with the measures in the Bill. It would require the Secretary of State to seek to return land obtained through compulsory purchase orders, in the event of an environmental delivery plan being revoked.

The important point to stress is that nothing in the legislation would preclude the return of surplus land to former owners, their successors or sitting tenants in accordance with the Crichel Down rules. However, it would not be appropriate to require the Secretary of State to return that land to its former owner whenever an environmental delivery plan was revoked. The land would not be surplus if it were needed to secure conservation measures that may be necessary in the event of revocation. The amendment would reduce the ability of the Secretary of State to use land already secured under the environmental delivery plan to fulfil their obligations in the event of the EDP being revoked. With that explanation, I hope the shadow Minister will agree not to press his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

No, Dr Huq, but on the assurances that the Minister gave in relation to amendment 128, which he said he expected we would take in the spirit in which he intended them, let me say that we will seek further clarification from him on CPO.

Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60

Challenging an EDP

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The clause sets out the approach to challenging an environmental delivery plan. As the obligations discharged through an EDP will not be subject to separate consideration at the point of development consent, we recognise that it is important that EDPs are subject to appropriate scrutiny. Earlier clauses provided for consultation in respect of EDPs, and clause 60 provides a route to challenge them.

The route of challenge enables a claim for judicial review to be brought within a period of six weeks from the date that the EDP is published. The same six-week period for judicial review is available following any decision by the Secretary of State not to make an EDP or to amend or revoke one, or when the Secretary of State has decided not to amend or revoke an EDP.

The decisions of the Secretary of State and Natural England in preparing EDPs must be subject to scrutiny, and the clause sets out a clear, time-bound mechanism for parties to question those decisions. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for that explanation of the clause. We have tabled no amendments, but we do have some questions for him.

We welcome the Government’s recognition that there should be the right to challenge an EDP—that is perfectly sensible and we appreciate it—and we welcome the fact that an EDP can be challenged by judicial review. We have all seen examples in our constituencies of large-scale projects in the planning system; in my area, although I disagreed with the people who were against an extension of Southampton airport’s runway, they had the right to go to judicial review. We also see—I declare an interest given what I said on Tuesday about Hamble quarry —communities wanting to assess whether they can take cases to judicial review. We absolutely welcome that provision in clause 60.

However, we have a concern about the six-week window. The Minister will know—and we have all seen these cases, for good and bad—that people who may want to bring a judicial review, or at least investigate one, cannot always afford it. They are not always well-organised or large-scale businesses with the resources to afford that very expensive and complicated process. We are concerned that such a short window may hinder meaningful access to justice, particularly for local communities, smaller organisations, or individuals or charities, which may lack the resources or legal expertise to respond quickly enough. I know that this is in legislation, but is the Minister confident that the six-week window is sufficient, given the potential complexity of EDPs, and will he look at reviewing it or consulting interested parties on it?

We have been very clear that we expect robust public engagement and clear communication obligations. Especially on something as substantial as an EDP, and bearing in mind the charities or small activist groups that may be affected by it and that may, whether we back the principle of EDPs or not, have genuine disagreements, I invite the Minister to outline his thoughts on the six-week period.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate why the shadow Minister raises that point. I am confident, for the following reasons. A six-week timeframe to challenge an EDP is in line with similar legislation on plan making. For example, the statutory consultation period for local plans is six weeks, as set out in regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. We think it is an appropriate timeline, and there is precedent. We are trying to strike a balance between allowing sufficient time for an EDP to be challenged when it is made, amended or revoked—in all the circumstances that I set out—and not making the period so long that it will not allow for EDPs to be prepared and implemented as swiftly as possible, which is obviously the objective of the Bill. I hope that, on that basis, the shadow Minister is reassured.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend makes the case persuasively for a new station at Wellington. I note that it is not responsibility of the Minister’s Department, but I hope he is aware that railway and station re-openings in recent years have seen vastly more use than even the most optimistic forecasts and models predicted.

Without delivering the services that people need, we are undermining public support for the housing that we all know we need. The issue of housing targets not being supported by accompanying targets for—and commensurate investment in and focus on—infrastructure, amenities and public services needs to be rectified. That is essential for happy and well-functioning communities, and for ensuring that there continues to be public support and consent for more housing.

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

Let me take each of the amendments in turn, beginning with amendment 88. I fully agree that it is essential to consider and identify infrastructure needs when planning for new development, including through spatial development strategies. I do not agree, however, that amendment 88 is needed to achieve that outcome, as the Government intend to set a strong expectation in national policy that key strategic infrastructure needs should be addressed in spatial development strategies. Furthermore, the Bill grants powers to the Secretary of State to intervene where she considers that spatial development strategies are inconsistent with national policies, as we discussed in relation to previous amendments.

On amendment 89, although I appreciate the desire of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for clarity on the matter, I do not agree that any changes are needed to clarify the provision. Proposed new section 12D(4)(b) already enables spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for both mitigating and adapting to climate change. It does not need to be one or the other.

[Gideon Amos]

I appreciate that the Minister is hoping that spatial development strategies will make provision for that, but does he accept that the wording in the Bill is that they will provide for either mitigation or adaptation? That is the wording on the face of the Bill, is it not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

No, I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. As I have said, proposed new section 12D(4)(b), as drafted, enables spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for both mitigation and adaptation. The Government are very clear that we need to have concern for both. As I have said, it does not need to be one or the other. I am more than happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with further detail—in writing, if he wishes—as to the operation of that subsection.

On amendment 79, I recognise that the provision of social infrastructure is also an important consideration. Proposed new section 12D(4)(c) already allows spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for the purposes of promoting or improving the social wellbeing of the area. I therefore do not consider that additional provision is needed in order to enable SDSs to describe social infrastructure.

On amendment 123, I agree that, as we have discussed in relation to previous clauses, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage noted, sufficient provision of health and education facilities, and other forms of essential infrastructure listed in the amendment, is critical in supporting and facilitating new development, and in ensuring that the needs of existing communities are met. I hope that I gave the hon. Gentleman, in relation to a previous clause, some reassurance about the Government’s intent in this policy area. I also recognise that in some cases, for a variety of issues, it can be related to whether sufficient developer contributions have been secured and so on, but in many cases there is an issue of co-ordination with bodies like ICBs. I think the Government could potentially do more in this area.

I note the plea from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for his local railway station, which I will ensure is passed on to the relevant Minister in the Department for Transport but, in terms of amendment 123, I do not agree that it is necessary to enable spatial development strategies to contribute to such an outcome. Proposed new section 12D(4), as drafted, already gives strategic planning authorities the scope to specify in their strategies a wide range of infrastructure types, including those listed in the amendment.

On the issue of specifying infrastructure targets, I do not think it is appropriate for spatial development strategies themselves to set infrastructure targets. Again, that is because SDSs will not allocate specific sites, and therefore they are not likely to give sufficient certainty about the precise level of infrastructure needed at that stage. That is a role for subsequent local plans, which will need to consider infrastructure needs at a more granular level when sites are allocated and, as I have said before, need to be in general conformity with other plans. Spatial development strategies will, however, be able to specify the key infrastructure needs for the development that they identify.

For the reasons that I have outlined, and because we do not want to fetter the production and development of spatial development strategies—it is for the areas that bring them forward to have a measure of discretion about their infrastructure and housing tenure needs—we do not think the amendments are necessary, and I request that hon. Members withdraw them.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response, but I remain concerned. The Bill states:

“A spatial development strategy may specify or describe infrastructure the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance”.

Particularly if the Government will not accept the amendment discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, on the provision of infrastructure, surely spatial development strategies must specify or describe that sort of infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

it said “and” instead of “or”. That would make it absolutely clear. I have spotted that there are fewer Opposition Members than Government Members, so although we maintain our commitment to much stronger protections and measures against climate change in the spatial development strategy, I will not press the amendment to a vote on this occasion.

[Matthew Pennycook]

On that I point, as I have said, the Bill sets out that SDSs

“must be designed to secure that the use and development of land in the strategy area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.”

We could spend many hours debating the implications of “and”, “or”, “may” or “must”—I have spent many an hour in Bill Committees doing that, when we were trying to string out the Bill for various reasons. I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and reflect on the point he makes about the wording and whether further clarity would help.

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 123, in clause 47, page 66, line 7, at end insert—

“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4), ‘infrastructure and public services’ must include—

(a) primary and secondary healthcare provision, including mental health provision;

(b) social care provision;

(c) education, skills and training provision;

(d) infrastructure for active travel and public transport;

(e) sufficient road capacity;

(f) access to such commercial amenities, including shops, as the strategic planning authority deems necessary to support residents of the strategy area; and

(g) recreational and leisure facilities;

(h) publicly accessible green spaces.

(4B) A spatial development strategy must include targets for the provision of strategically important infrastructure and public services which are—

(a) considered to be appropriate by the relevant planning authorities and delivery bodies;

(b) periodically amended to account for changes in population size or dynamic within the strategy area;

(c) annually reported against with regard to the strategic planning authority’s performance.”—(Olly Glover.)

This amendment would clarify the meaning of strategically important infrastructure and public services, require targets for such provision to be set, and for performance against such targets to be annually reported.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse, and echo the comments about your chairing yesterday being absolutely excellent. I am sure that, as the afternoon goes on, the Government Whip will be looking for you to be as stern as you were yesterday.

I rise to speak briefly in favour of amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire, on the importance of chalk streams. I know about this issue personally, as I spent five years as the Member of Parliament for Eastleigh, which had another chalk stream in the River Itchen. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke mentioned, Hampshire has a unique ecosystem and a huge array of chalk streams.

I also pay tribute to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, which is vociferous in making sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Hampshire constituencies know about the importance of chalk streams. I will refer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth North as well, because she is a very welcome part of our Hampshire family—even if many of my constituents would not accept that Portsmouth exists. She also knows how much the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust does in the local area and for us as parliamentarians.

It is important for chalk streams to be protected. We support this well intentioned amendment, because it does no harm to have guidance to make sure that spatial development strategies refer to the unique and important ecosystems that need to be protected. I do not think it is anti-development or that it would harm or hinder activating development if needed. It is a useful step and guideline to make sure that developers take into account the areas that need to be protected.

The River Hamble, which is not a chalk stream, runs through the middle of my constituency. In that river, too, we are seeing the adverse effects of development in the parameter of the river, with water run-off and the pollution that is naturally created by the building process. The current regulatory framework is not doing enough to protect those rivers.

We are seeing our river ecosystems die. That was a heavily political subject at the last general election, and we need to do more on that issue. There are provisions in the Environment Act 2021 that give chalk streams some protection, but even though I am a Conservative who does not believe in over-regulation, I do believe that having that guidance for local authority decision makers would be helpful, which is why we support amendment 1.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank members of the Committee for so eloquently outlining the intent of these amendments. I will first deal with amendments 1 and 30. I very much accept the positive intent of these proposals and would like to stress that the Government are fully committed to restoring and improving the nation’s chalk streams. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire made clear, 85% of the world’s chalk streams are found in England. They are unique water bodies, not only vital ecosystems, but a symbol of our national heritage. This Government are committed to restoring them. We are undertaking a comprehensive set of actions outside the Bill to protect our chalk streams; in the interests of time, it is probably worthwhile for me to write to the Committee to set those out in detail.

We do not believe it is necessary to include amendment 1 in the legislation, as existing policy and legislation will already achieve the intended effect. Local nature recovery strategies are a more suitable place to map out chalk streams and identify measures to protect them. Proposed new section 12D(11) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already requires spatial development strategies to

“take account of any local nature recovery strategy”

that relates to a strategy area.

Strategic planning authorities will also be required to undertake habitats regulations assessments, subject to a Government amendment to the Bill. That places a further requirement on them to assess any adverse effects of the strategy on protected sites, which, in many cases, will include chalk streams. The point I am trying to convey to hon. Members is that strategic planning authorities will already have responsibilities in relation to their protection.

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

This is an important and much debated issue. I would be grateful if the Minister could share with the Committee whether he has given consideration to bringing this issue within the remit of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, specifically in respect of species that are unique to those particular habitats. This is very much an area of cross-party interest; I am conscious of my own constituents, who have the Colne Valley, which has a chalk stream. I work closely with my hon. Friends the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), whose constituencies this affects as well.

This issue often goes significantly beyond the scope of a local nature recovery strategy, simply because pollution discharge or run-off in one part of a river ecosystem results in a problem elsewhere. While I am sure the Minister will say he welcomes the measures that we passed in the Environment Act during the previous Parliament—which, for the first time, introduced comprehensive monitoring for issues such as sewage discharges—I believe there is still an opportunity to do a bit more to protect these unique habitats.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for that point. We will come on to discuss our approach to development and the environment more generally when we reach part 3 of the Bill. In response to his specific question, it is probably best dealt with in the letter I will send to the Committee on this matter, where I can pull together a range of points. The important point I am trying to stress, for the purposes of amendment 1, is that if a strategic planning authority considers the identification and protection of chalk streams to be a matter that should be included in its SDS, proposed new section 12D(1) already makes clear that an SDS must include policies relating to the

“development and use of land in the strategy area, which are of strategic importance to that area”

so that it can be taken into account. There is nothing to prevent strategic planning authorities from including such policies in their spatial development strategies if they consider them to be of strategic importance.

As I said, we have an ongoing debate about when centralisation is appropriate or not; I assume the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will tell me that it is, in this instance, in her view. But for those reasons, we do not consider these amendments necessary to achieve the desired effect.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister is absolutely right on this occasion. I just want to probe his comment. He outlined perfectly how, under the proposals he is bringing forward, spatial development strategies can include and incorporate the protection of chalk streams—I perfectly accept that. However, does he not accept that there is a risk that, if any of the decisions arising from the SDS are later challenged under the appeals procedure, without the national guidance that the amendments might provide, those protections might not have the full weight that they would if national regulation ensured the protection of the site? I hope he gets my gist.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think I do, and I am happy to expand on the point. What I have been trying to convey is that local nature recovery strategies are a new system of spatial strategies for nature and the environment, which will map out the most valuable areas for nature, including chalk streams, and identify measures to protect them. Proposed new subsection 12D(11) requires spatial development strategies to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to any part of the strategy area.

For the reasons I have given—I am more than happy to expand on these points in writing—I think that the well-founded concerns, which I understand, are unfounded in that respect. We believe that the amendments are not necessary to achieve the desired effect that the hon. Lady has argued for.

I turn to amendment 28. As outlined previously, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary as existing provisions in this legislation will already achieve the desired effect. Again, proposed new subsection 12D(11) already requires spatial development strategies to take account of any local nature recovery strategies that relate to any part of the strategy area. Local nature recovery strategies are required to identify areas of particular importance for biodiversity, and statutory guidance published by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs is clear that they should include all existing local wildlife sites. Strategic planning authorities are therefore already required to take account of local wildlife sites in relation to the strategy area.

Similarly, existing policy already affords protection from development that would adversely affect local wildlife sites. The current national planning policy framework is clear that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should reject applications where significant harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for. We therefore do not consider the amendments to be necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I very much sympathise with the amendment. Indeed, I have air quality management areas in my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, including two that breach the lawful limits of air pollution. We desperately need the bypass for Thornfalcon and Henlade, which would solve that particular issue.

In brief, I feel that the approach in amendment 93 is not quite right, because it would be better directed at local plans. As I understand it, spatial development strategies are not site-specific or area-specific in their proposals. We do not feel that the amendment is quite the right approach, but we are very sympathetic to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire’s motivation for tabling it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Once again, I understand the positive intent of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire’s amendment. Of course, improving air quality is a highly important issue in many parts of the country, not least in my own south-east London constituency. It is part of the reason why, many moons ago now, I established the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution. It is a public health issue and a social justice issue, and the Government are committed to improving air quality across the country. Amendment 93, however, is another example of trying to ask SDSs to do things that they are not designed for, and replicating existing duties and requirements that bear down on authorities in an SDS.

[Ellie Chowns]

Does the Minister not recognise that the fact that we have such huge problems with air pollution means that existing regulation is not working well enough?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy, in the interests of time, to set out what the Government are doing on this agenda through ministerial colleagues, but I return to this fundamental point: what are we introducing spatial development strategies for? They are high-level plans for infrastructure investment for housing growth. They need not replicate every existing duty and requirement in national policy.

Local authorities are already required to review and assess air quality in the area regularly, setting air quality management areas where national objectives are not being met. National planning policy is clear that opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impact should be identified at the plan-making stage to ensure a strategic approach. Again, I make the point that SDSs have to ensure that local plans are in general conformity with them. Planning decisions should ensure that any development in air quality management areas and clean air zones is consistent with the local air quality action plan.

Placing responsibilities—this is the fundamental point, which also applies to other amendment—on strategic planning authorities in relation to air quality management would replicate existing duties, and we therefore do not think the amendment is necessary. The hon. Lady may feel strongly and wish to press it to a vote. However, although it is entirely laudable that hon. Members with amendments are taking an opportunity to make points about the value of existing national duties and requirements, or the ways those may need to change, I hope that I have clearly outlined why the provisions on introducing an effective layer of strategic planning across England are not the place to have those debates.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

When we were drafting amendment 78, we gave a good deal of consideration to the direction of travel set out by the Government. The concerns that underlay the drafting were reinforced in the evidence sessions, where the Committee heard from a cross-party panel of local government leaders that the consultation process in planning was an opportunity to get things right, and for a public conversation about the impact of any proposed development, large or small, in order to forestall, through the planning process, objections that might later arise, by designing a development that would meet those concerns.

We have heard today a number of examples from Members that fall within that category. We have heard cross-party concerns about the impact on chalk streams, where consultation would allow effective parties with an interest to bring forward their views—for example, on the impact of run-off. A developer would therefore have the opportunity to build those concerns into the design of their proposed scheme to mitigate the impact and address the concerns.

We heard about the impact of air pollution on asthmatics—including, for the record, me. If a developer says they are planning to use biomass or wood burning as the heat source for a development, and the stoves are on the DEFRA exempt list—that is, if the Government consider that they produce little or no environmental pollution—that might be acceptable to people with that concern. However, if it will simply be up to the developer to install whatever they wish, that will have a significant negative impact and there is no opportunity for mitigation. The consultation is therefore critical.

There is a direction of travel: it feels very much that the Government’s view is that consultation and democracy are a hindrance to getting new units built. It is very clear from the views expressed by many Members—from all parties, in fairness, but certainly in the Opposition amendments that have been put forward—that we are keen to retain a sufficient element of local democracy and local voice to ensure that the kinds of concerns I have described are properly addressed. I invite the Minister to consider accepting the amendment, which would not in any way derail the intentions that he sets out in the Bill, but would achieve the opportunity for consultation, which is critical.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I take on board the strength of feeling that has been expressed. As with all the debates we are having, I will reflect on the arguments that hon. Members have made. However, we do not think the amendments are necessary. As I have sought to reassure the Committee on previous occasions, each SDS will have to undergo public consultation and then be examined by a planning inspector. Once a draft SDS is published, it is open for anyone to make representations about that SDS. For those reasons, I hope that, in dealing with the specific amendments, I can reassure the Committee that they are unnecessary.

Turning first to amendment 78—

[Ellie Chowns]

I have been reading the clauses very carefully. As I read the Bill, it provides that a draft SDS can be produced without any public consultation whatsoever—in other words, a draft SDS can be produced by somebody in a cupboard with access to the internet. New section 12H, which deals with consultation and representations, provides an opportunity for consultation on the draft, preparatory to the examination and then the finalisation.

The problem is that new section 12H does not provide for consultation; it provides only for the consideration of notifying various local bodies. According to the Bill, it provides that

“the authority must also publish or make available a statement inviting representations to be made to the authority”.

Without any clarity on what that involves, an authority can just put something on a website that says, “If you’re interested in this, send us an email,” and nobody in the local area would have a clue that it was happening. The point of consultation is that it is an active process of engagement with those who have a legitimate interest in the matter. I think the Bill’s drafting does not reflect that.

[Matthew Pennycook]

May I press the hon. Lady, so that I understand her carefully made point? A draft SDS will be published and it will be a requirement, under clause 12H, that the strategic planning authority either notifies or consults, and that will then be open for comment or representations. I want to understand the hon. Lady’s point, because I will go away and reflect on it. In what way does she think that is different from the consultation process on, for example, a local development plan?

[Ellie Chowns]

New section 12H(3) says that the authority

“must consider notifying…the following”,

so there is no specification that it must notify; it must only consider notifying. The person in the cupboard could consider notifying them and decide, “No, I’m not going to notify them.” The only hard requirement is that

“the authority must…publish…a statement inviting representations”.

As I have just outlined, that is not the same as consultation. I taught this subject at university: according to Arnstein’s ladder of participation, consultation is at a higher level than notification. Will the Minister take that away and consider improving the provisions for consultation?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Lady cut me off early in my remarks, so let me develop them somewhat and deal with the specific point that, by our reading, the amendment deals with. The list of public bodies detailed in new section 12H(3) sets out that strategic planning authorities must consider notifying community and interest groups that a draft of their spatial development strategy has been published. In subsection (3), it is very clear who the strategic planning authority must consider notifying—I have it in front me. That list is by no means exhaustive or exclusive. Indeed, new section 12H(4) requires strategic planning authorities to invite representations, as I have said, about their draft strategy. That invitation is open to all, including residents and businesses within the strategy area.

The purpose of new section 12H(3) is to ensure that strategic planning authorities consider a broad range of opinion when they consult on their draft strategy. There is nothing in the Bill, or elsewhere, to prevent residents or businesses from participating in the consultation, or to prevent strategic planning authorities from notifying them of the consultation specifically. For those reasons, we do not think—

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

In the interests of making progress, let me say that I have understood the hon. Lady’s point, and will happily go away and reflect on it, but we do not think the amendment is necessary. For the reasons I have set out, we will resist the amendment if she presses it to a vote. As I said, I am more than happy to reflect on her point; she has made it very clearly and it has been understood.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister is being very clear in his position on the amendments, but I have extreme sympathy for, and agreement with, the hon. Member for Hereford north.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Can I make sure that this is a speech and not an intervention on the Minister? Minister, had you sat down and made all the points you wanted to make to all the amendments being debated?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I sat down because I saw the hon. Member for Hamble Valley rising. We do have another amendment to respond to, if he wants me to.

[The Chair]

I would like the Minister to speak to the three amendments we are debating, including amendments 90 and 91. I will then invite the hon. Member for Hamble Valley to respond and he can take an intervention from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth.

[Paul Holmes]

I apologise; I thought the Minister had finished.

[Matthew Pennycook]

In the interests of brevity, Mrs Hobhouse, I will make one final comment, then I will go away and reflect and we can return to the matter on Report, where there will be time for consideration.

Again—it has felt like this a lot today—I think we are conflating different things. The process for an SDS is different from the process for the development of a local development plan. They are different things.

[David Simmonds]

Yes, I know.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The shadow Minister says he knows, but in a sense the legislative underpinning that we have looked at for this measure, and the most obvious and comparable example, is the London plan. Broadly similar provisions exist in the London plan, and when it is put out to consultation it gets tens of thousands of responses to the notification, which are taken into account. I say gently that I do not think we are talking about an arrangement here much different from what applies there. To make the point again, this is a very different strategy that we are asking strategic authorities, or boards in those cases, to bring forward.

[David Simmonds]

One question that frequently arises when there is a challenge to a development through the process of judicial review is about whether the processes of consultation have been correctly followed. Removing a requirement for consultation and replacing it with a discretion to notify dramatically lowers the ability of people who are very concerned that developments are brought forward within their strategic plans that would not have been acceptable and would have failed to meet the proper consultation standard—for example, on issues such as air quality or environmental impact. In fact, it would be in the interests of the development industry for proper consultation to take place, rather than its being forestalled in this way.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I come back to the point I have made several times now: SDSs cannot allocate sites. There is a role for local plans underneath SDSs, which must be in general conformity with them. We would have failed if we simply ensured that SDSs were big local plans with the level of detail required on site allocation for a local plan. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that SDSs will not opine on whether a particular development on a particular plot of land is acceptable. They may outline the areas of general housing growth that the strategic authority or constituent member authorities want to be brought forward in that sub-region.

Again, I am more than happy to go away and set out in chapter and verse the way we think the clause might operate—if we ever get to clause stand part, I might be able to outline it in a little bit more detail—but I think that when hon. Members grasp the full detail of what we want these strategies to do and how we think they should be prepared and developed, they may be reassured. If not, we can come back to the matter on Report.

[Rachel Taylor]

This really is a semantic point about language. I fully appreciate that there is a massive difference between notification and consultation, but new section 12H(5) is very clear that that notification is also required to contain an invitation to the relevant person to make representations. Surely an invitation to somebody to make a representation is a consultation?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I did not teach the subject, so I do not know. I am content to be schooled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire on the philosophical meaning of a consultation versus notification. As I read it, the relevant strategic planning authority has a duty to produce and then publish a draft SDS, and they are required to notify all the groups under subsection (2). It is not exhaustive; they can add additional groups if they want to consult further. They must include, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth rightly says, an invitation to those persons to make representations, which will be considered.

Strategic planning authorities have the discretion to go further. There is nothing stopping relevant authorities undertaking wider or different forms of consultation if they wish to inform their strategy. I think what we are talking about is somewhat a semantic difference. I will leave it there. I have spoken enough about this and the reasons why the Government do not think the amendment is necessary. If hon. Members feel strongly enough, they can either press it to a vote in Committee or we can return to it on Report.

[The Chair]

I call the shadow Minister to respond, but I also would like to know whether he wishes to press his amendment to a vote.

[Paul Holmes]

I cannot yet tell you that, Mrs Hobhouse, because I want first to respond to what the Minister has said, and then hear his response in an intervention I will invite him to make. The Minister and I are obviously fairly jaded about the length of time that this is taking. I feel exactly the same as he does, but this is a serious concern from all parties, as he has accepted. He outlined his belief that the wording in the Bill is substantive enough to ensure that there is an invitation to make representations.

The process established by the Bill says that the authority must “consider notifying”—that could be, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, in a very small advert on a distinct web page that is not very accessible somewhere—“(at least) the following” people. It then publishes a strategy and asks for representations, which must be in a prescribed form and manner and within a prescribed period. That is fine, but nowhere in the Bill does it outline what happens to those representations once they are received. There is no obligation on the development organisation to look at those representations.

[Matthew Pennycook]

indicated dissent.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister can make that face, but that is true. Nowhere does it say that the authority has to look at the representations, give any feedback on them or do anything about them. All we are saying in amendment 78—it was addressed in other Members’ speeches as well—is that local people should be consulted on what they think about the proposals.

The Minister is, as I have said repeatedly on this Committee, a man of integrity and he has listened to our case, but nowhere under proposed new section 12H, particularly in subsections (3) and (4), does it require authorities to do anything with the representations. There is nowhere where those representations could feasibly make the proposals and draft plan better or fundamentally change their contents. I will invite the Minister to intervene—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will—

[Paul Holmes]

—when I have posed this question. We are seriously concerned about this element of the Bill. The Minister said in Committee yesterday that they have the numbers. We accept that, and we can look at this on Report. We will look at this on Report, because it is a substantial area in which the Bill falls short.

If the Minister commits to meeting all interested parties and look actively at how, in subsection (3), we can remove “consider notifying (at least)” and include not just notifying, but consulting, and we get a clear, proper commitment to that in Committee this afternoon, then we will consider not pressing the amendment to a vote. I know the Minister has the numbers, but I hope, in the spirit in which our amendment is intended, he understands that people who will be impacted by these decisions will want to have that consultation. I ask the Minister to intervene to hear if he is willing to do that. If he is not, we will press this amendment to a vote.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will intervene in the interest of trying to bring this discussion to a close, because I feel I have outlined the Government’s position in quite some detail. I have understood the points that Opposition Members have made. I have committed to reflecting on them.

I have also committed to writing to the Committee, which I will do, and it might be useful for the debates on Report if I outline, because I have made reference to the London plan, as the prime example of an existing spatial development strategy, how consultation works under that plan; how generally, in terms of the principles of good plan making, consultation operates across the system; and how we think the approach outlined in clause 47 in reference to spatial development strategies will operate. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley is more than welcome to press the amendment to a vote—I do not mind in any sense—but if I give hon. Members that detail and they still feel strongly enough on Report, we can continue the debate then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to move amendment 120, in clause 47, page 70, leave out line 40 and insert—

“(5) A strategic planning authority must prepare and consult on a statement of community involvement which provides for persons affected by the strategy to have a right to be heard at an examination.”

I want to discuss participation in and consultation on spatial development strategies. I appreciate that this will be a long day as we are going on until 7 pm, but this is a really important part of the Bill, and the level of public involvement that is allowed in spatial development strategies is really important. It is vital that the Bill gets that right.

The amendment provides that strategic authorities would have to prepare a statement of community involvement, which would set out the people who had a right to be heard on a spatial development strategy. That approach recognises that spatial development strategies are different from local plans. This debate was had, probably in this room, during debates on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The Labour Government did not intend to include any right to be heard in local development plans, but they changed their mind and accepted the wisdom of the arguments that were put forward. A right to be heard on local development plans was enshrined in that Act.

I recognise that spatial development strategies are different, that a right to be heard is more challenging in a strategic context, and that the London plan does not have a right to be heard. However, the provisions on spatial development strategies in this Bill do not even go as far as those in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which set out the London spatial development strategy. That Act has a duty to take account of consultation, and there is no such duty in this Bill.

I have some sympathy for the amendment that the shadow Minister proposed—the points made were valid—but we did not feel the drafting was quite right. Picking out particular businesses and interest groups was not how we would do it. We propose that strategic authorities should develop their own statement of community involvement. After all, that is what local councils are expected to do on their local plans, so why should a mayoral authority not be required to do that on a much more overarching, much more strategic and much more powerful document that would follow as a result?

In another respect, the Bill provides for even less consultation than there is on nationally significant infrastructure projects in the Planning Act 2008. In that Act, there is a statutory duty to take account of consultation—I believe it is in section 50, if memory serves me correctly. In this Bill, there is no duty to take account of consultation. There is a difference between considering notifying parties and consulting them and being required to take their views into account.

[Matthew Pennycook]

This is an important point, and perhaps some of the confusion arises from the stages of the process. Let me draw his attention to proposed new section 12K(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. That makes it very clear:

“The strategic planning authority must…consider any representations received in accordance with regulations under section 12H(7)”—

which we have just discussed—

“and decide whether to make any modifications as a result”.

A strategic planning authority cannot, as I think the shadow Minister asserted, bin all the representations that it receives in a cupboard—I think that was how the hon. Member for North Herefordshire phrased it. It does have to have regard to them. I just address that point, in terms of the examination, about what is required to come via submission to the Secretary of State before adoption.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister for correcting me on that point. He is absolutely right that there is a provision stating that consultation responses must be taken into account, but there is no duty to consult and no requirement, and it is the same for community involvement. In fact, the Bill explicitly states that there will not be a right to be heard in the examination in public.

We should be clear that what is called a public examination of the strategy does not mean that the public are allowed to take part. They are allowed to watch and listen to it—that is what it means—but they are not allowed to take part. A clause specifically states that there should not be a right to be heard, so those affected—members of the public, landowners, businesses and so on—will not have a right to take part in that examination. There is effectively no right to take part in any of the process.

   We propose a modest approach that is less onerous than what is required of local planning authorities: a statement of community involvement, in which mayoral authorities would establish for themselves what categories of persons have the right to be heard in examinations of their plans. I believe that is a sensible measure that would provide a different level of involvement, which is appropriate given that a strategic authority obviously covers many more people and it would be difficult to provide a right to be heard to every member of the public. A provision to allow mayoral authorities to set out their own consultation and involvement standards seems eminently sensible to us, and that is why we have tabled the amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for clearly setting out his intent. Again, I preface my remarks by saying that, given the strength of feeling that has been expressed this afternoon, I will certainly reflect. As a point of principle—I will repeat this clearly, so that it is on the record—the Government of course want local communities to be actively involved in the production of a spatial development strategy for their area. All persons have the right to make representations on a draft SDS. However, we do not think it is necessary to be overly prescriptive about how strategic planning authorities should go about seeking the views of their communities, or to require them to demonstrate how they are doing so.

As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, following the implementation of changes made in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, local planning authorities will no longer be required to produce a statement of community involvement setting out how they are engaging with their community. I do not think it would be appropriate to place a similar requirement on strategic planning authorities.

Similarly, I do not think it is necessary to give people the right to be heard at examination. It is true that, unlike for local plans, there is no formal right for persons to appear and be heard at the examination of a spatial development strategy. As I have said several times, it is the Government’s intention that spatial development strategies should act as high-level documents that set the context for subsequent local plans that must be in general conformance with them. Notably, unlike local plans, spatial development strategies do not allocate specific sites for development. Therefore, it is more appropriate for people to have the right to appear at local plan examinations and for examinations of spatial development strategies to be kept proportionate to their specific role.

I say that having heard very clearly the hon. Gentleman accept and understand the difference between what the Government are trying to achieve via SDSs vis-à-vis local development plans, for example. Experience shows that planning inspectors go to lengths to ensure that a broad range of relevant interests and views are heard at examinations of the London plan, which, while not identical in legislative underpinning, is the most comparable SDS that is out there. For reference, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows given his background and experience, the most recent spatial development strategy examination—that of the London plan in 2019—took place over 12 weeks and the list of participants ran to 27 pages.

For those reasons, we do not think the amendment is necessary, and I kindly ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

[Gideon Amos]

We wish to press the amendment to a vote, because we believe in the right to be heard and, in general, we are highly concerned about the potential erosion of the democratic planning system by the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

The Committee will be delighted to hear that I will be extremely brief on this topic. Simply put, there is no provision for how often a spatial development strategy should be reviewed, and our amendment proposes that it be done annually. It may be that annually is not be the appropriate timeframe, but there should be regular reviews. That is the spirit of the amendment, although I will not seek a vote, to enable the Committee to make progress.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will start by responding to amendment 124 moved by the hon Member for Taunton and Wellington. I will then speak to clause 47 stand part, Government amendment 48 and schedule 3.

In reference to amendment 124, it is true that, unlike local plans, which must be reviewed at least every five years, there is no set timescale in which spatial development strategies must be reviewed or replaced. Spatial development strategies are intended to be long-term strategies that provide greater certainty for investment and development decisions. The areas producing them will vary greatly in their size, the scale of development that they require and the changes over time which they must respond to. This light-touch review requirement gives strategic planning authorities greater discretion to review their strategy as and when they feel it necessary to do so.

By way of comparison, the London plan, which has the same review requirement, has been fully replaced twice, and another version is now under way; it has also undergone several interim reviews and updates. I hope that strategic planning authorities will exhibit similar diligence in maintaining their SDSs. In the event that a strategic planning authority fails to adequately keep its strategy under review, the Secretary of State will have the power under the Bill to direct the authority to review all or part of its strategy. For those reasons we do not think that this amendment is required.

The Government firmly believe that housing and infrastructure needs cannot be met without planning for growth on a larger than local scale, and that new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning are essential. A nationally consistent system will underpin the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament, help to deliver better infrastructure, and boost economic growth. For those reasons I hope that the hon. Member will understand what we are trying to achieve with this clause and withdraw the amendment.

Government amendment 48 makes consequential changes to regulation 111 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to add spatial development strategies drawn up under the Bill to the definition of “land use plan”, and update the definition of “plan-making authority” and the references to

“giving effect to a land use plan”

to reflect the introduction of the new spatial development strategies. The amendment will bring the new spatial strategies into line with the spatial development strategy for London, along with local and neighbourhood plans. It ensures that strategic planning authorities will also be bound to carry out habitats regulations assessments. A habitats regulations assessment will identify any aspects of the spatial development strategy that may have an adverse effect on special areas of conservation, special protection areas and Ramsar sites. That will ensure that the impacts of development on protected habitat sites are appropriately considered.

Finally, on clause 47 stand part, as we have discussed at some length, the clause reintroduces a system of strategic plan making across England. The recent period has been something of an aberration, as throughout most of the past 50 years, England has had a strategic tier of plan-making. We have had structure plans at county level, regional planning guidance from central Government and regional spatial strategies prepared at regional level. The past 14 years, without any formal planning since the abolition of regional spatial strategies, have been anomalous, and this Government’s firmly held view is that that has led to suboptimal outcomes. Over the last 40 years, development levels have consistently failed to meet the country’s needs, resulting in a housing crisis and significant affordability gaps across the country. Additionally, the number of local plans being adopted or updated has continued to decline, with only about 30% of plans adopted in the last five years.

As is generally accepted by hon. Members, the planning system is in dire need of reform. A system of strategic plans is central to our efforts to get Britain building again. The duty to co-operate introduced by the Localism Act 2011 was intended to replace strategic planning, but it has failed. Instead, it created a bureaucratic system and significant uncertainty, led to numerous local plan failures, and ultimately failed to deliver the kind of joined-up thinking and co-operation across local authority boundaries that was intended. Indeed, the failure of the duty was such that the previous Government legislated for its repeal in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023. I can assure the Committee that this Government will honour the previous Government’s intentions and commence the relevant provisions of the 2023 Act to repeal the duty. Our goal is to establish a system of strategic planning that garners support from all sides of the House, and so create a stable and consistent framework for planning the growth that this country so desperately needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

For the Opposition, support for the recovery of nature and the natural environment is a high priority. Amendment 77 and the arguments we will advance later are about ensuring that the additional capacity the Government are bringing to the process of nature recovery through their changes to the planning system is focused in a way that delivers.

As we have heard, both in evidence and in the general debates around the comparison with the section 106 process, for example, where financial contributions are sought, they are accumulated until the point when the delivery of a plan—for school places, road improvements or whatever it may be—is viable. Clearly, the Government intend environmental delivery plans to work in the same way.

As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister has ably set out, during the evidence sessions we heard concerns about the capacity of Natural England, as a further part of this already complex system, to deliver on that objective. In his rebuttal remarks earlier, the Minister relied on the proposed new section on chalk streams, saying that it was an example of something that could be dealt with through a local nature recovery strategy. That is one alternative to Natural England seeking to create a much larger process, but there are many others.

In my constituency, we have the Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust, which might well be able to deliver a very substantial project in this respect. All of those bodies have a very direct relationship with the local authority, which is the planning authority. Rather than create an additional element of complexity, we should streamline the process so that a local authority becomes not only the planning decision maker, but is able, through its direct engagement with the developer and its detailed local knowledge of the environment in which the development is taking place, to take on that responsibility. Should it feel that Natural England is the best delivery partner for that, okay. I am sure we would all accept that, but there will be other options available, especially when the impacts the EDP is intended to mitigate are quite specialist or quite local in their effects. That is the thinking behind the amendment.

I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley in that I do not consider the Minister to be a small cog in this wheel. I am sure that his will be a significant voice in discussions with the Treasury, given the priority given to growth. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration, because this is an opportunity to step away from the previous delays, which were frequently cited in evidence on the role of Natural England, and to ensure that additional capacity goes into the part of the planning system that we know is already delivering at scale—the part that is under the control of local authorities.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Did we hear about the other amendment, Mrs Hobhouse?

[The Chair]

Yes, we heard about amendment 12 and 77; we discussed them together.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Excellent. I wanted to make sure, given previous confusion on other clauses.

Before I speak to clauses 48 and 49 and respond to the points made, I hope you will indulge me slightly, Mrs Hobhouse, as I take a few moments to set out the Government’s overriding objections to amending this really important part of the Bill, which I know will be subjected to rigorous scrutiny by the Opposition.

As set out in our plan for change, this Government are committed to reforming the planning system to build the homes and critical infrastructure our country needs. The reforms in this Bill are critical to meeting our ambitious targets of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes, and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. However, we have been consistently clear that meeting those objectives need not, and should not, come at the cost of the environment.

By pursuing smart planning reforms, we can unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country, delivering a win-win for development and the environment, and building a future where nature and the economy flourish together. The new approach that the nature restoration fund will facilitate will allow us to use funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in terms of driving the recovery of protected sites and species, thereby delivering more for nature, not less. The fund will move us away from an unacceptable status quo. I think there is recognition in Committee that not only does the status quo deters and constrains development, but all too often it fails to improve our environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

The Minister mentioned moving to a cost recovery basis. Earlier, I mentioned a weakness of section 106: by the time funds are accumulated, maybe over a five or 10-year period, costs have risen and the delivered outcome is significantly less than was envisaged to mitigate the original impact. Could the Minister set out the process for establishing the relevant costs, with reference for example to the much-mocked £115 million HS2 bat tunnel, which came up in the evidence sessions? That has been hugely costly. We could end up with a very substantial bill that the developers and the promoters of the project had never expected in the first place, but that was judged necessary as a result of this process, despite it being entirely out of the view of the planning authority determining the original application.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman is more than welcome to come back to me on that point, but we will deal with the mechanism by which fees are set under the EDPs in a later clause. I hope that, at that point, I will provide him with more clarity, but perhaps we could defer that particular discussion, because I think it would be more appropriately dealt with then. For the reasons I have given, I commend these clauses to the Committee and ask for the two amendments to be withdrawn.

[Gideon Amos]

We are concerned about this issue. Our set of amendments in these areas is small; they are in the spirit of the Bill and of what the Government want to do with environmental delivery plans. They are designed to provide the strengthening that environmental groups are calling for clearly and strongly. We will not push the Committee to a vote, but we remain concerned and we will return to similar points, which are also in the spirit of the Bill, on later amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 77, in clause 48, page 83, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) An environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document.

(1B) Where an environmental delivery plan is prepared by a local planning authority, references in sections 48 to 60 to Natural England should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority.”—(Paul Holmes.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 13, which would require that the conservation measures undertaken within environmental delivery plans should significantly protect environmental features. It is one of a number of similar amendments that I will not speak to at length. Together, they would strengthen the thrust and strength of environmental delivery plans.

I say gently to the Government that if none of these strengthening opportunities is taken, we will end up with a Bill that provides environmental delivery plans that do not have the confidence of environmental bodies in this country or those who represent our environment. I hope that the Minister will consider that as we debate these amendments, which may seem to concern minor matters of wording but could really strengthen the structure of EDPs.

We look forward to hearing what the Government have to say about amendment 18, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. We are concerned about irreplaceable habitats, and we look for some reassurance on that topic before considering how we respond to that amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Before I start, let me make a point that I think has been well conveyed, but that I will make again for the sake of clarity: I hope that Opposition Members who have dealt with me in the past know this, but when I say that I am reflecting and listening, I am. I will take all the comments about these clauses away. As I said in respect of the opinions that have been shared with us by the Office for Environmental Protection, we are already thinking about how we might respond to allay some of those concerns.

Environmental delivery plans will ensure that the environmental impact of development is addressed through the delivery of effective, strategic conservation measures. The conservation measures will not only address the impact of development, but go further to provide a positive contribution to overall environmental improvement, delivering the win-win that we have spoken about.

Clause 50 is central to establishing the new approach that I have outlined. It introduces requirements for the environmental delivery plan to identify and set out information on three of the key concepts that it deals with. The first is the environmental features that are likely to be negatively affected: either a specific protected feature of a protected site, or a protected species. Those protections stem from the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. I will come back to that point, which is relevant to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.

The second concept is the relevant environmental impact of development, and the third is the conservation measures that will be put in place to address the negative impacts and contribute to an overall improvement in the environmental feature. For example, where an environmental feature is a type of plant that is a notified feature of a protected watercourse, and the environmental impact is nutrient pollution from housing development, the conservation measures will address the nutrient pollution from the housing development but will go further to improve the conservation status of that type of plant in that watercourse.

In designing conservation measures, Natural England will consider the lifespan of the development and the period over which conservation measures need to be secured and managed. EDPs will be able to include back-up conservation measures that could be deployed, if needed, to secure the desired environmental outcomes. That is not only important for nature, but part of ensuring that the Secretary of State can be confident that EDPs will deliver conservation measures that outweigh the impact of development. This shift from the status quo towards active restoration is a key feature of the nature restoration fund.

A draft environmental delivery plan will also contain information on the expected cost of conservation measures to ensure that conservation measures are adequately funded. The cost of the measures will be relevant to making sure that the levy is set at a reasonable level for development, while allowing us to be confident that the conservation measures will be delivered.

As well as setting out further detail as to what an environmental delivery plan will contain, clause 50—with clarification from Government amendment 96—establishes the ability of Natural England to request that a planning condition be imposed on development as a conservation measure. Those pro forma conditions will allow avoidance and reduction measures to be secured up front, alongside wider conservation measures. It could be, for example, that as part of an environmental delivery plan dealing with the impact of water scarcity, a planning condition requires development to achieve a certain standard of water efficiency.

Although it has always been the case that those conservation measures would be maintained, Government amendment 95 introduces a requirement that an environmental delivery plan sets out how they are to be maintained and over what period, such as through conservation covenants or land agreements. I commend the clause and the Government amendments to the Committee.

I turn to the amendments tabled and spoken to by Opposition Members. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire set out, amendment 18 seeks to prevent irreplaceable habitats, or habitats linked to irreplaceable habitats, from being included in environmental delivery plans. I should first set out clearly that the provisions in the Bill will not reduce protections for irreplaceable habitats.

Existing protections for irreplaceable habitats under the national planning policy framework will continue to apply. Those protections provide that where development results in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, development should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. That policy is set out in the NPPF and applies to those particular habitats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

If the hon. Lady wants to intervene, she is more than welcome to.

[The Chair]

Order. Does the hon. Lady want to intervene, or shall I call her to speak at the end?

[Ellie Chowns]

I want to say something further, but not specifically as an intervention.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will continue then and turn to amendment 148.

[The Chair]

The shadow Minister would like to speak to that amendment. Can I call him first?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In that case, I will sit down.

[Paul Holmes]

I apologise to the Minister and to you, Mrs Hobhouse, because I did not register that amendment 148 was in this group—that is my fault.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

It is getting late, and I have been thinking about chalk streams all day. I will speak briefly to amendment 148, which is in the name of the shadow Environment Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). Clause 50(4) states:

“Where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site, the EDP may, if Natural England considers it appropriate, set out conservation measures that do not directly address the environmental impact of development on that feature at that site but instead seek to improve the conservation status of the same feature elsewhere.”

The amendment would add two important carve-outs through an extra subsection (4A), whereby subsection (4) does not apply where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site and is a chalk stream or a blanket bog—[Laughter.] The Minister was laughing. We have carved out those two things in the amendment—well, the shadow Environment Secretary thought it was very important, obviously, and I have researched what a blanket bog is—because of what we discussed earlier.

In particular, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined perfectly that our chalk streams in this country are exceptionally special, are unique ecosystems and are unique in most ways to the UK, particularly Hampshire and certain other parts of the country. Therefore, we think there is scope to create subsection (4A) to exempt those two specific protected characteristics from subsection (4).

That is the reason why we tabled amendment 148: chalk streams obviously cannot be moved—I am not being facetious; I promise the Minister that we are not at that stage of the day—and they are incredibly rare, so it would not be appropriate to try to create that environmental protection elsewhere. We could do it from one chalk stream to another, but chalk streams are so rare that we would not want to harm, inadvertently or purposefully, the country’s chalk streams.

I hope the Minister sees that those very small additions to the text of clause 50 would strengthen the Bill. I commend the amendment, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, to the Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Just to clarify, for Hansard more than anything, I laughed only at the shadow Minister’s delivery of the term “blanket bog”. I was not in any way questioning the importance of that type of peatland.

[David Simmonds]

For the edification of the Committee, they are also known as featherbed bogs.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Indeed. I look forward to seeing how Hansard tidies up that exchange.

As the shadow Minister said, amendment 148 would prevent chalk streams and blanket bogs from being an environmental feature for which conservation measures can be put in place that address the harm from development at a different location from the impacted site. Where the feature to which an EDP relates is an irreplaceable habitat, such as a blanket bog, it would not be possible for impacts on that feature to be compensated for elsewhere. That is the nature of their being irreplaceable.

The Bill is clear that impacts must be adequately addressed for an environmental delivery plan to be made by the Secretary of State. Moreover, as I just set out in relation to a previous amendment, both chalk streams and blanket bogs are protected by the national planning policy framework. They are not environmental obligations that can be discharged through the nature restoration fund, so they would not be the focus of an environmental delivery plan.

The NPPF makes it clear that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Those protections will continue to apply. On that basis, I hope the shadow Minister will not press the amendment.

Due to the slightly muddled way in which we have debated these amendments, I have not had the chance to respond to amendment 13, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, so I will do so now. As he set out, it would require environmental delivery plans to go further than the current requirement to contribute to an “improvement” in the conservation status of an environmental feature to contributing to a “significant improvement”. The Government have always been clear that they would legislate only where we could secure better outcomes for nature, and that is what we have secured through these clauses by moving beyond the current system of offsetting to secure an improvement in environmental outcomes.

Clause 50 requires that an environmental delivery plan must set out not only how conservation measures will address the environmental impact of development, but how they will contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the environmental feature in question. That reflects the commitment that EDPs will go beyond neutrality and secure more positive environmental results.

That commitment ties into the crucial safeguard in clause 55(4), which ensures that an EDP can be put in place only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the delivery of conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development. That means that environmental delivery plans will already be going further than simply offsetting the impact of development.

However, requiring environmental delivery plans to go even further, in the way that the amendment proposes, risks placing a disproportionate burden on developers to contribute more than their fair share. In effect, I am arguing that EDPs already go beyond the status quo. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member will not press the amendment, not least because we will discuss these issues in more detail in the debate on clause 55.

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the Minister and other hon. Members for their comments; I would like to push the amendment to a vote. I agree with the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on the importance of including the word “significant”, but as the Minister says, we will come on to that later. I recognise the importance of chalk streams and blanket bogs, but they are not the only habitats that should be protected, which is why I think my amendment is clearer and more comprehensive. It incorporates the issues that were raised by the hon. Member.

The Minister argued that my amendment is not required because there are existing protections for irreplaceable habitats, but he indicated that there could be some grey areas, for example where certain features of irreplaceable habitats, such as particular creatures or aspects, are considered as part of EDPs. That creates an unhelpful greyness and is concerning.

The Minister mentioned the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection. That advice has caused me considerable concern. The OEP is worried by several aspects of the Bill and states:

“In our considered view, the bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law”,

so it would undermine protections that are currently in place. The OEP states:

“As drafted, the provisions are a regression. This is particularly so for England’s most important wildlife—those habitats and species protected under the Habitats Regulations.”

That says very clearly that changes are urgently needed to part 3 of the Bill. If we cannot amend part 3 to protect irreplaceable habitats, what hope do we have of tackling other issues? This is very important, and I would like to push the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, in clause 52, page 86, line 12, at end insert—

“(10) An EDP must include a schedule setting out the timetable for the implementation of each conservation measure and for the reporting of results.

(11) A schedule included under subsection (10) must ensure that, where the development to which the EDP applies is in Natural England’s opinion likely to cause significant environmental damage, the corresponding conservation measures result in an improvement in the conservation status of the identified features prior to the damage being caused.

(12) In preparing a schedule under subsection (10) Natural England must have regard to the principle that enhancements should be delivered in advance of harm.”

This amendment would require Environmental Delivery Plans to set out a timetable for, and thereafter report on, conservation measures, and require improvement of the conservation status of specified features before development takes place in areas where Natural England considers development could cause significant environmental damage.

Clause 52 stand part.

[Matthew Pennycook]

In establishing this new approach, we recognise the need to ensure that developers have clarity around the required levels of contributions to benefit from an environmental delivery plan. This transparency will ensure that developers can factor in the cost of the levy, should they choose to use the EDP.

Clause 51 establishes clear, understandable charging schedules with each environmental delivery plan, including one or more charging schedule. These schedules will set out how much developers will be required to pay to discharge their environmental obligations through the EDP and will reflect the environmental impact that the EDP is seeking to address. This may vary depending on the nature and size of the development, with the charging schedules being bespoke to each particular environmental delivery plan. In addition, the charging schedule will be regulated in accordance with clauses 62 to 69, which will allow regulations to be made setting out requirements for how these rates will be determined.

I think this is probably the appropriate point to respond to the shadow Minister’s previous point. Those regulations would allow for fees to be index-linked to account for inflation, which is part of what he raised, but he mentioned build costs as well. Those regulations allow that scope.

[David Simmonds]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. There is a combination of indexation, which is always the relevant consideration. For example, we have been through the recent experience of covid, which unleashed a huge wave of construction inflation. If the EDP were to be negotiated at a certain point, the envisaged outcome of that might be a substantial investment in, for example, a chalk stream environment or the creation of a new habitat.

There might be significant construction inflation between the point at which that EDP is first negotiated, the point at which sufficient contributions have been accumulated from the various parties that might have been involved in the development—which gives rise to the need for it—and the point at which that money is available to be spent. How will the level of the EDP be appropriately calculated so that we do not end up with what we already see in the section 106 system, whereby a contribution is secured from a developer, but by the time it comes to be spent, it is insufficient to pay for the mitigations that were necessary when it was negotiated?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I understand the shadow Minister’s point, and I will offer to write to him. His point about the sequencing of an EDP and the conservation measures that it would give rise to is valid. How can we essentially, through the fee and charging schedule process, ensure that those measures can be carried out on the basis of that fee? I will write to the shadow Minister with more detail on how we envisage that particular part of the Bill working. While later clauses set out further detail on the framework governing charging schedules, EDPs cannot function without them, and this clause ensures their inclusion and proper regulation.

Let me turn to clause 52. As well as clear charging schedules, it is important that EDPs include a range of other matters. Clause 52 supplements clauses 50 and 51 in setting out further detail on the information that Natural England must include in an EDP, ensuring that EDPs are transparent and robust.

As with all environmental matters, it is vital to understand the underlying environmental condition, which is why an EDP must describe the current conservation status of each identified environmental feature. This is crucial to set the baseline against which improvements can be measured. Flowing from that baseline, Natural England must set out why it considers the conservation measures to be appropriate, including details of alternatives considered and why they were not pursued, as well as listing the plans and strategies to which Natural England had regard in preparing the EDP in question. Like the assessment of the baseline, the consideration of alternatives is an important step that ensures that the best approach is taken forward and justified.

The EDP must also include an overview of other measures being implemented, or likely to be implemented, by Natural England or another public body to improve the conservation status of the environmental feature. This will provide confidence that the EDP is properly targeted and that the conservation measures are additional to other ongoing actions to support the relevant environmental features.

To ensure clarity in respect of protected species, EDPs must also specify the terms of any licences that will be granted to a developer or to Natural England. A further important element of the clause is that Natural England must set out how the effects of an EDP will be monitored, which will be critical to ensuring that further action can be taken, if necessary, across the life of an EDP. Natural England is under a duty to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in doing that.

The clause also provides a power for the Secretary of State to stipulate further information that must be included in an EDP. It may be used for various purposes, for example, to require an EDP relating to a protected species to set out how relevant licensing tests are met. For those reasons, I commend both clauses to the Committee.

I would like a chance to respond to amendment 3 if it is spoken to in due course.

[Ellie Chowns]

I rise to speak to amendment 3, a crucial amendment relating to timing. The current wording in clause 52 opens the door to conservation measures in EDPs coming long after the environmental features that they relate to having been damaged. Such a delay could be fatal to some habitats and species that have already suffered decline, so the mitigation could come too late. That is what the amendment aims to address. The absence of direction on the timing of EDP measures has been highlighted by the Office for Environmental Protection as one of its key concerns about part 3. The OEP’s advice to the Secretary of State observed:

“The bill is silent as to when conservation measures must be implemented and by when they must be effective. This gives rise to the possibility of significant impacts on the conservation status of protected species or sites arising before the successful implementation of conservation measures.”

That is the exact concern at the heart of amendment 3.

I want to illustrate the point with the example of the hazel dormouse. This rare, beautiful species has declined in number in England by 70%. Populations have become extinct in Hertfordshire, Staffordshire and Northumberland in the last few years. In places where they are clinging on, EDPs could be the final nail in the coffin. Hazel dormice are reliant on woodlands, travel corridors, established hedgerows and scrub. If an EDP permitted the destruction of those habitats on the basis of replacement habitats being provided some years down the road, it could be too late. It takes seven to eight years for hedgerows and scrub and significantly longer for woodland to become established, but a dormouse’s life span is three to five years, so there are several generations of dormice that could be affected by the destruction of habitat. Without their home, the populations would quickly die off, causing irreversible damage to the species before the replacement habitat came into effect.

Amendment 3 would deliver on the OEP recommendation to rectify that part of clause 52 and prevent such harm before mitigation, which is not intentional, I hope, but could arise accidentally if we do not adopt amendment 3. It would require Natural England, when setting the content of an EDP, to set a timetable for the delivery of conservation measures, guided by the principle that gains for nature should come in advance of harm from development. When Natural England is of the opinion that harms to an environmental feature are irreversible, it would have to ensure through the timetable that a boost to conservation status had been achieved before harm from development occurs.

I stress that the irreversible harm element would likely only apply in a small minority of cases when the most threatened habitats or species populations face possible destruction from harm coming before mitigation. In most cases, the amendment would simply mean that Natural England would be required to show careful consideration of how it would be ecologically best to sequence conservation measures when drawing up an EDP, prioritising up-front environmental gains. In sum, the amendment is a constructive effort to resolve a key threat to nature identified by the OEP itself. I very much hope the Minister will accept it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I recognise that the amendment is a constructive attempt to highlight an issue that the OEP highlighted to us. I make the broad point again: we are carefully considering the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection and will continue to work with the sector and parliamentarians to deliver on the intent of the Bill in this area. We have been very clear on the intent of this part.

The amendment seeks, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire has just outlined, to require Natural England to produce a timetable for the delivery of conservation measures and additional requirements to secure environmental improvement in advance of development coming forward. While recognising the good intentions behind the amendment, the Government are confident that the legislation strikes the right balance in securing sufficient flexibility around the delivery of conservation measures, alongside safeguards that ensure conservation measures deliver an overall improvement for nature.

[Ellie Chowns]

How can the Government have that confidence when the OEP says that they should not?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is worth reading the OEP’s letter in full. It broadly welcomes the overall thrust of the Bill in this area. We will reflect on and respond to the concerns it has highlighted. We want to ensure there is confidence that this part of the Bill can deliver on those objectives—that win-win for nature. If the hon. Lady will let me set out how different elements of the Bill might provide reassurance in this area, she is more than welcome to follow up and intervene.

The legislation is clear—we will come on to debate this—that the Secretary of State can make an EDP only when they are satisfied that the conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development. That test would not allow irreversible or irreparable impact to a protected site or species. It would allow Natural England, the conservation body for England, to determine what the appropriate measures are for bringing forward an EDP and how best to bring them forward over the period of the delivery plan.

We will come later to Government amendment 97, which in part deals with this issue by introducing a timeframe to the overall improvement test. It would mean that in applying that test, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the negative effects of development will be outweighed by the conservation measures by the end date of the EDP.

[Ellie Chowns]

The Minister has tabled amendments 95 and 97, but is that the sum total of the Minister’s response to the OEP’s advice? Those amendments do not, by any means, address the thrust and specifics of that advice. What further response does the Minister intend to make in response to and recognition of the OEP’s advice?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not think I could have been any clearer that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s letter and the points it has set out. I will not issue the Government response to that letter today in Committee; I am setting out the Government’s position on the Bill as it stands, but we will reflect on those concerns. If we feel that any changes need to be made to the Bill, we will, of course, notify the House at the appropriate point and table any changes. We are reflecting on whether they are needed to ensure that the intent of this part of the Bill, which we have been very clear must deliver both for the environment and for development, is met.

I will finish by making a couple of more points, because there are other provisions of the Bill that pertain to this area. There is already a requirement in clause 57 for Natural England to publish reports at least twice over the environmental delivery plan period, which will ensure transparency on how conservation measures are being delivered. That requirement is a minimum, and it may publish reports at any other time as needed. The reports will ensure that Natural England can monitor the impact of conservation measures to date to ensure that appropriate actions are taken to deliver the improved outcomes.

In establishing an alternative to the existing system, the Bill intentionally provides flexibility to diverge from a restrictive application of the mitigation hierarchy. We will come on to that again in clause 55. That, however, will only be where Natural England considers it to be appropriate and where it would deliver better outcomes for nature over the course of the EDP. The status quo is not working, and we have to find a smarter way to ensure there is that win-win. The alternative is to say that the status quo remains as it is, and we do not get those more positive outcomes for nature, but as I have said, we are reflecting on the OEP’s letter.

[Luke Murphy]

The Committee should hear exactly what the Minister has said: he and the Government are reflecting on what the OEP has said. It is only seven working days since the OEP sent its letter, so to rush forward with a full response now would be foolhardy. It is right that the Government reflect on it and we should accept the Minister at his word, given that he has strongly made clear that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s advice.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is only seven days. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire might expect Government to move quicker than they do, but they do not. It is right that we take time to reflect properly on whether the Government agree that some of the points the OEP has made are valid—we are allowed to have a difference of opinion—and that we should respond in an appropriate way, or whether the Bill as drafted on the particular points made is sufficient. We are reflecting on those points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

I have seen comments from a number of environmental NGOs that were upset with how their previous comments had been taken out of context and used to indicate support for the Bill in a part of it that they do not feel so strongly supportive of. I have also heard feedback from environmental and nature protection NGOs that are frustrated with the fact that there was not a huge amount of consultation, or the formality of consultation that there could have been.

I genuinely do not want to get into a “He said, she said” debate or anything like that. I encourage the Minister gently to recognise the seriousness of the critique and the concerns that have been expressed. The Minister has said that the status quo is not working and that we need to change it. Amendment 3 proposes a further improvement; it is not a wholesale chucking out of absolutely everything in the Bill. A genuine attempt to strengthen this particular aspect of the Bill is being proposed in respect of the timing of measures under EDPs, recognising that given how nature works, it is important that the improvement comes before the destruction. That is all the amendment is about.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I say it once again for the record: I have understood the hon. Lady’s point. I will reflect on it, in the spirit of this Committee as a whole. I have sought to take points away when they are well made, and to give them further consideration.

[Gideon Amos]

The Minister is being characteristically generous with his time; I wish we had more. There are genuine concerns about the timetabling of the measures. I invite him to confirm that the Government are considering how to tackle the issue of ensuring that measures are taken in a timely fashion. That appears to be what he is saying, and I am encouraging him.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am not going to provide the Committee with a running commentary on the Government’s internal deliberations in response to the OEP’s letter. I will not do that today. I totally understand why hon. Members are trying to draw me on the point, but I am not going to do that. I have set out the Government’s position, and I have made it very clear that we will reflect on the letter and on the points made today.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

Other requirements for an EDP

Amendment proposed: 3, in clause 52, page 86, line 12, at end insert—

“(10) An EDP must include a schedule setting out the timetable for the implementation of each conservation measure and for the reporting of results.

(11) A schedule included under subsection (10) must ensure that, where the development to which the EDP applies is in Natural England’s opinion likely to cause significant environmental damage, the corresponding conservation measures result in an improvement in the conservation status of the identified features prior to the damage being caused.

(12) In preparing a schedule under subsection (10) Natural England must have regard to the principle that enhancements should be delivered in advance of harm.”—(Ellie Chowns.)

This amendment would require Environmental Delivery Plans to set out a timetable for, and thereafter report on, conservation measures, and require improvement of the conservation status of specified features before development takes place in areas where Natural England considers development could cause significant environmental damage.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Gideon Amos]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq—although I was not sure how much of a pleasure until you introduced the sitting in the way that you did.

Amendments 21 and 22 would remove the requirement on unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies, simply based on the resources that unitary authorities have and the stretch under which they have been placed.

My own authority is working hard to stave off financial challenges after being left with a massive deficit to manage—£2 of every £3 of the council’s funding is spent on care for children and adults, but it also has to prepare a new local plan. It has permission for 11,000 homes that are not yet built, but the new plan will require a 41% increase in housing allocations in Somerset, which is a massive task that will cost millions of pounds. For an individual unitary authority, having to not only establish a unitary local plan but, at the same time, prepare a spatial development strategy seems over the top. That should be reserved for mayoral authorities, where a strategic authority is established.

We do not oppose the concept of spatial development strategies; for strategic-level authorities, they could be a sensible addition to the planning system to reintroduce the strategic level of planning that was taken away. However, we are concerned about the significant additional burden on unitary authorities in also being required to prepare spatial development strategies that are meant to be more strategic in nature and have more than a single unitary authority area. With that in mind, I commend amendments 21 and 22 to the Committee.

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

It is a pleasure to resume our proceedings with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling amendment 21, but the Government will have to resist it for reasons that I will set out. Having said that, as we have already discussed in previous sessions, we absolutely recognise the real challenges that local planning authorities face not only in resourcing but more widely in capability and capacity. We have discussed a number of the measures that the Government are taking, both in the Bill and outside it, to address that challenge.

Amendments 21 and 22 seek to make upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities ineligible to produce a spatial development plan. It is the Government’s intention that, in the future, all spatial development strategies will be produced by strategic authorities in accordance with our devolution framework, including combined authorities, combined county authorities and the Greater London Authority. While we are making substantial progress, with six areas currently part of the devolution priority programme, the establishment of strategic authorities across the whole of England will be a gradual process.

However, the Government want to move quickly on strategic planning. That means that, as well as combined authorities and combined county authorities, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities are being made into strategic planning authorities with a requirement to produce a spatial development strategy. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington would remove the requirement for those aforementioned authorities.

The requirement to produce a spatial development strategy will be realised either individually or in defined groupings; in some cases, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities may also be grouped with a combined authority or combined county authority. As such, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

[Gideon Amos]

Dr Huq, I do not know whether I get the opportunity to sum up, so I have jumped in with an intervention. Could the Minister clarify the circumstances in which an individual unitary authority—perhaps a unitary county such as Somerset, or Oxfordshire, if it becomes a unitary county—would be required to, on its own, prepare a spatial development strategy? Will all unitary authorities be required to prepare spatial development strategies on top of, and in parallel with, preparing local plans? I think that that clarification would be helpful.

[The Chair]

Apparently, there will be a chance to sum up and to respond to the summing up.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Thank you for that clarification, Dr Huq; we may hear further from the hon. Gentleman on that point. Just to be clear, the Government are driving for universal coverage for strategic planning across the whole of England, so, either individually or in defined groupings, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities will have to, in some form, be part of producing a spatial development strategy.

As I said, I very much recognise the challenge that the hon. Gentleman posed around resourcing. It is worth pointing out that, in addition to the elements that we discussed yesterday—the £46 million that the Budget allocated to local planning authority capacity and capability, and the measures in the Bill allowing for the setting of fees locally and the ringfencing of those fees—the Government have already identified funding for 2025-26 to support authorities to prepare for the production of spatial development strategies. We recognise the need for core funding and that is being negotiated with the Treasury as part of the spending review for 2026 to 2029.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Could the Minister outline what would happen if a unitary council created a spatial development strategy and then became part of a larger, bigger authority under the devolution? What would happen to their specific strategy, and would that new authority, as a bigger authority, have to create a new SDS across the whole area?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Over time, spatial development strategies will have to reflect the appropriate geographies at the point they are renewed and refreshed—if that answers the hon. Gentleman’s point. But as I said, either individually or in groupings through the strategic boards we are creating, we will have to have those SDSs in places, although obviously the geographies will be able to change over time, if that is the wish of the component member authorities.

As I was saying, for the reasons I have outlined the Government believe that the legislation, as drafted, is essential to support the introduction of our strategic planning policy, which is an important means of ensuring our pro-growth agenda and that we are able to deliver 1.5 million homes over this Parliament. As we have argued on many occasions, the introduction of a robust, universal system of strategic planning is a core part of the Government’s reform agenda, and we think that the Bill is required to operate in the way that I have set out. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to withdraw his amendment.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, and he has my respect for bringing strategic planning back into the system. I know he has worked on that for a number of years; some of us have also worked on regional planning for a number of years and can remember the regional spatial strategy processes—in fact, took part in them. However, the question of individual unitary authorities preparing SDSs remains quite a challenge.

Perhaps the Minister, in summing up, could say something about the timescale. I can see that the Government are moving towards universal coverage of mayoral—well, strategic—authorities, as well as SDSs, which makes sense, but the timescale will be crucial here. If an individual authority becomes something of an orphan, or it needs time to ally itself with others and agree its strategic authority area—for example, Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire put forward their proposal but were knocked back, so they cannot establish that strategic authority—it would seem unfair for those authorities to be required to prepare three SDSs for those three counties on top of three local plans. That is a massive amount of work. We must not underestimate the weight of work that goes into a local plan. For a huge area such as Somerset, it will costs tens of millions of pounds and it will take several years. For those three authorities also to be required to prepare an SDS at the same time would be unfortunate.

If the timing could work such that—this may be the Government’s intention—those authorities have sufficient time to establish their mayoral strategic authorities first, and then develop an SDS, that would appear to be a much better way. I am interested in the Minister’s comments on that. We do not intend to press the amendment to a vote.

[The Chair]

Minister, I am advised that you are not obliged to speak now—you can respond in writing—but if you wish to, you can.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will address a couple of points to give the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington some reassurance. First, I very much welcome his support for the reintroduction of sub-regional strategic planning—I would actually say introduction, because we are not proposing a regional model along the lines of what happened before.

In our view, there has been a clear lack of strategic planning and of those effective cross-boundary mechanisms between local authorities for delivering housing growth in the past 14 years. Therefore, we do not intend to wait for strategic planning to be reintroduced. It is the Government’s intention for all future SDSs to be produced by strategic authorities, but I recognise that there is a sequencing issue here.

As I have said, however, establishing strategic authorities nationwide will be a gradual process, and the Government want all areas of England to feel the benefit of effective strategic planning as soon as possible. Strategic planning boards will allow areas outside of strategic authorities to do that, so we think there is a mechanism that will allow for those instances where a strategic authority is not yet in place. As I said, however, I do recognise the sequencing issue.

To reiterate to the hon. Gentleman, we have already identified funding for 2025-26 to support authorities to prepare for the production of spatial development strategies. We expect all local planning authorities within the area of a strategic planning authority, such as district councils within a combined authority, to be closely involved in the production of a spatial development strategy, including by sharing staff members and expertise. That is already standard practice in areas producing a joint local plan, which can be done at the discretion of local authorities wishing to take part, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. On that basis, I hope that I have reassured him and other hon. Members as to the Government’s intentions in this area.

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me begin with amendment 76, tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, which seeks to remove provision for the establishment of strategic planning boards that would allow two or more authorities to produce a spatial development strategy jointly. The main purpose of strategic planning is to provide a mechanism for cross-boundary planning between local planning authorities and to plan for growth on a scale that is larger than local. For that to be done as effectively as possible, it is essential that spatial development strategies are produced across the most appropriate geographies. To that end, it will be necessary for some strategic planning authorities to be grouped together so that they can produce a spatial development strategy across their combined area. Unless SDSs are produced across appropriate geographies, they will not be as effective as they could be and the full benefits of strategic planning will not be realised.

To address the perfectly reasonable point made by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, establishing strategic authorities nationwide will be a gradual process, as I said, and the Government want all areas of England to benefit from effective strategic planning as soon as possible. Therefore, in some cases, responsibility for producing an SDS will transfer between different authorities while the broader reforms are being undertaken. We are seeking powers in the Bill to complement existing powers to make regulations for transitional arrangements when such scenarios occur, similar to how responsibility for a local plan can transfer when a local authority becomes a unitary authority. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

I turn to amendment 122, which seeks to add provision for infrastructure delivery plans and funding to the list of matters in proposed new section 12C(3) to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that the Secretary of State may consider, including in regulations establishing a strategic planning board. I should make it clear to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that that list is not exhaustive. Indeed, proposed new section 12C(2) is clear:

“Strategic planning board regulations may make provision about…such…matters as the Secretary of State considers are necessary or expedient to facilitate the exercise by a strategic planning board of its functions”.

In general terms, the Government are clear that new development must come with the appropriate social and physical infrastructure and amenities for new communities to thrive. The hon. Member for Broxbourne challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, saying that there are not provisions in the Bill directly relating to things like infrastructure delivery plans. That is right, but the Bill is not the sum total of the action the Government are taking in housing and planning. As my hon. Friend alluded to, we are talking action in other areas. However, to address the point made by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage directly, it is not the Government’s intention for strategic planning boards or any other strategic planning authority to be required to produce an infrastructure delivery plan, although I am more than happy to pick up the wider discussion about infrastructure with him outside the Committee.

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for reiterating the Government’s position and commitment to infrastructure delivery alongside housing. Will he comment specifically on infrastructure that allows people to get on a train and go to work? Does he agree that transport infrastructure is critical and that we must not build homes in the middle of nowhere, which condemn people to poverty? The ability of people to connect to places by getting on a train or a bus to go to work and earn a decent wage, and then to get back home, is crucial for an economy that works for everyone.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As we know, done properly, transport infrastructure and effective interventions in that regard can unlock huge numbers of homes. As I said, the Government have already taken action to support the provision of infrastructure, for example in the changes to the national planning policy framework in December last year, and we are looking at what more can be done, but it is not necessary for the clause to introduce that.

I will make a final point about how IDPs work now. IDPs are put in place where local authorities decide to take them forward, on the basis that they support the delivery of a local development plan. Local development plans have to be in general conformity with spatial development strategies. There is a clear link here, even though we are not asking strategic planning boards to have responsibility for bringing forward IDPs in the way that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage suggests. I hope that I have given him some reassurance and, on that basis, that he will agree that amendment 122 is not necessary. I also request that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley withdraws his amendment 76.

[Paul Holmes]

I appreciate the spirit in which, as usual, the Minister comes back. I am content to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I would appreciate some further conversations and some reassurance on how, in the reform of local government, we do not add an undue burden on local authorities.

The hon. Member for Barking made an astute point, as usual, approaching this topic with her experience: we must absolutely make sure that where development happens, whether in rural areas or areas in the middle of nowhere—although I presume that that would be rural too—the infrastructure also comes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne said, nowhere is that stated in the legislation.

The Minister is a man of integrity and I take what he says as such. I know that his aims and ambitions are to make sure that there are further plans with an infrastructure-first approach, but given the Bill at the moment, as well as the reforms and changes to the NPPF, the aspirations of the hon. Member for Barking will simply not be met under this legislative agenda. Indeed, some of the housing targets and reforms brought in by this Government have placed an overwhelming burden on rural areas, rather than on urban areas where the infrastructure is already in place and easier to develop.

We look forward to challenging and scrutinising the Minister in future stages of the Bill. We also await with anticipation proposed future legislation that he will bring forward on infrastructure—

[Matthew Pennycook]

Not legislation, necessarily.

[Paul Holmes]

Not legislation, sorry. Forgive me. We are good mates—well, I think we are—so I must resist the temptation to talk across the aisle. On that basis, we look forward to what the Minister will say. We will scrutinise the measures on infrastructure that he may bring forward, and we will not press the amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, and I completely agree. We should do anything we can to strengthen councils’ hands in protecting green belt. I suspect there is broad support for brownfield-first and protecting the green belt.

I turn to amendment 82, tabled by the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). A wider failure of the planning system is that it does not account for the cumulative impact of lots of planning decisions. This amendment goes some way to protecting farmland. It may be appropriate for a field to be developed for a specific farming purpose, but if there is lots of development in farming areas in a specific location and the planning committee does not take into account the cumulative impact, there can be negative consequences—for example, where a floodplain is built on and that creates issues for the field next door.

The Government need to grapple with this wider issue of the cumulative impact of lots of development. At the moment, planning committees judge the planning application in front of them and do not necessarily look at the cumulative impact. I hope the Government will support our amendments, in particular amendment 82, which tries to rectify some of those cumulative impacts in order to protect our agricultural land, which is very important for our food security.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank members of the Committee for these amendments. I hope I can give them some reassurance that none of them is necessary from the Government’s point of view.

I turn first to amendments 72, 75 and 82, tabled by the hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. These amendments relate to developments taking place on green-belt, brownfield and agricultural land resulting from the introduction of spatial development strategies. While I understand the positive intent behind the amendments in seeking to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect valuable land from development, they are not necessary, as current national policy already achieves the intended aims.

On amendment 72, I fully agree that we must make the best use possible of brownfield land for development. The Government have been very clear that we have a brownfield-first approach to development. That is recognised in national planning policy. We made changes in the recent national planning policy framework update to expand the definition of “previously developed land” and reinforce the expectation that development proposals on such land within settlements should normally be approved.

We are also consulting on our working paper on a brownfield passport, which we are considering through the introduction of national development management policies, as provided for by the previous Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The aim of those proposals we are seeking feedback on—lots of feedback has been gratefully received—is to ensure that we prioritise and accelerate the development of previously developed land wherever possible. We are very firm on our brownfield-first approach.

[Paul Holmes]

I accept what the Minister says; there is a recognition across Government, demonstrated by some of the actions they have taken, that they have a brownfield-first approach. I simply ask him: what has he got to fear from an amendment that would back that up and ensure that that goes out into the community, strengthening his Government’s position?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for that challenge. On this whole group of amendments, whether they have been tabled on the basis of a misunderstanding of spatial development strategies or Members have just taken the opportunity—I completely appreciate why—to initiate wider debates on the Government’s national planning policy, I will address why I do not think they are necessary.

The Government are in absolute agreement on the point made about brownfield first. In a sense, we want the default answer for planning permissions on brownfield to be yes, unless circumstances necessitate otherwise. The hon. Member for Broxbourne made a very good point about build-out, which I addressed yesterday. The Government are looking to take action on build-out, not least with the introduction of the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, to incentivise the prompt build-out of housing sites, and we are looking to bring those forward in fairly short order.

[Lewis Cocking]

The Minister has just said that he wants a default yes on brownfield sites. Is he concerned that if we give carte blanche to developers and say, “You can build whatever you want on brownfield sites,” some of that development on brownfield sites will not be of the quality that I am sure we both want?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not concerned, for the reasons set out in the “Brownfield Passport” working paper, which I encourage the hon. Gentleman to go away and read, if he has not had the chance to do so already. In a sense, we are looking at a set of proposals, and again I emphasise that we have asked for feedback on them and we are considering how that feedback maps on to how we take forward this approach through national development management policies. In effect, we are saying that there is a presumption that the answer to applications on brownfield land is yes, but it has to meet certain criteria and conditions. The various options that we have explored are set out in that note, but it would absolutely not be a free-for-all on brownfield land, so I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman on that point.

I do not agree that amendment 72 is necessary to achieve the important objective that it raises because, while spatial development strategies will provide for a high-level framework for infrastructure investment for housing growth, they will not allocate specific sites. Strategic planning authorities will be required to have regard to the need to ensure that their spatial development strategy is consistent with national policy. National planning policy, as I have said, already provides strong support for brownfield development, and it is clear that brownfield land should be the first port of call.

It is also clear that authorities should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs. In the event that spatial development strategies do not meet the requirements of the NPPF, the Bill gives the Secretary of State a range of intervention powers to ensure consistency with national policies, and those national policies are clear, as I have argued. I therefore ask that the shadow Minister withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 75 seeks to ensure that spatial development strategies consider other practical options before identifying infrastructure or the distribution of housing within the green belt. To be clear, spatial development strategies cannot allocate land for development. This is a really important point: they can identify broad locations for new development, if the participating members wish to take those forward, and that may include land within the green belt. However, the formal allocation of sites will remain the preserve of local plans and neighbourhood plans.

I am in full agreement that it is crucial to take a brownfield-first approach to development, as I have said, in which the reuse of previously developed land and options to increase density are given priority. I can assure Opposition Members that, when any such green belt review takes place, existing planning policy in relation to the reuse of green belt will still apply. The NPPF makes it clear that, when plans are considering the release of green-belt land, they must demonstrate that they have examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting identified needs, including making use of brownfield land and optimising the density of developments. This is a point that I have made on several other occasions: there is a sequential approach to plan making to green-belt release, and it is very clearly set out what the Government intend in that regard.

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

My apologies, Dr Huq, for my late arrival to the Committee. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley, for moving the amendment, which stands in my name. I seek a more detailed assurance from the Minister. I appreciate that he is not in a position to comment on the specifics of individual cases, but yesterday I raised something that is very pertinent: the decision of the Secretary of State on the Abbots Langley development.

It was a longstanding principle of the approach to green belt that, where there were hard boundaries such as motorways, rivers and railway lines, the preservation of green space between them and adjoining settlements was very important, because it creates a green boundary and some additional space to reduce air pollution. The Secretary of State’s decision in respect of the national planning policy framework 2025 is effectively to redesignate all such land as grey belt. Areas that our constituents clearly understood were directly protected and were in the green belt have effectively, at the stroke of a pen, been redesignated as grey belt and eligible for development. That is why these amendments are so important. We need to guarantee that those vital green spaces, which provide a bit of a cushion between hard infrastructure and people’s residences, will be preserved and protected. Without commenting on that specific case, will the Minister address the legitimate concerns raised by that decision?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will make a couple of points in response to the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I understand his argument, but I go back to the point that what we are doing in this clause and others in this part of the Bill is setting out a framework for spatial development strategies for cross-boundary strategic planning. National planning policy is already in place in those areas and is very clear. The national planning policy framework sets out the considerations for deciding whether development in the green belt is appropriate.

The definition of grey belt is set out in the glossary of the NPPF. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it includes previously developed land in the green belt, such as disused petrol stations, and other land that, although formally designated green belt, does not strongly contribute to green belt purposes. The test of what qualifies as grey belt is very clear in the NPPF, and that is supplemented by planning policy guidance. For every application, there will be a judgment about how the national policy applies—the hon. Gentleman will understand, for the reasons he has outlined, why I will not comment on specifics.

I repeat that it will not be for SDSs to allocate plots of land; that will be for local plans and neighbourhood plans. Where the release of green-belt land is necessary, the Government are asking authorities to prioritise the release of brownfield land within the green belt, along the lines I have just discussed. Our proposal in the Bill to allow spatial development strategies to specify infrastructure of strategic importance or an amount of distribution of affordable housing does not change the existing requirements in relation to the release of green-belt land. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendment 75.

I can assure the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine that the Government are committed to maintaining strong protections on agricultural land, but I do not consider amendment 82 to be necessary to achieve that objective. Strategic planning authorities will need to consider national policy when preparing their SDSs. The NPPF is clear that authorities should make best use of brownfield land before considering development on other types of land, including agricultural land. Planning policy already recognises the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. If the development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land should be prioritised.

The Government are supplementing the national planning policy that is in place in respect of this issue with a land use framework, which has gone out to consultation. That will set out the Government’s vision for long-term land use change, including by exploring what improvements are needed to the agricultural land classification system to support effective land use decisions. We all agree on the need, on such a constrained island, to make the most effective use of land possible.

When it comes to issues such as solar farms, which we have discussed in the Chamber many times, I want to ensure the debate is proportionate. Even in some of the most optimistic scenarios I have seen for solar deployment, no more than 1% of agricultural land will be released. That is why the National Farmers Union and other bodies have called for a proportionate debate in this area. It will be necessary in certain circumstances to release agricultural land, but that must clearly proceed on the basis of national planning policy.

In the event that spatial development strategies do not meet the requirements in the NPPF, the Bill gives the Secretary of State a range of intervention powers to ensure consistency with national policies. For those reasons, I am confident that there is adequate planning policy and guidance already in place to describe requirements for development on different types of land tenures.

New clause 104, in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, also focuses on green-belt developments. It seeks to prevent development on green-belt land for 20 years or more after a green belt review has been completed. As hon. Members know, the Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another. That remains the case.

I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking. Not only did the green belt expand between 1979 and 1997—it almost doubled to just over 1.6 million hectares—but we saw a significant amount of green-belt land release, in what I would argue was a completely haphazard manner, under the last Government. It is not the case that this Government have introduced green-belt land release for the first time, and through the changes to national policy we are trying to introduce a strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release so that we release the right parts of the green belt first. Our revised national planning policy framework maintains strong protections for the green belt and preserves the long-standing green-belt purposes. It also underlines our commitment to a brownfield-first approach.

However, we know that there is not enough brownfield land in this country, and not least brownfield land that is viable and in the right locations to meet housing demand and needs. That is why we ask local authorities who cannot meet their needs through it to review their green-belt land to identify opportunities to create more affordable, sustainable and well designed developments. In doing so, we expect authorities to prioritise the development of brownfield land and low quality grey-belt land in the first instance.

High performing green-belt land and land safeguarded for environmental reasons will still be protected, and our new golden rules will ensure that development that takes place on the green belt benefits communities in nature, including the delivery of high numbers of affordable housing. That is a really important point to stress once again. Given the value that the public attribute to the green belt, the Government clearly expect that through our golden rules the communities that see development take place on it will benefit in a way that is slightly different from other forms of development.

The framework is clear that where it is necessary—only in exceptional circumstances—to alter green-belt boundaries, that must be done using the local plan process of public consultation and formal examination by planning inspectors. The framework is clear that development can be committed in the green belt only in specific prescribed exceptional circumstances. Beyond that, it can happen only in very special circumstances. That is a high bar.

Given that statutory plans secure the designated status of green-belt land and that planning policy already demands the rational and evidence-based application of green-belt protection for plans and decisions, I do not consider amendment to be necessary. In the same way as I have politely asked Opposition Front-Bench Members to withdraw their amendments, I hope the hon. Member will feel content to withdraw this amendment, for the reasons that I have outlined.

[Paul Holmes]

As always, I appreciate the Minister’s very detailed response. However, we tabled these amendments to set a precedent. We welcome the Minister’s clear words about how there is an anticipation and a want from the Government’s policy agenda, particularly through the NPPF, for a brownfield-first strategy. He therefore has nothing to fear from allowing some of these new spatial development strategy boards to have that precedence underlying how they are acting and operating.

The Minister is absolutely right that those boards do not allocate sites, but there is an argument to be made about where those boards, in their constitution through the national legislation that is being set up, are guided by precedence that is overwhelmingly backed, as he clearly said, by other legislation and guidance from his Department. He therefore has nothing to fear from amendments 72 and 75.

On amendment 82, I completely understand the Minister’s point. It would be churlish for any politician to stand up and say there should be absolutely no development on agricultural land. That is a fair challenge, and that is not what the amendment’s parameters seek to establish. He was right that development will be needed on such sites on occasions, but again, the amendment would clearly set out that the most valuable productive agricultural land—not in terms of financial value—would have precedence in the guidelines of these new boards.

Again, the Minister should not fear the intentions of the amendment. He clearly set out that he agrees—much more than I thought he would—with some of the aims and aspirations behind the amendments. Apparently, his Government agree with those intentions and will cover them through other means. He should not fear the amendments. I politely ask him to accept them, although I know that he will not change his mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

New clause 104 will come later. We are debating amendment 72 now.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will be brief because I can see that the hon. Members opposite are intent on pressing the amendments to a vote. I have a couple of things to say, at risk of eroding the fondness that hon. Members opposite have expressed for me in recent days. That is troubling, but I will continue none the less.

What can I gently say to the shadow Minister? I think he must have forgotten—because I am sure he has not overlooked it—that it is not the case that the Government have been converted to the Opposition’s view on the subject. From day one, we have been clear about the stipulations in terms of a brownfield-first approach, and the approach to green-belt release that I have outlined. They were clear in the NPPF changes, and they remain the case. I gently challenge the hon. Members by asking them to think again.

SDSs are intended to be high-level plans for housing growth and the allocation of infrastructure investment. They are not big local plans; they do not need to do everything in national planning policy. The logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley is that we transcribe all national planning policy into SDSs and have requirements. The requirements are already there, they apply, and regard will need to be given to them in the development and production of SDSs. For those reasons, I do not think that the amendments are necessary. I humbly ask hon. Members to give a final thought about whether we need a Division.

[David Simmonds]

Again, at the risk of a political love-in taking place, I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with all of the debates extremely courteously, and he has responded in detail. However, there is a genuine point of principle. I gently respond to him on a point that I raised earlier. We have had a lot of assurances that there is a shared direction of travel around the protection of the green belt.

However, the first significant decision that has been taken by the Secretary of State, in line with the planning practice guidance from February 2025, has driven a coach and horses through the expectations that were set about how that protection will operate. I think that that has stiffened the resolve on this side, so that we are now saying that we need to press the issue, because it is clear that whatever undertakings appear to be made, the reality is that decisions to develop on the green belt, in places that constituents reasonably expect to be protected, are being taken. Therefore, we need to ensure that, as far as possible, we secure those protections in the legislation.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have already said, I will not speak about two individual decisions that have been made. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that the concern that he outlines—that is, a particular decision that he does not agree with—will not be resolved by trying to transcribe national planning policy into the SDS process. National planning policy remains in force, and I do not think it is necessary that in order to achieve the aims that are set out, which the Government agree with—in terms of brownfield first and a strategic approach to green belt release—for the amendments to be agreed. I ask hon. Members to think again, but reading the room, I think they are certain about pressing the amendment to a vote. The Government will resist it.

[Paul Holmes]

I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Okay, I just wanted to double check. The Opposition have tabled amendments 73 and 74 to limit increases and decreases in the allocation of housing targets when being assessed by spatial development strategies. The Minister should not be surprised by this approach. We have been very clear from the beginning that we disagree fundamentally with how the Minister and the Secretary of State have decided to assess housing targets and algorithms since they took office last July.

We fundamentally disagree with what we think is a politically gerrymandering housing algorithm, as we can quite clearly see through the evidence. We believe that in the rural areas where there is a lack of infrastructure—notwithstanding that we agree that infrastructure needs to be built, although, as the Minister has said, there is no actual mechanism in the legislation to insist on an infrastructure-first approach—the housing targets outlined by the Government are political gerrymandering. In very rural areas, housing targets can sometimes be doubled, tripled or quadrupled, but in urban centres and particularly in cities, those housing targets have been reduced.

We have tabled our amendments because we believe there needs to be some guidance on spatial development strategies. There should be national guidance and regulation for the Government’s approach to housing allocation: on how much they should be allowed to uplift, but also on how much that they can decrease, particularly in the amount of housing they can deliver in urban areas.

There is precedent for why we have done this. If we take my constituency of Hamble Valley as an example, there are two local authority areas. Under the Minister’s proposals, Fareham borough council has gone from a yearly housing target of 470 houses to one of more than 800. Eastleigh borough council, which is already over-delivering on its annual housing targets, currently has a target of around 623. They are building 1,200 homes a year themselves because of their debt levels, which is clearly a massive overreach and increase in an area that does not have the necessary infrastructure. The doubling of that requirement for house building, including on junction 7 of the M27—I do not expect the Minister to know the geography—is leading to huge amounts of bad effects with increased traffic because of the lack of infrastructure delivered alongside the housing targets.

If the Minister looks at neighbouring Southampton city council, which is controlled by the Labour party and has delivered only 200 homes a year, whether they are affordable or for private purchase, its targets have been reduced from 1,200 a year to 1,000 a year. That is the same in nearly every urban authority that the Minister has put forward—[Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but if he looks at the evidence from the House of Commons Library, housing targets in urban council-centred areas are generally being reduced. It is happening in Southampton, and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Barking—her targets have gone down.

Need I remind the Minister that it is also happening in London? The Government’s targets in London are being reduced, while the mayor has announced just this week that he wants to build on the green belt. If he is so keen to build, he should be looking at the densification of his city. He should be looking to build on brownfield sites first, as we have just discussed, and he should not be given political cover for failure by a Minister and a Secretary of State who are reducing housing targets in predominantly Labour council areas in urban cities.

That is an argument that we have rehearsed before. I know the Minister will come back and say that he disagrees, and I expect him to do that, because he is defending his algorithm, but he cannot defend it to the people in this country. It is a politically gerrymandering algorithm that damages. It targets the failure of predominantly Labour councils in urban areas, and targets the success of predominantly rural authorities that struggle, and it punishes them. Those are the areas that have challenges that urban areas do not have in trying to match those housing targets.

We have tabled amendment 74 in such detail—to ensure that there cannot be an increase in the number of homes in any strategy area of more than 20%, or a reduction of the required number of homes in urban areas by more than 20%—to try to mitigate some of those politically motivated measures that the Government have undertaken in other areas through the national planning policy framework. That is why we are putting forward these amendments.

We have a fundamental disagreement with the Minister over the housing algorithm. He knows that we have a fundamental disagreement over housing targets and the way in which they deliver them, because we think that, where there are hugely increased housing targets, that places a burden on local authorities. The algorithm also reduces the quality of housing provided, because there is a rush to try to meet housing targets for fear of Government repercussions, but the quality of builds, the quality of the developments and the associated infrastructure and community investment goes down. Believe me, I have seen that in my local authority, and I invite the Minister to attend my constituency at any time he wants. On its boundaries, Eastleigh borough council has been building double the number of homes that are required. The financial decisions that it has made mean that the quality of development has gone down and resentment among the public has gone up. The infrastructure that has not been delivered means that people in my local area—and areas across the locality in Hampshire, just outside my constituency—suffer.

So I say to the Minister: that is why we are tabling these amendments. I know that he is going to come back to me very strongly—

[Matthew Pennycook]

With facts!

[Paul Holmes]

Well, the Minister says “facts”, but he should read the House of Commons Library document on the housing targets that he proposed. He cannot deny that the rural uplift in housing targets under his algorithm is an exponential rise, but the increase under his housing algorithm for urban centres is much smaller. That is delivered by the fact that for many urban centres in cities across the United Kingdom, the number of houses required under his Government’s targets has reduced.

I look forward to the Minister’s “facts”. I hope that he knows that we have a fundamental disagreement on this; I have said that repeatedly in the Chamber, on Second Reading, and in many Westminster Hall debates, where housing targets have been a topic of concern for many Members of Parliament across the country. As I say, I look forward to his “facts”, and I look forward to his reading the House of Commons Library document that backs up the arguments that we are making. We will press this amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Thank you, Dr Huq; it is a delight to serve under your chairship. Listeners to the debate have missed out on an entertaining discussion of the procedure of voting on amendments and clauses. I rise to comment briefly to amendment 29.

I do not think that anyone on the Government Benches disagrees with the notion that we need to build more genuinely affordable homes and social rent homes, but I do not think that the amendment fully accounts for the cost of 150,000 additional social homes. A generously low grant rate for a social home is around £183,000 a year, and that would be just over 30,000 homes a year, so there is a significant gap between what the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington proposes and what can be afforded through the amount of money that is being suggested.

I also gently remind Opposition Members that the largest cut to the affordable homes budget occurred in 2010, under the coalition Government. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and I have debated that previously. That was a 66% cut in the affordable homes budget, and we would not be in this situation had such a significant cut not been enacted.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Amendments 29, 73, 17, 74 and 94 would introduce additional requirements for spatial development strategies in relation to housing. They seek to specify or describe what spatial development strategies must include across a range of areas, such as housing target limits, affordable housing definitions and housing density requirements.

I thank hon. Members for their interest in the Bill’s spatial development strategy provisions. However, the Government believe that these amendments are not productive in achieving the Bill’s objectives. I will attempt to be succinct rather than verbose, given the time we have lost and the need to make progress on the Bill. In general terms, we think that introducing further requirements for SDSs would limit their effectiveness and operability, as well as the purpose and effect that the clause seeks to achieve.

Amendment 29, moved by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would make specific provision for strategic planning authorities to have regard to the provision for new social rented homes. The Government are clearly committed to delivering more social housing, and I hope the Committee recognises the steps that we have taken over the past 10 months, including an £800 million in-year funding top-up to the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme; £2 billion of bridging support—I think the hon. Gentleman made a mistake in referring to it as £2 million—that will bring forward up to 18,000 new social homes; and in the multi-year spending review, the Government will set out the full details of a new grant funding programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. In that, we are looking to prioritise the delivery of social rented homes, which is a Government priority.

Proposed new section 12D(5)(b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 makes provision for a spatial development strategy to specify or describe an amount or distribution of affordable housing, or any other kind of housing that the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area. SDSs can therefore already play an important role in the delivery of social and affordable housing, if the strategic authority in question considers it necessary. Amendment 29 is therefore not necessary, and I request that the hon. Member withdraws it.

The shadow Minister tempted me into a much wider debate on the Government’s revised standard method for assessing housing need, which was introduced in the updated NPPF late last year. I will not go into too much detail, but the point of difference is that, under the previous Government, a 35% urban uplift was applied to the most populous local planning authority within the country’s 20 largest cities and urban centres. We have removed that urban uplift.

[Paul Holmes]

Why?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Because it was a completely arbitrary number that bore no relation to objectively assessed housing need. We have replaced it with a standard method and with targets under which city regions, as a whole, will see their targets increase by 20%, on average, compared with the previous planning period. We have increased targets across those city regions, and the new method directs housing growth to a wider range of urban centres across England. We have introduced a more ambitious, credible and objective method of assessing housing need in any given area.

On average, that gives rise to a 20% increase in city regions. The previous Government said that the 35% urban uplift applied not to London’s most populous local authority but to the whole of London, which is out of kilter with all the other arrangements that they made across the country. That left London with a fantastical target that was impossible to deliver. We have rightly revised down the target, but the shadow Minister will know that we are being very clear that London needs to increase delivery quite significantly. The Mayor has taken steps in recent days to ensure that happens.

Amendments 73 and 74 would apply limitations to the extent that spatial development strategies can redistribute housing requirements over a strategy area. The distribution of housing requirements is likely to be a key role for most, if not all, spatial development strategies. It would be overly prescriptive to apply an arbitrary restraint on the ability to decide the most appropriate location for new housing. I hope that hon. Members recognise that, in many of the debates I attend, this is what their parties call for: a smarter and more strategic way for local authorities in sub-regional groups to come together and select locations for housing growth that help to absorb some of their housing target numbers in a more sensible way, where that is applicable. We do not want to be prescriptive and constrain their ability to do so in whatever way works for the sub-region in question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I will not give way. I need to get back to the present day, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. It is important to dwell not on the proposed cuts of £22 billion to capital expenditure from 2009-10 onwards that the outgoing Labour Government were proposing, but on the reality of the situation that faces people who need social homes today. That is what amendment 29 is all about.

The hon. Member for Basingstoke suggested that the amount required per social home is £183,000. Figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research suggest that that is actually £131,000 a home. I do not doubt his sincerity in looking at the costs of each social home, but those are our figures. Against that, our proposed investment of £6 billion would be on top of the existing affordable homes programme of £2.3 billion.

In passing, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, we recognise and respect the £2 billion investment that the Government have put into the affordable housing programme for up to 18,000 affordable homes. It is worthwhile. Our amendment simply asks the Government to go further and faster. Our commitment of £6 billion per year in our suggested budget—funded by the taxation proposals we set out there—added to the £2.3 billion of the existing affordable homes programme, would be sufficient to get us to a delivery level of 150,000 social homes per year in the course of a Parliament, according to figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research.

Our proposals are therefore founded on some consideration of the financial costs involved and of the priority that the Government need to give to the delivery of social homes. I reiterate simply that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage pointed out, relying on the private sector to provide low-cost social housing or even to bring down the price of housing has not worked to date and is extremely unlikely, to say the least, to happen in future.

[Matthew Pennycook]

An important point to make is that, through the revised standard method for assessing housing need and the housing targets that flow from that, we are asking local authorities to do more to meet the housing crisis. We expect more social and affordable homes to come through under section 106 agreements.

I take issue, gently, with the assertion that I think is implicit in some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman: that we are just leaving everything to the private market and doing nothing ourselves. The fact that we have topped up the affordable homes programme by £800 million and brought forward this bridge of £2 billion in anticipation of the future grant funding to come is very much at odds with his description of leaving it all to the market. The Government are not leaving it all to the market; we are providing grant funding over and above what we inherited from the previous Government.

[Gideon Amos]

We have always accepted and we support that allocation of funding to social housing, but a theme in Government thinking seems to be that the delivery of more homes through the private sector will bring prices down. If the Minister wishes to correct me, he should feel free to do so. That was my central point: we cannot rely on private housing to do that. The delivery of social homes needs to be done by Government. I was pleased with the Minister’s passion for delivering social homes, which he expressed clearly, and I therefore expect him to accept the amendment. It would simply increase the targets to deliver social homes to a reasonable level of 150,000 per year.

The delivery of social homes is a priority. We need to fund that to make it happen. If we really want to deliver more homes in this country, however, there are two big blockers, and they are not people, wildlife or the communities who will lose their voice in planning committees. The blockers are the funding for social housing and for infrastructure. If those two things were brought forward, I suggest that we would be able to build almost unlimited numbers of new homes.

For all those reasons we moved our amendment, which would simply take the Government’s rightful ambitions and laudable objectives of delivering social homes a little further and faster, and would set a target for the first time for the delivery of social homes. We do not have such a target, but one is desperately needed if we are to address the housing crisis, as organisations across the board have attested we should, including the National Housing Federation, Shelter and so many others. On that basis, I have moved this amendment.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse.

Chapter 3 of part 1 of the Bill deals with reform of transport infrastructure. Its various clauses—all of which, I hope, are uncontroversial—are designed to streamline and improve the efficiency of delivering transport infra- structure projects. Clauses 25 to 29 of the chapter make various amendments to the Highways Act 1980.

As hon. Members will be aware, local authorities and statutory consultees provide advice, share information and prepare responses to consultations on proposed highway projects. However, they currently do not have a statutory basis on which to recoup the costs associated with the work they do to review the applications. That can lead to delays in processing applications due to a lack of resources, or information being received late in the process.

Clause 25 inserts a new section 281B into the 1980 Act, providing a new regulation-making power for the Secretary of State in England and for Welsh Ministers in Wales to charge applicants for services in connection with certain schemes and orders on a cost-recovery basis. To be clear, it will not allow them to make a profit; instead, it will support the capacity and capability of local planning authorities and statutory bodies to carry out those processes, which in turn will encourage timely and high-quality inputs into the process.

The charges will apply to parts of the Highways Act associated with approving new roads, making changes to existing ones and making other legal orders necessary for highway projects. Furthermore, we will use a proportionate delegated power to ensure that cost recovery and the provision of services remain flexible and responsive in the light of changing circumstances over time, such as inflation.

The clause will bring the Highways Act into line with cost recovery provisions established under other infrastructure consenting regimes. By resourcing the input from critical stakeholders, this power will contribute to the acceleration of highway infrastructure project delivery, supporting the Government's economic growth mission now and in the future. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome clause 25, and I welcome the Minister to his position. He has a lot to live up to after those clauses, and I will continue to be nice to him. I say well done also to the other Minister for the constructive way he has been working on this Committee. Opposition Members do appreciate that. Because we are not stupid, we realise it is sometimes a challenge to win votes. Although the votes we undertake here are closer than the ones on the Floor of the House of Commons, let that not be an encouragement to us to call more.

As I said, we welcome clause 25, which allows public authorities to charge fees for services related to specific highway schemes. None the less, some clarity is needed on several points. While recovering costs is reasonable, the clause must be carefully implemented with safeguards to ensure fairness, accessibility and consistency across England and Wales.

The Minister has stated that this is a reserved matter for certain statutory bodies and local planning authorities, but will he outline how this goes with his perfectly admirable stance on devolution? Will he look to allow new combined authorities and mayoralties to take on some of the powers, or is he planning for them to be devolved even further, to mayoral authorities coming on stream rapidly from the Department under this Government? We would like some clarity on how he sees the powers being amended once local authorities and some of those statutory bodies no longer exist or are reformed.

Has the Minister considered the impact of the fees on small developers, charities and community groups? Could they create barriers or delays in any process? Will there be provisions allowing fee waivers or reductions for certain applications, such as for community-led or rural projects? How will disputes about fee fairness be resolved, and will there be an appeals process? What guidance will there be to ensure consistency in fee application across regions, to avoid significant variations from one local authority or statutory body to another? Finally, could the fees delay or discourage essential infrastructure development, especially in areas with planning capacity challenges?

[Lewis Cocking]

I have a few comments, although I support the principle of this provision. There is not enough capacity in some planning departments, so I agree that fee cost recovery and some of the additional fees, particularly those relating to highways matters, are really important for local authorities, but I have a few questions. When will the money be paid? Will it be paid before the development has started, so there is capacity in the system? People sometimes make planning applications and get planning permissions but do not actually build out the development, so will the fees still need to be paid in those cases?

I have some concerns that I would like the Minister to comment on. Some authorities still have section 106 agreements, and I am concerned that developers will just move money from those section 106 agreements—money that is to be put into education or healthcare, for example—by saying in a viability assessment that they now have to pay these fees to the local authorities, particularly around highways. How can we stop it being the same money, just moved around? These fees should be additional to the money from section 106 agreements that the council was already getting, as they are going directly into capacity issues within planning departments. I am worried that developers will try to play games by just moving the same money around the system or cutting the same pie in a different way, which will not help local authorities. I would like to hear the Minister’s response to those comments, but I wholeheartedly support what the Government are trying to do in this specific case.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome both the broad support for the intent behind the clause and the very reasonable questions that have been put to me by members of the Committee. To be very clear, because we have strayed into pavement applications, section 106 applications and other things, this clause very specifically relates to allowing local authorities and statutory consultees to recover the costs that they incur when providing services on highway-related applications only. We may discuss later some of the other matters and the general position of planning authorities and the challenges they face in capacity and capability. I just wanted to make that point.

All the clause does is bring the Highways Act 1980 into line with the cost recovery provisions established under other infrastructure consenting regimes. It is broadly accepted that we need to support local planning authorities and statutory consultees to process applications in a timely manner. We think that will drive high-quality and timely—

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will address the hon. Member’s point, if he will wait, and then he is more than welcome to come back in. As I said, it help to drive timely and high-quality inputs into the process, which will speed up the delivery of highway infrastructure projects and avoid extra costs. This is an important point to make: there are costs associated with the fact that applications are not taken through in a timely manner. If they are delayed or time out, that can result in design changes or the process to reach a decision being extended, which brings extra costs. In general terms, we want to ensure, as with many of the provisions in the Bill, a more streamlined, certain and faster consenting process.

It will be for the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to set out in regulations those bodies that are able to charge the fees; they may include bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England. Regulations and guidance will set out in more detail what advice and information will be covered by the cost recovery process, as well as other matters, including how fees are calculated, when fees can and cannot be charged and the point at which fees are charged.

We will get into separate issues relating to build out, but to respond gently to the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, I cannot see how a very specific highways-related application will necessarily bleed over into section 106 negotiations. None the less, I will reflect on that point, as we do not want cost recovery provisions in the clause to allow developers to reduce section 106 contributions on the basis that they are having to pay this charge. As I said, delegated powers will ensure that the cost recovery power is future-proofed by ensuring that it is flexible enough to account for changes, not least in inflation, which we have discussed before.

[Lewis Cocking]

I completely understand where the Minister is coming from on specific applications just for roads. I suppose my comments were related to new towns or garden villages, where there will be lots of facets to those applications—house building, new roads and what have you. I therefore welcome the Minister’s comments on the fact that he will look at those issues that I have raised.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I certainly will do so, and, just to stress the point once again, what we are trying to do here and in a number of other clauses in this chapter is broadly about bringing the processes under the Highways Act 1980 and the Transport and Works Act 1992 into line with other consenting regimes. As I said, in this case, it is about ensuring that cost recovery provisions established under those other infrastructure consenting regimes apply in the case of the Highways Act. However, I certainly will be more than happy to reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s point, and on those made by other members of the Committee. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Power of strategic highways company in relation to trunk roads

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 26 will allow National Highways to handle the majority of the administrative actions for creating or changing the status of a trunk road. As I am sure all Committee members are aware a section 10 order under the Highways Act is used to designate or declassify a road as a trunk road.

Trunk roads are major routes in our highways network that are managed by National Highways instead of local authorities. Having the power to make a road a trunk road is an essential step in ensuring that key roads are maintained at the national level. Trunk roads perform an important role in enabling safe, reliable and often long-distance journeys by both people and goods between our major towns and cities, and provide access to our international gateways.

The current system places much of the process for handling requirements of these section 10 orders—namely their preparation and publicity—on the Secretary of State, rather than the highways body itself. Clause 26 will simply transfer the administrative control of the application from the Secretary of State to the strategic highways authority—National Highways. It will also align the handling process with the way in which applications under other parts of the Highways Act are currently managed.

I stress that the Secretary of State will remain the ultimate decision maker on the application. However, by removing the administrative burden from the Secretary of State, clause 26 will create a more efficient process, which we believe will lead to faster decisions on new and upgraded trunk roads. This will help to deliver road improvements more quickly, support economic growth, enhance transport links and reduce congestion.

[Paul Holmes]

On that point—depending on the Minister’s answer, I may not have to make a speech and detain the Committee—the Minister has outlined that the strategic highways authority is National Highways; does he envisage that for some roads, particularly across England, the county council is the strategic highway authority, and will have to apply the section 10 changes? Is he not worried that, because of the financial implications for some county councils—regardless of politics—there could be a kind of enticement for people to get rid of some of the strategic parts of their local road networks? It may be a complete lack of understanding on my part, but could the Minister outline whether county councils could be included in some of that process?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister about the role of county authorities in managing the highway network, and how the Highways Act and the consenting regime applies to them. I do not think his point is pertinent in this respect, in the sense that the clause transfers administrative functions related to section 10 orders under the Highways Act from the Secretary of State purely to National Highways. It does not change the legal decision-making authority, which remains the Secretary of State’s, but the administrative burden, in terms of the final preparation, publishing and consultation of the necessary documents, would be done by the applicant—National Highways. But I am more than happy to provide the shadow Minister with further detail about the interaction with county authorities.

[Paul Holmes]

Please do not write to me on that. I say that not to offend officials but because I do not want them overworked and the Minister has clearly outlined what he means, for which I am grateful. The question was obviously to clarify my understanding of the legislation. I asked it because I just wondered whether strategic highways authority included county councils. My county council controls a large number of roads, and I wondered whether it was enveloped under the proposal—under the meaning of strategic highways authority. The Minister has answered that, and I am perfectly content not to make a speech.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I very much welcome that intervention, as will my officials, I am sure. It saves them a letter—although letters may be forthcoming in the course of debate if we require further detail on very technical points. I will just stress the point again: I think the confusion lies in the fact that section 10 orders apply only to National Highways, if the shadow Minister needs reassurance in that regard. But broadly, these are procedural changes that just allow, as I have said, the administrative burden to be transferred from the Secretary of State to National Highways.

[David Simmonds]

Just to pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister—again, at the risk of placing officials in need of writing a letter—we can consider London, where we have Transport for London, Highways England and various other agencies or companies that manage the miles and stretches of those motorways. Very close to my constituency we have the M40/A4 motorway, which is literally the same road but transfers from being a Highways England road to a TfL road at the boundary of Greater London. There could be significant issues where, for example, local authorities that are responsible for neighbouring roads would need to be consulted, so I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify, particularly in respect of where we have TfL, red routes and things like that, all of which I think would be within the scope of the clause, that that has been fully considered so that we can ensure that we do not see unnecessary friction as a result.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not think that in any circumstances we would see friction on elements where the Secretary of State remains the body that takes forward the administrative process. I cannot envisage a way in which that would cause friction. Just to be very clear, a section 10 order under the Highways Act is used to designate or declassify a road as a trunk road. That is action carried out by National Highways, as I have said. We simply want it to take the administrative actions for creating or changing the status of a trunk road. I am more than happy to write to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—apologies to my officials —on this administrative change as to who takes on those actions, namely National Highways rather than the Secretary of State, and how that interacts, which I think was his point, with the boundary of roads managed by the Greater London Authority, which is not covered by this clause of the Bill.

[David Simmonds]

I am just reflecting on my experience as a councillor in local government. There are often disputes. For example, the creation or designation of a red route clearway as a trunk road removes all parking along the length of that route and also affects things like bus services along it, so there are situations in which there may be a difference of opinion between a local authority, which is the current manager or administrator of the route, and a trunk road manager, who wishes to designate it as such for the benefit of an infrastructure project but clearly will not be subject to the consequences that that would have for bus routes, parking and other issues under the ambit of the local authority. I am just looking for clarity that there is a process by which those issues will be resolved and that there will be a relevant level of consultation, so that the kind of tensions that we saw around low traffic neighbourhoods with a dispute between Transport for London and a local authority about what was going on in a local area are not replicated.

[The Chair]

I remind everybody of the tightness of the parameters within which we need to keep this debate. Otherwise the Committee will have to find another day to sit. By no means do I want to stifle debate, but it is also up to the Minister to allow interventions or not.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think we will all know where to place the blame if that scenario arises—we will not need to add an extra day.

I gently say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, that he is comparing apples and pears. To be as clear as I possibly can be, all the requirements set down in the legislation in respect of preparing and publishing materials, and the fact that the Secretary of State remains the decision maker, remain in place. The clause purely changes the body overseeing the administrative actions associated with those applications. On that basis, I think this is a fairly uncontroversial procedural change. We have committed to write to the hon. Gentleman about any possible interactions with the Greater London Authority’s management of red routes. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Deadlines for consultation and decisions on certain orders and schemes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 27 will reduce the objection period for applications under the Highways Act 1980 from six weeks to 30 days. Such applications could be for the construction of new roads, changes to existing ones and other necessary legal orders for delivering highway infrastructure. The objection period refers to the timeframe during which interested parties can view application materials and provide comments.

Reducing the objection period will speed up the consenting process without sacrificing the safeguards that are essential for the fair consideration of objections. An objection period of 30 days aligns with the relevant objection periods for other transport consenting regimes, such as the Planning Act 2008. Again, I draw the shadow Ministers’ attention to the fact that, as per the previous clauses, we intend to align the Highways Act provisions with those in other consenting regimes, to provide for a more uniform arrangement across the piece.

Additionally, the clause will introduce a 10-week deadline for the Secretary of State to make decisions on these schemes and orders. Currently, there are no statutory deadlines for the decision-making stage for the relevant processes, unlike in other consenting regimes, such as the Planning Act 2008. Bringing the Highways Act into alignment with other consenting regimes will improve certainty and the efficiency of the process. The power for the Secretary of State to extend the decision deadline, if necessary, ensures flexibility in cases where additional time may be required.

By shortening the objection period and setting a clear decision timeframe, the clause makes the process more predictable for all stakeholders. Faster, more predictable decisions will result in more efficient delivery of transport infrastructure projects, contributing to better transport networks. We think this change strikes the right balance between improving speed and maintaining fairness, ensuring that the process remains transparent and accountable. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

May I say, Mrs Hobhouse, that you are absolutely on fire? We are getting through things very quickly, and I will adhere to your instructions.

The clause updates the objection and decision-making timelines under the Highways Act 1980. Although the goal is to align with other planning regimes, several concerns remain. First, the clause reduces the objection period in England to a minimum of 30 days, but maintains it at six weeks in Wales. What justifies that discrepancy? Should there not be consistency across all authorities?

Furthermore, is it not the case that reducing the objection period may limit the time available for affected parties to prepare responses? I know that this is outside the remit of this very prescriptive clause, but many constituents will say that they did not get the letter or see the things that were posted, or that local people simply were not able to see things. I really think that this 30-day restriction will harm many average Joes—I hate that term, but I do not know how else to put it. People out there, who have busy lives, busy jobs and families, and who are working on their daily lives, will really struggle, in the first place, to see things within 30 days. However, they will also not know that the period is now 30 days and may therefore not be consulted on some of the actions that authorities may take.

I ask the Minister to assess whether 30 days is the right length of time. I am not talking about having an unrestricted length of time for consultation, and we absolutely need to make sure, if we want to deliver on some of these policies, that the timeframe is reasonable. However, I question whether 30 days is far too rapid and will cause more harm than good to the consultation rights of the British public. I would also ask what systems will be in place to notify stakeholders of deadline changes and extensions in individual cases, to ensure clear and accessible communication.

I have a last question. While the intent of the clause is to streamline processes, we must ensure fairness, transparency and quality decision making, allowing stakeholders to engage meaningfully. We absolutely accept that there is currently no statutory deadline. Ten weeks is adequate, but on the 30 days element of the consultation period, when we think about people out there with busy lives, I think could cause a huge problem for democratic accountability and for the transparency of the system in allowing local people to have their say. I ask the Minister to look at that 30 days again, but we will not press the clause to a Division.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for his response and questions. Again, I make the point that with a number of these provisions we are trying to align the Highways Act with other consenting regimes. I do not know whether his position is that the statutory objection period in those other consenting regimes—for example, the Planning Act 2008—should be lengthened. I would argue that such an extension would add time and complexity. We think that should be brought into line with the others.

We think that 30 days is the appropriate period, that the existing arrangements, which set out a period of not less than six weeks, are too long, and that we should bring the Highways Act into line with the other regimes. On that basis, we do not think that the clause sets a precedent for the shortening of objection periods, because objection periods of about four weeks, as I have said, can be found in other infrastructure consenting regimes. That is an adequate period of time in which to submit objections.

The shadow Minister asked another, separate question about the Secretary of State’s ability to extend deadlines from the 10-week period. Again, in any such instances, the Secretary of State would need to send written notice of the extension to the relevant parties in those cases, setting out why an extension is required. I hope that on that basis the shadow Minister is reassured about the use of that particular part of the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Procedure for certain orders and schemes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The clause seeks to address the fact that under the existing system, a statutory instrument is required to approve applications under sections 16 and 106(3) of the Highways Act, and for orders under section 10, which are made by the Highways Authority in the form of a draft statutory instrument, whereas a simpler confirmation process exists for other applications under that Act.

An SI is currently required for applications to make or unmake a trunk road or special road, to construct a special road, or to build a road bridge over or road tunnel under navigable waters. Those statutory instruments are not subject to any parliamentary procedure, but they take extra time to prepare. That represents an unnecessary and disproportionate burden of bureaucracy in our view.

As I have mentioned, the Highways Act already contains a quicker process for confirming other types of application via a confirmation document issued by the Department for Transport. The clause will simply allow the applications to which I have referred to be confirmed via a confirmation document issued by the Department. In short, that again aligns the handling processes across the relevant parts of the Highways Act. That will support the Government’s goal of speeding up the consenting of transport infrastructure by streamlining the process.

To maintain transparency in the decision-making process, the clause ensures that a confirmation notice must be published in the public domain. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Compulsory acquisition powers to include taking of temporary possession

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The clause concerns compulsory acquisition powers in relation to projects undertaken under the Highways Act 1980. No clear provision is currently available to allow Highways Act project promoters to temporarily use and possess land, such as for construction purposes, by compulsion. In lieu of such a provision, if a project promoter cannot come to a commercial agreement with the landowner or owners for a licence to access the land required, the project promoter will typically apply for powers of compulsory acquisition to enable it to buy and use the land. That approach is disproportionate when the land is needed only temporarily for construction purposes. Additionally, the current arrangement offers the landowner no legal right to regain their land.

The intention of the clause is to provide clarity that project promoters, under the Highways Act 1980 regime, can temporarily use and possess land by compulsion. It does so by introducing a clear and proportionate legal power to require authorities that have already identified a piece of land as necessary for the planned construction of the proposed highway works to temporarily use land when they cannot reach agreement with the landowner, while also protecting landowner rights to regain their land and support compensation mechanisms.

By reducing legal ambiguity, the power will help to shorten often protracted land negotiations, speeding up the process to submit an application for highways works, ultimately thereby delivering transport projects quicker. In doing so, it will contribute to the Government’s ambition to simplify the consenting of major transport infrastructure projects.

[David Simmonds]

Broadly speaking, the Opposition support the intention set out in the clause. Improving the efficiency of such works is clearly a very logical step. Could the Minister say a little more about how the power will interact with the powers and duties that apply to statutory undertakers? I am thinking, for example, of where it is necessary to divert a gas main or water main, or other significant infrastructure, where there are already legal rights in place that can be used for that purpose. An issue we are all familiar with is the disruption caused to transport networks when major works are being undertaken. Will there be a process for ensuring a degree of co-ordination? Will there be a requirement or expectation for consultation so that, where a highways body wishes to undertake that work, it can possibly be co-ordinated with the work of other statutory undertakers involved in the same project, to minimise the disruption?

Will there be an assurance that that process will provide for an appropriate level of compensation for the landowner whose land is being taken temporarily, as that often seems to be a source of dispute? This should not become a back-door way by which a highways agency, as the lead body, says, “We are going to take that at no recompense,” rather than going through a process of negotiation to achieve an agreed sum in respect of the loss of amenity to the owner of the land.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for that contribution and I recognise the reasonable concern he raises. If he will allow me, because it is a very technical aspect of the Bill, I will write to him with full details of how we see this power working, particularly in respect of compensation measures. I think his remarks recognised that the present arrangements do not provide the necessary certainty for landowners that they can regain their land. They force applicants to use disproportionate powers. We are trying, through the clause, to provide certainty that there is a way to take possession of land temporarily when required.

It is worth saying that there is a temporary possession power in the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017. It is a different mechanism; it has not yet been enacted. We are trying to achieve a fairly simple clarification through the Bill, which will not require us to enact powers that are above and beyond what is required under the simplification to which the clause gives effect. It is an uncontroversial procedural change that will make the process more certain and efficient for both parties and provide them with reassurances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30

Replacement of model clauses with guidance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clauses 30 to 41 make various amendments to the Transport and Works Act 1992. I would hope that the Committee has a shared recognition that that Act of Parliament needs to be more efficient for applicants applying for transport infrastructure schemes such as new railways or tramways in England and Wales. This will allow transport infrastructure projects to be delivered as efficiently as possible, providing faster decisions and support economic growth.

Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales the power to move template model clauses from legislation into guidance. The model clauses are intended to streamline the drafting of Transport and Works Act orders, but they can currently only be amended through secondary legislation. Setting them out in more flexible guidance, rather than legislation, will allow them to be updated more regularly via a more efficient and faster process. That supports the Bill’s aim of simplifying and streamlining transport rules, ensuring that we have a more efficient legal framework moving forward. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

Removal of special procedure for projects of national significance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope that on this clause, at least, we can avoid detailed questioning by the Opposition, because there is nothing with which issue can be taken. It is a simple tidying up of the statute book. The Transport and Works Act requires updating to reflect the wider changes that are to be implemented in the planning sector. It was, as I have mentioned, given Royal Assent in 1992.

The purpose of clause 31 is simply to remove a redundant section of the Transport and Works Act, which refers to schemes considered to be “of national significance”. Since the Planning Act 2008 was introduced as the consenting regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects, with clearly defined thresholds for what is considered “of national significance”, it has effectively rendered that part of the Transport and Works Act entirely redundant.

The effect of the clause is a simple procedural fix. By removing outdated references, the clause will make it easier for developers and public bodies to understand and apply the law, while also reducing administrative burdens. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[David Simmonds]

Throughout proceedings on the Bill, we have flagged up the important point that is highlighted by subsection (3), namely the lack of retrospective application. I would like the Minister’s response on a point that is of concern to the Opposition. There is always a risk that powers that are due to expire will be used and exploited in advance of new legislation coming in. What measures does the Minister have in mind to ensure that that does not turn into a problem?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for his question. As ever with his points, it was well made. I will go away and reflect on it, but I struggle to see how the use of the clauses we are considering in the Transport and Works Act—as I have said, they have been rendered entirely redundant since they were superseded by provisions in the Planning Act 2008 that clearly define thresholds for what is deemed to be nationally significant infrastructure —give rise to the challenge that he posits.

[David Simmonds]

The Minister has served on a planning Committee, and he will be aware of the challenges that arise where, for example, a historical permission is secured on which a developer subsequently seeks to rely. It is clear that the intention is, quite rightly, to remove those redundant clauses. The concern I am highlighting is that when permission rights have arisen under the clauses that have been made redundant and a developer later relies on them, we must ensure that the process is effectively managed.

[Matthew Pennycook]

If I have understood the point correctly—I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister and set this out in detail, but he can intervene if I have not got this right—the challenge is about applicants who in the past have relied on the provisions of the Transport and Works Act 1992 that we are today arguing are redundant, and how permissions obtained on that basis prior to the Planning Act 2008 interact with the changes in the clause. It is essentially a concern about retrospection in relation to the clause.

[David Simmonds]

We are zeroing in on the issue that I seek to highlight. The statement in subsection (3) says that the clause does

“not apply in relation to an application in respect of which a notice”

has been made

“before this section comes into force.”

Early on in his remarks, the Minister referred to sections of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 that have not come into force, eight years after they underwent scrutiny in a Committee like this one and Parliament passed them. This clause may not come into force for some considerable time after we debate it in Committee and the Bill becomes law—indeed, it may never come into force. If the previous legislation remains the relevant legislation for an extended period, or if a developer sees advantage in securing a permission now, under the previous legislation, before the new measures take its place, do we have an appropriate process for dealing with that?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I understand the point, but I think the shadow Minister is conflating an application under the relevant provisions in the Transport and Works Act and what the clause seeks to clarify, which is when schemes are considered to be of national importance. As I said, with the Planning Act 2008, we have an Act of Parliament that provides very clear thresholds for when schemes are considered of national importance.

I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister with further detail, but I think he raises a valid point. We think the redundant section 9 should be removed from the Transport and Works Act to give developers and public bodies clarity on how the law should be applied going forward, while also reducing administrative burdens. The easiest way—mindful of your strictures, Mrs Hobhouse—to move the Committee on and ensure that we can debate important clauses later in the Bill is for me to commit to writing to the shadow Minister with exhaustive detail on that point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Duty to hold inquiry or hearing

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 33 stand part.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clauses 32 and 33 relate to public inquiries under the Transport and Works Act. Clause 32 will amend the circumstances in which an objection is considered to an application under that Act. Currently, if an objection is raised to an application under the Act, a public inquiry or hearing can be required to be held, even if the objection is deemed to lack substance. That can result in costly and lengthy public inquiries taking place, even where objections lack merit.

The length of the inquiry process can range greatly depending on the complexity of what is being examined, from six months to two years. Clause 32 will mean that a public inquiry is held only when an objection is raised that is considered by the determining authority to be serious enough to merit such treatment. A streamlined process for considering objections saves time and cost for applicants. All objections will continue to be decided—I want to stress this point—entirely on the merits of the arguments put forward. This not about removing the voices of individuals or communities; instead, it ensures that the objections process remains proportionate, so serious objections are given due attention.

Clause 33 makes amendments to section 11 of the Transport and Works Act regarding decisions on costs arising from a public inquiry. It will enable an inspector conducting the public inquiry to make decisions on those costs, unless the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers direct that a cost decision is to be determined by them. Currently, the inspector must write a report with recommendations of costs to the Secretary of State based on the conduct of parties taking part in the public inquiry. That approach contrasts with the Planning Act 2008, where cost decisions are made by the examining authority.

By delegating the decision-making capability to the inspector conducting the inquiry, we will ensure that claims are resolved more quickly for all stakeholders. That will reduce administrative burden in determining such cases and save time, helping to deliver transport infrastructure more efficiently. The Secretary of State in England, and Welsh Ministers in Wales, will retain the ability to direct that a cost decision is to be determined by them should they not wish to delegate responsibility on a potentially contentious case. The clauses, as I have argued, will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and administrative burdens, helping to deliver transport infrastructure more efficiently. I commend them to the Committee.

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to query some of the provisions. We understand that the Government’s proposal would effectively remove the automatic right to call a public inquiry. The Minister knows we are concerned that the Bill seeks to remove people from the process, and to remove the opportunity for objections in the planning process. That is a very serious concern for us. The clause proposes a public inquiry only where the Secretary of State

“considers that the objection is serious enough”.

--- Later in debate ---

It would be useful to get clarification on what exactly the Government mean by “serious enough”. There is, if I recollect correctly, guidance for inspectors in the Town and Country Planning Act on when to decide to hold a public inquiry as opposed to an informal hearing, or to consider an appeal by written representations. It seems appropriate that if the clause is to be brought in, there should be some guidance and reassurance on what is considered serious enough, because the proposed test in the clause is extremely arbitrary.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Hopefully I can provide the hon. Gentleman with further clarification. I recognise and appreciate the valid concerns he raises. As things stand, it is not the case that any objection to an application of the kind we have described results in a public inquiry or hearing, but it can in many instances give rise to one.

For example, when an objection comes from a landowner whose land would be affected by compulsory purchase; when a local authority for the area concerned receives an objection that they do not consider frivolous or trivial; or when other concerns are raised that need to be considered, a public inquiry or hearing takes place. In many circumstances, that is appropriate. In others, it may be the case that an exchange of correspondence, for example, can achieve the same goal without the need for a lengthy and costly public inquiry. I hope that gives him some reassurance as to the type of circumstances—

[Gideon Amos]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am pre-empting what the hon. Member is going to intervene on, so I will finish making the point and he can come back to me. I hope he is reassured as to why we consider the change necessary, and the outcome that we are trying to achieve.

The hon. Member raises an entirely valid point about the fact that it will be for the Secretary of State for Transport to decide on a case-by-case basis when objections meet the test that he rightly reiterated. I will reflect on how we might provide further clarity, perhaps through guidance on the circumstances in which that test should be applied, but I recognise there is a fair challenge about what cases will come through this route.

I hope the hon. Member will recognise that the problem we are trying to resolve is that under certain circumstances, as things stand, a public inquiry or hearing can be triggered where it is not necessary, and there may be a far more proportionate way of moving things on and responding to objections—for example, in an exchange of correspondence. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman somewhat. As I have said, I am happy to reflect and come back to the Committee with further thoughts on this point.

[Gideon Amos]

I simply say that doing away with, effectively, an automatic right to a public inquiry in certain circumstances, as the Minister has clarified, and replacing that with the words “serious enough” is a big leap. I strongly encourage the Minister to put on record guidance on what relevant parties can expect will be considered serious enough to merit a public inquiry.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not have much more to add. There is a genuine problem with the current arrangements that we need to resolve. As I have said, in some circumstances a public inquiry or hearing is not necessary; things can be dealt with in other ways. Under the current arrangements, public inquiries and hearings can be triggered even if an objection is considered to be lacking in substance. That is onerous and disproportionate, but the hon. Gentleman raises a fair point about the basis on which the Secretary of State for Transport will determine whether the objection is of the relevant level of seriousness to require a public inquiry or hearing. I am more than happy to come back to him on that point in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

Deadline for decisions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to debate clause 35 stand part.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 34 provides a power for the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers to introduce statutory deadlines for the determination of Transport and Works Act order applications. Unlike other infra-structure consenting processes, the Transport and Works Act process does not have statutory timeframes to govern the duration of its decision stage, and that can lead to uncertainty and delays. The clause will bring it into alignment with other planning consenting processes, such as the Planning Act 2008 process, and introduce greater accountability of decision makers.

Clause 35 seeks to modernise the way decisions under the Transport and Works Act are communicated. It enables the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers to issue a notice online when publicising a decision on an application for a Transport and Works Act order and removes the requirement to publish the notice in the London Gazette. Moving to digital advertising will mean that notification of decisions can be done on the same day as decisions are finalised, which will ensure that there are no delays in communication and provide a more efficient service to interested parties. The clause also provides that any legal challenges must be filed within six weeks, starting the day after the notice is published, bringing the timeline in line with other consenting regimes.

By making use of modern technology, we will bring the Transport and Works Act into the 21st century, helping to speed up the process and deliver transport schemes more quickly. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Fees for certain services

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The clause allows the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales to make provision in regulations for public authorities—limited to certain statutory bodies and local planning authorities —to charge applicants for their services in connection with Transport and Works Act orders. Currently, public authorities cannot recover costs for this work, and that can lead to delays because of a lack of resourcing. The clause will apply to parts of the Act associated with approving the construction or operation of railways and tramways, externally guided buses, monorails and certain other types of guided transport.

Supporting the capacity and capability of local planning authorities and statutory bodies will encourage timely and high-quality inputs into the process, which will speed up the delivery of highways infrastructure projects. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome the clause and the clarification and certainty that the Minister has given, but I want to put some questions, along similar lines to those we have asked before, about transparency and limits or caps on the fees that authorities can charge.

We believe that without clear limits, there is a risk of inconsistent or excessive charges and a disproportionately wide range of fees across authorities. What mechanisms will be in place to allow applicants to challenge or appeal fees that they consider unreasonable? What impact does the Minister think this measure may have on smaller companies in the supply chain, which may be less able to absorb the costs that will be imposed? We do not disagree with the principle of the clause; we just have some questions about the detail.

Finally, how will the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers review or update the regulations? As costs and administrative practices evolve, it is crucial that the regulations are reassessed regularly to ensure that they remain fair, relevant and effective. Will the Minister remark briefly on that and on some of the smaller businesses that may be affected?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for those points. The clause only allows for the charging of fees for services on a cost-recovery basis. I think there is broad agreement across the Committee that cost recovery for applications is a fair and proportionate way to proceed. Organisations will not be—

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

We were discussing clause 36 and I was attempting to reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, that his concerns were unfounded. We were discussing fees charged by particular public bodies for providing services associated with Transport and Works Act 1992 orders.

As I made clear, the power is subject to delegated procedures, ensuring that it is flexible enough to account for any changes in the provision of services in the future. I reassure the shadow Minister that the power allows for the charging of fees for services only on a cost-recovery basis. The regulations will set out any required safeguards, just as there are safeguards in place in regulations that relate to the charging of fees by authorities on nationally significant infrastructure project cases, for example. Subsection (4) makes it clear that applicants will be required to have regard to guidance that will provide detail.

The shadow Minister asked me about two specific points. On appeals, there is no set appeals process for the fees charging system, other than the ultimate recourse to judicial review on the basis that the fees charged to do not comply with the forthcoming regulations or are irrational. On small businesses, I recognise that there is potential constraint as some applicants for Transport and Works Act orders may be smaller businesses, such as heritage railway operators, and it may be harder for them to absorb costs, but I reiterate my previous point that the delays in the system that we currently experience are not cost free. We feel strongly that the benefits of the change proposed by clause 36 outweigh the disadvantages of extra costs, even for smaller applicants. On that basis, I hope the shadow Minister is reassured and I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Disapplication of heritage regimes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The purpose of clause 37 is to remove the need for Transport and Works Act order applicants to apply to multiple consenting authorities for separate authorisation requirements under relevant heritage regimes in England and Wales, such as listed buildings and scheduled monument consents. Instead, the clause provides for the consolidation of the application process for certain heritage authorisations, so that they can be obtained through the Transport and Works Act itself. I must make clear that it is for applicants to determine whether they want to proceed on the basis of existing arrangements, namely consulting multiple consenting authorities, or whether they want to obtain those consents through the Transport and Works Act itself, in which instance the Secretary of State for Transport would need to confirm that that could be undertaken via that route. The consents would be obtained as part of the TWA order process and the decision-making process that pertains to it.

In making this change, as with other changes that we have made in this part of the Bill, we would bring the Transport and Works Act order process in line with the Planning Act 2008, which provides a one-stop shop development consent order process for major infrastructure. To ensure proper oversight is maintained throughout the amended process, applicants will still need to consult the relevant consenting authorities before applying. I commend this clause to the Committee.

Schedule 2 amends the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as a result of the changes made by clause 37 of the Bill. As I have just set out, clause 37 enables an order under the Transport and Works Act to obtain certain consents through the Act itself, rather than requiring separate applications to each relevant consenting authority. Schedule 2 disapplies offences that would otherwise arise from proceeding without those consents or authorisations. The inclusion of this power is a prudent, practical and reasonable step to take to ensure the most efficient legal framework moving forward. I commend the schedule to the Committee.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. The Opposition broadly understand the direction of travel that the Minister has set out and the principles underlying it are clearly quite sensible.

Will the Minister give us a degree of assurance, particularly about the process for determining the circumstances in which the authorities that are listed and the circumstances that are listed may be set aside? That is significant because significant infrastructure developments are often close to heritage railway buildings and historic sites where there will be a legitimate expectation from both local authorities and residents that a proper consultation will be undertaken.

We know that, in the past, the effect of that regime has been that in many cases developers, in places such as Royal Quay in my own constituency in Harefield, have chosen to put historic buildings back into use for a new purpose. For example, formerly industrial buildings connected with Victorian transport networks could be used for residential development, rather than simply demolishing and clearing the sites and losing that heritage asset in the process.

It would be helpful to understand how we will ensure, through the regime as set out, that those considerations are fully taken into account. I appreciate that we will debate the green belt later on, but there is significant interaction in the Bill between the different types of regime that apply, and we have already had much debate about the green belt and the grey belt.

I am aware that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government yesterday issued a decision with respect to a site just north of London, and the effect of her determination is that any land on a transport corridor located between, for example, a motorway and a village, even if it is currently in the green belt, will be considered to be grey belt for the purposes of developability. That will clearly have a significant impact in similar situations in locations with a significant heritage element that are close to railways, motorways and other such transport networks that would potentially, from a developer point of view, benefit from swifter development without a consultation being undertaken. However, from the perspective of local residents and the wider community concerned about heritage and land use, they are losing the opportunity to have this.

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

I rise to speak either against the clause or in favour of amendment 7, which is in my name. I am not sure which, but I am sure you can advise me, Ms Jardine. We have significant concerns about the clause, and I will spend a few minutes on them as it is, perhaps, more serious than it first appears. The clause would disapply the need for listed building consent, conservation area consent, scheduled ancient monument consent and notices for works on land of archaeological importance from Transport and Works Act projects.

Our heritage has benefitted from protection under criminal law since Lord Avebury in the Liberal Government brought in the Ancient Monuments Protection Act in 1882. The Act provides that anyone who damages a monument commits an offence punishable by imprisonment

“with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding one month”.

That protection, and much of the wording in that Act, has survived, and the relevant wording remains in the main and principle Acts for listed buildings: the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. My suggestion is that this is not the time to remove such strong statutory protection and criminal sanction from measures to protect ancient monuments and listed buildings.

I appreciate that the Government, in their memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, say that the approach is similar, but not as wide as the Planning Act 2008 approach, which the Minister has mentioned, and I fully understand the single consenting regime objective. It would be narrower in some ways because, in the proposed Transport and Works Act approach, it could be possible to be more selective about which measures are disapplied. However, the Planning Act 2008 approach is very different, because regulations made under it enshrine those same legal tests that go back decades—and, in some cases, centuries—so that they remain on the statute book and applicants under that Act still must comply with them.

If our country’s heritage is worthy of protection under criminal law, as the Liberal Democrats believe that it is, the same tests should surely be applied under the Transport and Works Act as under other legislation. Those are long-standing tests. In relation to listed buildings, the wording that many in the sector will know is that we must have

“special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest”.

Those words ring down the years. For scheduled ancient monuments, the requirement was to have regard to the “desirability of preserving” the scheduled monument or its setting and, in conservation areas,

“to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.”

Those are familiar words that, as I say, ring through legislation over many years. They should not be removed from the Transport and Works Act process altogether, which this clause would do. These are central principles of heritage protection that have lasted decades, if not centuries. The Government may point out that, as they say in the explanatory notes, section 12(3A) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 remains in place, which provides:

“An application for listed building consent shall, without any direction by the Secretary of State, be referred to the Secretary of State instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority in any case where the consent is required”.

Although that section is referred to, it does not apply here, because consent is not required. All the requirements for consent are disapplied by the clause in this Bill, so there would be no recourse to consent under that route.

Our recommendation is that the important statutory tests be repeated in the legislation for Transport and Works Act projects, just as they are for all other projects, including in regulations made under the Planning Act 2008.

Many heritage organisations share our concerns. The National Trust says:

“We have serious concerns regarding the scope of Clause 37 of the Bill which seeks to disapply existing heritage regimes. This clause enables Transport and Works Act 1992 orders to disapply authorisation”

for listed buildings, and so on. It continues,

“we have strong concerns about the possible disapplication of heritage regimes for transport infrastructure developments. There is a risk that this could enable harm to heritage assets without proper scrutiny and go further than the stated ambition of the Bill.”

The Heritage Alliance has stated:

“Until greater clarity and detail is forthcoming from government, we continue to have significant concerns regarding its potential to cause…unintended harm to heritage assets.”

Even the Government’s own agency, Historic England has said:

“Whilst the clause provides discretionary powers for the Secretary of State on whether to disapply the legislative provisions relating to heritage, as drafted there is a lack of clarity as to how and when this discretion would be applied. This risks resulting in uncertainty and inconsistency, which would undermine the policy intention…In addition, the disapplication of the legislative provisions for heritage does not provide any equivalent safeguards for the protection of heritage in relation to the authorisation and enforcement provisions for listed buildings and scheduled monuments, as exists at present”

in legislation. It goes on:

“The clause, as currently proposed, would therefore result in a weakening of heritage protection.”

It concludes that

“the current wording of Clause 37 may not actually deliver the policy intention of streamlining planning decisions, whilst having the unintended consequence of reducing heritage protection.”

In short, we are very concerned about the removal of such long-standing legal protections for our heritage. In our view, they must be put back on the statute book in one way or another.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate the comments from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Let me go over some of the points I have made to reinforce them, but also to respond directly to the challenges raised.

I think the principle of the one-stop-shop DCO process for major infrastructure is accepted as a beneficial aspect of the NSIP regime. We think allowing Transport and Works Act orders to take that holistic approach to all the consents required has merit. It would provide more certainty for applicants and ensure that some timelines and requirements were reduced, therefore benefiting the speed of the process. I very much recognise the concerns raised about heritage protections. The shadow Minister will forgive me for not commenting on a decision made by the Secretary of State, not least in the period when it is potentially still challengeable, but I note his concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I urge him to consider regulations. That is the approach under the Planning Act 2008, which has worked and ensures that the Secretary of State for Transport will have to apply the same tests that local planning authorities’ inspectors and the Secretary of State have to apply under the 2008 Act. They have to apply their central and historical tests—ironically they are historical tests for historic parts of our heritage and should be retained. We strongly urge the Government to consider regulation in that regard. I am grateful that he has indicated he will consider that, no doubt among other options. We believe it should be statutory. On the basis of the assurance given, we will not press the matter to a vote.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. We will certainly go away and reflect, because it is broadly our intention to ensure that the Transport and Works Act is brought into line with other consenting regimes, not least the Planning Act regime and how that operates in respect of some of these protections. I commit to give him an answer by Report stage, either in terms of changes we think are necessary or reassurance that we do not think changes are necessary. One way or another, I will get him a clear answer on his, as I said, fair and reasonable challenge.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 38

Deemed consent under marine licence

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 38 allows Transport and Works Act orders to include a deemed marine licence for projects in UK waters, where a separate authorisation is currently required. That removes the need for a separate application to the Marine Management Organisation, or MMO. It allows for a single process, again similar to the Planning Act 2008, which already allows deemed marine licences. Applicants will still need to consult the MMO before applying, ensuring that proper oversight remains in place.

The MMO will continue to enforce marine licence conditions under existing powers. This is another change that we believe creates efficiencies and removes duplication. As I have said, it aligns the Transport and Works Act with the Planning Act 2008 process, making it simpler and quicker for transport projects that involve marine areas. A streamlined approval process will save time and costs for applicants while maintaining important environmental safeguards. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. The Opposition wholly understand the intention behind clause 38, but I want to ask the Minister a quick question. How will enforcement responsibilities be co-ordinated to prevent confusion between the MMO and other authorities involved in Transport and Works Act orders? I accept that the core of the Bill, for good or bad, is to streamline and ensure the Government deliver their objectives quicker than at present, but can the Minister reaffirm that he is wholly assured, in line with his officials’ advice, that streamlining the process will not compromise environmental protections?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I can provide the hon. Gentleman with that assurance. In terms of enforcement, I assure the hon. Gentleman that if consent is granted under the Transport and Works Act, any breaches of marine licence will continue to be dealt with by the Marine Management Organisation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

Authorisation of applications by local authorities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 39 removes the requirement that exists at present for a second local authority resolution after submitting a Transport and Works Act application, making the process faster and simpler. Currently, local authorities must achieve a majority vote from their local authority members both before and after submission of an application. Key stakeholders told us during the development of the Bill that the second resolution is unnecessarily bureaucratic and causes delays. Removing it will cut red tape and speed up transport projects. This is a simple and, I hope, uncontroversial clause, and I commend it to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

We agree with the Government on clause 39. However, if local authority members need to give a majority vote on the first round, it makes the Minister’s claim that the measure will reduce bureaucracy seem a tad overstretched. We will not press the clause to a Division, but circumstances do change between the first and the second resolution. With great respect to the Minister, it is a bit of a stretch to say that simply not putting the second resolution on the agenda of a full council meeting or committee will overwhelmingly reduce bureaucracy. On that point, as well as on the slight undermining of transparency, we seek reassurance from the Minister.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for that point. In no way am I implying that in a committee meeting, the process of putting hands up on another vote is itself onerous. What are onerous are the delays that can be caused by the need simply to reaffirm a vote that has already taken place. The Government think this is a simple and proportionate change to ensure that the Transport and Works Act is modernised appropriately.

As I hope the Committee saw this morning, the Transport and Works Act, which is over 30 years old, needs to be brought up to date and into line with other consenting regimes. Clause 39 deals with just another example of an element of that Act that requires addressing. All interested parties in a Transport and Works Act project will be able to make representations as they do now—the process will continue as it does now, but without the need for the second resolution.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Extension to Scotland of certain amendments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 41 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

This is another example of the way in which the Transport and Works Act needs to be tidied up, because there are currently unnecessary legal duplications. We want to address those, and that is what clauses 40 and 41 do. Previous regulations under the Act applied only to England and Wales. That created dual versions of certain Transport and Works Act provisions —one for England and Wales, and another for Scotland. Clause 40 removes the duplication by extending provision to Scotland so that there is only one consistent version of the text. This is a simple procedural fix. Scotland does not use the Transport and Works Act, so the change has no practical impact there. It simply ensures clearer legislation with no unnecessary duplication.

Reducing duplication makes the law clearer and easier to apply, and simpler to understand for all applicants. It also reduces complexity for legal and policy teams, making future updates faster and more efficient. This supports the Bill’s aim of simplifying and streamlining transport laws.

Clause 41 provides a power to make amendments to primary and secondary legislation that are necessary to maintain the effect of that legislation in consequence of clauses 30 to 40. The power cannot be used to implement changes in policy or make amendments for reasons unrelated to clauses 30 to 40; its purpose is simply to ensure consistency. If any changes are needed to primary legislation that already exists or is made in this parliamentary Session, the relevant regulations will need approval from both Houses. If any changes are needed to secondary legislation, the negative procedure will apply. The inclusion of this power is a prudent, practical and reasonable step to take to ensure the most efficient legal framework moving forward. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

Fees for applications for harbour orders

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 42 amends the Harbours Act 1964 to enable fees for processing harbour empowerment and revision orders to be levied on the basis of hours of time deployed on any particular application, rather than on the basis of average costs. This is part of a package of measures that Government are taking to strengthen performance in the handling of harbour order applications, especially in England, after a backlog built up over recent years.

Relevant Departments, along with the Marine Management Organisation itself, are further addressing these challenges through various administrative initiatives alongside this provision. The clause applies to England, Scotland and Wales, consistent with the territorial extent and application of the original Harbours Act. The Bill does not determine the overall level of fees; there will be full consultation of ports before fees are altered by regulations.

Provisions for the new system of setting fees will come into effect two months from Royal Assent. To ensure that fees can still accompany harbour orders before regulations are made, the provision repealing the current power to determine fees will be commenced by regulations. The new fees system will take precedence over the current system upon the commencement of this clause, meaning that there is no practical need for the previous regime to be switched off for the new fees regulations to be made.

However, following discussion with the devolved Governments, a decision on the desired timing for this repeal in Scotland will be necessary. The Secretary of State would, as a routine matter, make the commencement order at a date chosen by Ministers in the devolved Government.

The clause further supports the Government’s growth and clean energy missions by improving the efficiency of harbour order processing, which will support our wider objective of improving transport consenting processes. I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

Installation of electric vehicle charge points

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 43 will remove the need for a section 50 street works licence when installing electric vehicle charge points on a public road, and instead allow applicants to apply for street works permits. Applying for a street works licence is costly, and it can take a long time for an application to be approved. The lengthy process of having to apply for a street works licence to install charge points on a public road is delaying the roll-out of this essential infrastructure.

The licence application process has previously been identified by installers as a significant barrier to installation. The application process and associated costs for those licences also vary greatly between highway authorities. On average, each street works licence can cost between £500 and £1,000 and take 12 weeks or longer to obtain. As a result, installing apparatus can be a lengthy and costly process, hindering the efficient roll-out of electric vehicle charge point infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I echo the points made by other colleagues: I absolutely support the roll-out of electric vehicles, which is more likely due to this change. To be clear, I think local authorities will welcome it. They have long been frustrated by the current framework, which means that as they seek to roll out electrical vehicle charging points they are met with a planning system that prevents them from doing so at the necessary scale. Clause 43 removes the burden from local authorities and also from individuals, who often want to purchase an electric vehicle but think twice because being able to get a charging point in the convenience of their individual home is too difficult.

Finally, the point about cost is important. When we speak to companies that manufacture vehicle charging points, they are clear that the number of installations helps them to reduce the cost per head. This measure will mean that it becomes easier to install at a faster pace, with the hope that the overall cost will be reduced. I support the measure and think it will be a crucial step in this Labour Government’s important mission to reach net zero.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome the broad support on both sides of the Committee for the intended purpose of the Bill, which will mean that companies installing EV charge points can do so, as I have argued, using permits available online across England, and will no longer have to apply for costly licences, which can take several months to obtain, via a range of different local authority processes. That will speed up the installation of on-street EV charge points and help local authorities to co-ordinate works with other roadworks. I think the use of that digital platform will help local authorities to have an overview of all the installations taking place in their areas.

A number of points have been made. The hon. Member for Broxbourne raised the issue of street works and digging up roads. While I take his point, there is a difference between the installation of EV charging networks and general utilities works, and there is more that can be done to manage that process. If he will allow me, because it is a slightly separate issue, I am more than happy to set out for him in writing what the Government are doing on that particular point.

In general, however, the concerns I have heard relate to safeguards. There is a separate point about whether members of the Committee believe that the existing statutory requirements are fit for purpose or need to be reformed, but I want to make clear that this clause will ensure that the statutory requirements that are in place continue to apply to EV charge point installers. We are not losing any of the existing safeguards, including guidance and safety codes, so the inspections and reinstatements will continue to apply and installers will be obligated to keep their apparatus in working order. In addition, existing regulations already require installers to provide annual reports to the Secretary of State on the reliability of their network, and investigatory powers and sanctions are available to deal with non-compliance.

In relation specifically to pavement access, EV charge point operators will still need to comply with the safety code of practice, which sets out the requirements to ensure access while works are taking place. I can give hon. Members assurance on that point. I hope I have set out that existing statutory requirements will continue to apply, so no safeguards are lost; in moving from a street works licence to a permit, we are just ensuring that we can make it far easier for charge point operators to roll out vital infrastructure.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44

Fees for planning applications etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 39—Surcharge on planning fees.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We turn to part 2 on planning, chapter 1 of which relates to local planning decisions. Clause 44 seeks to introduce, through regulations, the sub-delegation of planning fees to local planning authorities. It is an important change, and we feel it needs to be made. We know that a lack of capacity and resources in local planning authorities and among statutory consultees leads to delays in decision making and in the delivery of housing and economic growth.

I hope the Committee is aware of the changes that the Government are making, outside the scope of the Bill, to enhance local authority capacity and capability. The Chancellor has announced a £46 million package of investment into the planning system as a one-year settlement for 2025-26. On 27 February, the Government announced funding to support salaries and complying graduate bursaries to help with our commitment to appoint 300 new planning officers in local planning authorities. We have made changes, through regulations, to increase planning fees for householder and other applications, with a view to providing much needed additional resources for hard-pressed local planning authorities. More broadly, the Department’s established planning capacity and capability programme is delivering a wider package of support.

For local planning authorities, fees are an important contributor to resourcing requirements. Planning application fees are set nationally, and they are intended to cover the cost to a local planning authority of processing and determining a planning application. However, as things stand, the fees do not fully cover the costs of providing the service. Based on the most recent local government spending data for 2023-24, that has led to an estimated funding shortfall of £362 million per year. It means that local authorities are not adequately equipped to deliver an efficient planning service to developers and investors.

Clause 44 will tackle the problem by enabling local planning authorities to set their own planning fees and charges to cover their costs. It will do that by allowing the Secretary of State, through regulations, to sub-delegate the setting of planning fees and charges to local planning authorities. Allowing local planning authorities to set their own planning fees is the most effective way to increase resources in a manner that responds to the individual circumstances of each local authority. It will help to address capacity issues in the planning system by ensuring that planning authorities are adequately funded to deliver vital services.

We are also introducing safeguards to ensure that the fees are reasonable and directly invested in improving planning performance, and that they are not used to fund other council services. Planning fee charges will not be able to exceed the cost to local planning authorities in determining a planning application. That will prevent disproportionate or unjustifiably high fees being set. That is an important point, because one of the concerns we have had is about the ability, without the provision being in place, of local authorities that do not want to see development to set extremely high fees to deter applications. To ensure transparency, local planning authorities will also be required to consult on any fee increases and publish evidence to justify the fees that they charge. Finally, and most importantly, income received from planning fees will be ringfenced, as I have said, so that it can only be used in the determination of planning applications.

Clause 44 is another crucial step towards a more responsive and efficient planning system. I hope we can all support it. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Government new clause 39 seeks to introduce a new sustainable funding model for the statutory consultee system. Alongside local planning authorities, statutory consultees play an important role in the planning system, providing expert advice and information on significant environmental, transport, safety and heritage issues to ensure good decision making.

However, it is a concern that the statutory consultee system is not currently working effectively. The concerns expressed by local planning authorities and developers about the operation of the system are wide-ranging. They include statutory consultees failing to engage proactively, taking too long to provide advice, re-opening issues that have already been dealt with at a plan-making stage, submitting automatic holding objections that are all too often withdrawn at a late stage in the process, and frequently issuing holding responses that allow statutory deadlines to be met while seeking over-specific levels of information from developers over long timeframes. All of those concerns can cause substantial delay and uncertainty for applicants.

The Government are determined to return the statutory consultee system to meeting its goal of supporting high-quality development through the swift provision of expert relevant advice to inform decision making. In March, I set out a number of steps that we are taking to achieve this in England, including ensuring that the statutory consultee system works to support development and economic growth, limiting the instances in which statutory consultees should be consulted, changing the performance management of statutory consultees and, finally, developing a model to support sustainable funding.

The new clause will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to apply a surcharge to planning application fees. This would apply to development that is permitted by local planning authorities, and to other bodies that are able to charge planning fees under the Bill. It will be used to fund bodies, such as statutory consultees, that provide advice and ancillary support that enables good decision making.

Through regulations, we will develop detailed proposals that will establish the level at which any surcharge would be set, and the types of planning application it should be applied to. In doing so, we will be highly conscious of the need to balance the burdens that we are placing on developers with the benefits that will accrue to them through a more effective and efficient planning application system. We will consult on such proposals before any regulations are introduced.

I note that statutory consultees can already generally secure payment for voluntary pre-application work, and that will continue to be the case. A new funding mechanism for statutory consultees, alongside the sub-delegation of planning fees, as per clause 44, will allow us to address capacity and resourcing issues, and support a faster and better quality decision making process. On that basis, I urge the Committee to support the clause and the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy]

I, too, rise to support the measures. The Committee heard evidence from developers that they do not at all mind paying higher fees as long as they get a fast, quality service that delivers quicker and better outcomes for everyone involved.

We know that planners are absolutely vital to planning the future of our communities, the places where we will live for years to come, and they cannot do that on a shoestring. For too long, we have seen many local planning authorities unable to cover their costs, which causes delays and cuts and has led to a doom loop in the planning system. It is great that the Government plan to give control to local planning authorities, with the safeguards that the Minister has set out, to set their own fees and ensure that we can have the proactive, effective and fast planning system that we all want.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will set out a couple of points in response to questions raised by hon. Members. If I miss anything, I am more than happy to follow up in writing on the technical detail, including on some issues that sit outside the scope of the clause but are pertinent.

For example, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, raised the issue of salaries that could be paid to local planning department staff. That will be a consideration for local planning authorities attracting talent. He is right that over recent years we have seen, for a variety of reasons, a bleeding out of talent, particularly to the private sector. There is a challenge in attracting the requisite skills into the public sector to ensure that we can take our planning reforms forward.

The purpose of clause 44 is to allow the Secretary of State, through regulations, to delegate the power to set planning fees and charges to local planning authorities. It will be up to local planning authorities whether to set their own fees or remain on what will essentially become a default national fee rate. We will carry out a national benchmarking exercise, including engagement with local authorities, to ensure that the default rate is at an appropriate level.

For the process by which local authorities can set their own fees, if that is the route they want to take, the Bill has a number of safeguards to ensure that fees are not set too high. In the first instance, local planning authorities will be required to undertake public consultations and publish information to justify any local fees prior to their introduction. To respond to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, that is in the process in which local planning authorities would be able to evidence particular challenges in their area that require them to have a skillset and resource base slightly different from those of other local planning authorities, but that would have to be properly justified.

For objections, there will be a process by which the Secretary of State can intervene and direct local planning authorities to amend their fees or charges when those have been set at an inappropriate level. I note the point, well made by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, that such directions—that intervention—would have to come at a point that allowed a local authority to ensure that the changes were made in a timely manner relative to its other financial responsibilities.

Any hon. Member is free to intervene if I have missed a point, but I hope that I have broadly reassured the Committee that the clause will provide for those who want to set their own fees—although I stress that an authority can remain on the national default rate if it wants—so that the fees can more fully reflect the cost of processing applications and thus ensure that we are providing a timely service. It is a beneficial change.

[Gideon Amos]

The Minister is generous in inviting interventions; I rise to make a small one. I technically ought to declare that I live in a listed building—a fairly shabby one—but that is not the only reason why I wanted to listed building consents to be free.

[Matthew Pennycook]

On that point I should say, although I hope this was implied, that we will set out detailed processes in the regulations. We will absolutely take into account points that have been made today. I give the hon. Gentleman my undertaking that the specific issue that he raises will be fully considered as part of that process.

[Lewis Cocking]

I have a question to gain clarity for local authorities. Will the Minister request local authorities to submit how much they spend on planning currently? If the increase in fees is to go into additional planning service, I would not want to see local authorities moving money out of their planning services now, and then charging additional fees so that the services still had the same budget. I hope I have explained that point sufficiently. Will he ask local authorities to submit how much they spend on planning now, to ensure that the additional fees that they will be able to charge go into additional service?

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is an interesting point. That would be a fairly extreme measure for a local authority to undertake but, if I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, it could drain its planning department budget, foreseeing that it would be able to set a fee at an appropriate rate to make up for that, and therefore in a sense evading the clear stipulation that we have here to ringfence planning fee charges to the provision of planning services. I will say a couple of things on that basis.

As I said, local planning authorities will have to consult publicly and test their fee level. As part of that, they will have to consider the benchmarking exercise that we will undertake for the default national rate—so we will have a sense of what different local authorities are charging. However, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall go away to reflect more fully on how—as I hope is clear we have been thinking today—local authorities without the best intentions might seek to game the system.

[David Simmonds]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

The final point I will make before giving way is that, were a local authority to seek to evade that ringfencing provision by reducing the amount of resource going into its planning department—a not particularly sensible route to take—and then, potentially, it were not able or allowed to charge a fair and proportionate fee set in that regard, it would come under the usual planning performance dashboard, where the Department can look at the local authority for not providing a timely service or performing appropriately. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a set of intervention powers would be available to national Government, were that the case.

It is far more likely, however, as we have heard from local authorities, that they would use the power to set local fees that reflect the cost of services, using it to bring more resource in and—generally, this is what they want to do—to start processing applications in a more timely manner than they can now.

[David Simmonds]

The Minister’s response has been excellent. Clearly, there will be a number of different arrangements at a local level. That should encourage us, as a Committee considering the legislation, to reflect a little further.

In the example that the Minister talked about—the behaviour of local authorities—it may not be about those who have ill intentions. Some local authorities may have a planning and building control department—although the two regimes are separate, there is great commonality of skills—while others may have outsourced one or both those functions, or have them in-house but entirely separate.

As part of the published council tax fixing, there is a requirement to set out a schedule of fees for building control. Some local authorities may choose to bundle that together, so when people put in a planning application, they pay for both; but others may do that separately. Some developers, including householders, may choose to purchase the building control privately, even though they could purchase it from the local authority. A lot of factors will determine what a reasonable cost base is. It would help if the Minister shared with the Committee some further thinking on how the Government might seek to establish a baseline, in particular in the light of potential challenges in the future by developers who feel that the level of cost at a particular spot is other than reasonable.

I press the Minister a little on how that interacts with two further points that he made. Government new clause 39 refers to the power of the Secretary of State to implement a surcharge as a percentage of a planning fee that has been set. From what I understand of what the Minister said in his commentary, that will principally be to fund the work of the statutory consultees. Clearly, the imposition of a surcharge will then form part of the planning fees that have to be part of the statutory consultation on the legislatively fixed timetable that the local authority has to follow. How will the Government ensure that that timetable is respected, so that they themselves are not subject to the challenge?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for pressing those two points. I am more than happy to come back to the issue in more detail, but as a general point, a lot of further detail is yet to come post consultation and the regulations’ being laid. We will provide further detail then on some of the technical questions as to how the power will be implemented.

The surcharge introduced by Government new clause 39 will provide the ability to fund the statutory consultees and other bodies that provide assistance and advice in relation to the planning application process. For example, we may wish to fund training and guidance for local planning authorities so that they can better engage with statutory consultees. However, the surcharge, which, as he rightly says, comes as an additional amount on top of the fees for processing applications, is very much intended to address the particular challenges that we are facing in terms of how statutory consultees are able to engage with the process in a timely manner, so that we get that advice up front.

[David Simmonds]

May I press the Minister a little further? That is a really helpful answer in illuminating the Government’s thinking, but could he explain to the Committee how that will interact with the existing arrangements for planning performance agreements, which are very common in respect of larger-scale planning applications? Clearly, if a developer required to engage with all this wider statutory-consultee process is already entering into a voluntary agreement with the local authority to fund the process, there is a risk that that will have an impact. It risks either reducing the ability of the local authority, because that surcharge is effectively being taken by the Secretary of State, or increasing the cost base and therefore opening up the question whether the planning fees are reasonable in the first place.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I would say two things in response to that, and then perhaps, Ms Jardine, in the interests of making progress on the Bill, I will happily write to the Committee to set out further details of the operation of the surcharge.

First, on how the surcharge will be processed and distributed, it will, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, be paid by the person collecting the fee to the Secretary of State in a manner and at a time prescribed by regulations, which are forthcoming. Outside the regulations, the proceeds will then be earmarked for distribution to bodies that provide advice and assistance in the planning process, including by way of consultation responses.

Secondly, the question has been asked several times whether the Government have properly considered the cumulative impact of fees and charges—are we getting the fees right? We are very aware that the surcharge will increase the fees that are already out there—it is an additional levy in that sense—and that other measures in the Bill may already result in fee increases. I repeat that we are committed to consulting on the proposed rates and the type of application that this should apply to—not least to allow the development sector to fully engage with those proposals.

On that basis, I think it would help the Committee if I set out later—chapter and verse—how we think both the clause and the surcharge will operate, on a very practical basis, and how local authorities can understand the Government’s intent in bringing them forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

Training for local planning authorities in England

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I beg to move amendment 152, in clause 45, page 58, line 3, at end insert—

“(c) require that any training accredited under this section includes content on—

(i) inclusive design principles in the built environment;

(ii) the requirements and intent of Approved Document M, Volume 1: Dwellings of the Building Regulations 2010, with particular emphasis on the M4(2) accessible and adaptable standard and the M4(3) wheelchair user standard;

(iii) the requirements and intent of Approved Document B of the Building Regulations 2010;

(d) require that all members, elected members, and officers of a relevant local planning authority who carry out any function relevant to planning undertake mandatory training comprising the content set out in paragraph (c).”

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Clause 45 relates to mandatory planning training, which is long overdue. It could be a huge benefit to local planning authorities to have trained planning committee members.

When many members of the public—and many Members of Parliament—saw the mandatory training element of the Bill, they probably shouted, “Oh good God, thank you!” There is a massive variation in the outcomes of planning committees, as we will come to in debates on other clauses where we disagree with the Government on planning committees. To strengthen planning committees and ensure that they all perform—and that members of planning committees perform to the best of their ability and are trained to make the complicated decisions that local planning authorities and committees have to make—is a good thing.

I declare an interest that, as a former chair of a planning committee at Southampton city council for two and a half years, I really enjoyed the training. The planning training at the time, when the council was under Conservative control—I will say that it does it now under Labour too—was automatically given to newly elected councillors on the committee. It was exemplary.

Councillors could not pick and choose whether to go. Instead, the council very clearly said from an early stage, “If you do not attend this training, we will not defend any decision that you make, and we will not put you on the planning committee, despite the best wishes of group leaders from all parties.” That is a commendable approach, and one that I know other local authorities also take.

Planning decisions are sometimes the most user-friendly decisions that are made; although they are not necessarily the most important, they are where a local resident will have the most interaction with their local authority. Apart from when a bin is not collected—or, in a unitary or county council, when someone is going through problems with education or an education, health and care plan—planning decisions are the bread and butter of the public facing element for locally elected politicians.

Later in Committee, we will talk about how the Opposition feel that the Government are trying to take some of those responsibilities away, but the precept of this provision to allow locally elected councillors to have the best training that could possibly be provided, so that they make decisions that they are proud to stand by and are legally defensible on appeal, is long overdue and is of huge benefit to local authorities. We welcome clause 45.

On Government amendment 49, the Minister may forgive me a slight rant. I absolutely agree with this amendment on mineral planning authorities. I suggest that officers and managers of highways authorities, particularly those in Hampshire, should also undergo some training, given how woefully Hampshire county council officers have dealt with a mineral extraction facility in Hamble in my constituency. I know that the Minister cannot comment on that in his semi-judicial capacity, but I can because I do not have those responsibilities.

Locally elected councillors, who should make the decision and have had the proper training, refused Cemex’s application. When it came to appeal, local planning officers removed the rug from under people’s feet by refusing to defend that decision, so the local community has had to find £75,000 to try to defend it—thank God for the constituents of Hamble who are defending it. I know that the Minister cannot comment on that case, and I am being slightly facetious, but perhaps we need an audit of the way that officers engage their responsibilities as mineral and waste planning authorities. Other Committee members are aware of the case in Hamble, and, although I will not ask them to speak on it, I know they will be sympathetic to my call.

I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for moving amendment 152 on behalf of the hon. Member for Shipley. It is well intentioned, but it would create a burden that is already met by national equality and planning legislation, as well as local authority planning guidance and locally set planning regulations. This is a slight role reversal, but I hope that the Minister will agree—I am not writing his lines for him—that accepting the amendment would create more bureaucracy for councillors on planning committees.

There is already provision, through national guidance, national legislation and local guidance, to ensure that developments are accessible and that accessibility is at the forefront of any proposed development. The Opposition do not support the amendment, because we believe that we have made great advances over recent decades in ensuring that developments are accessible and that local authority members and planning officers take very seriously their responsibilities when it comes to accessibility in the planning system.

I wholly welcome clause 45, which is a great thing for the empowerment of local authority councillors. It will bring councillors, their constituents and their residents closer together. Some of the most difficult decisions that I had to defend in my time as a councillor were those I took on planning applications as chair of the planning committee, particularly on the big blue IKEA in Southampton, which other hon. Members might have been to. Yes, I did that—I am looking to other Hampshire Members, who may have been there.

That decision was controversial, but I was able to defend it because I had had the training. When some of my or my committee’s decisions were challenged, I had a detailed knowledge from that planning training, which officers provided, so I could be questioned at appeal and make sure that the decisions were sound. We lost a few, but we defended a few; that is the nature of local democracy. I say to the Minister that I am deeply encouraged by clause 45, which we wholeheartedly support. We do not accept amendment 152. We wholly agree with Government amendment 49.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome the considered and thoughtful contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I will set out the purpose and effect of the clause, address amendment 152 and speak about Government amendment 49.

As we heard in the contribution of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, planning is principally a local activity, because decisions about what to build and where—although not decisions about whether to build at all—should be shaped by local people. That is why we believe that planning committees have an integral role to play in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. As I have said, I have been a local councillor and sat on planning committees, as have many Committee members—the hon. Gentleman just set out his experience. Planning committees are comprised of dedicated elected members, and in most instances the decisions are well informed and robust.

It is, however, vital that in exercising their democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions. One of the ways we want to achieve those outcomes is by ensuring that all planning committee members receive adequate training to support their important work, which can be extremely complex when it comes to certain challenging applications.

The hon. Member for Broxbourne rightly made the point that lots of local planning authorities already have some form of mandatory training in place. Data from the Planning Advisory Service suggests that more than 80% of councils do, but a percentage do not, and approaches to training vary quite widely across the country. That leads to inconsistencies in knowledge relating to planning law and in practice among planning committee members, which obviously has an impact on their ability to apply the relevant laws and policies when making planning decisions.

[David Simmonds]

I am struck by the Minister’s point about the need for consistency. We will all be conscious of the level of inconsistency in delegated planning decisions, which make up around 95% of decisions on planning applications. Does he have a programme in mind to achieve the level of consistency for those decisions that this measure will bring to decisions made by democratically elected members?

[Matthew Pennycook]

If I could probe the hon. Gentleman in turn, does he mean consistency in the decisions made by expert planning officers rather than on individual planning applications?

[David Simmonds]

Actually, the answer is both. We will all know of people’s experience with local authorities: they meet a planning officer to discuss a delegated planning decision and they receive advice, but when it is submitted, it is considered by a different planning officer who takes a completely different view. Given that that is how the vast bulk of planning applications are dealt with, if the Government’s aim is to bring consistency and certainty to the process—it is a laudable aim—it will be necessary to focus on the more than 90% of decisions that are already made under delegated powers, as well as this measure, which is for that small number considered by the planning committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a fair and reasonable point. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will write to him to set out the Government’s thinking on that issue. If it is available—I fully expect that it will be— I will give him some sense of the level of refusals on appeal for decisions made by committees versus decisions made by expert planning officers, which I think would be relevant. In general terms, in many instances, we think that expert planning officers have the relevant expertise to make good decisions on the basis of planning law. We are trying to ensure through this clause that elected members also have that experience in place through mandatory training.

As has been rightly said, the clause is about building on existing good practice—there is very good practice out there—and ensuring that it is implemented consistently across the country. It is worth noting that mandatory training for committees was strongly supported by the sector as a whole in the responses to the planning reform working paper where we set out ideas in this space, lots of which we are taking forward.

We will introduce regulations to specify which planning functions are covered by this measure, what the training looks like—its nature and content, and how it will be delivered—and details about the certification process. Those regulations will be subject to further engagement with the sector and I will reflect on all the points that have been made today.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister is being very kind; he just mentioned a point that I forgot to mention. I do not expect certainty, and he has said that he is bringing forward regulations, but what work has the Department already done with organisations that may have the capacity and the desire to provide that training to local authorities?

There may be situations where a planning officer within a local authority may be confident that they can provide that training, as was provided to me, but we also had the Local Government Association and other private KCs—QCs at the time—who could be paid to provide training. How does the Minister anticipate the training will be provided and by whom? Has his Department started the work to see what parties might be interested in providing the training?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have had a huge amount of engagement with the sector, both in working up the proposals and in the feedback that we have received to the planning reform working paper. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the Planning Advisory Service that already provides local authorities with support, and there are other organisations in this space that have a direct interest in planning and training. I am happy to provide him with further details if he wishes but, as I say, through the introduction of regulations, further detail will be forthcoming.

I should mention—Opposition Members will particularly enjoy this one, I think—that the Mayor of London can act as a local planning authority in respect of applications of potential strategic importance, so the training requirement will apply to him too.

[Paul Holmes]

I might as well pack up and go home— I did not hear any “hear, hears” in response to that—because the Minister has given us the best news that the Mayor of London requires planning training, after the failure of his authority to deliver the housing numbers that it wants and now the announcement that he thinks that he has carte blanche to build over the green belt with his blessing and that of the Secretary of State. I am delighted that under a Labour Government’s proposals, the Labour Mayor of London might actually learn something about planning in his authority.

[Matthew Pennycook]

What is there to say to that? In no way did I imply that the Mayor of London requires planning training—I think he has had extensive planning training—but the training requirement set out in this clause will apply to him, because he acts as a local planning authority in respect of applications of potential strategic importance.

Likewise, it will apply to mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities where they have functions corresponding to the Mayor of London conferred on them. The requirement will also apply to any persons authorised to act on their behalf, including, for example, deputy Mayors in London and other such figures. A mandatory requirement for training in planning matters will improve the overall decision-making process and decrease delays in delivery of much-needed homes and other crucial developments.

Before I turn to amendment 152, I will address a very well made point raised by the hon. Member for Broxbourne. Through regulations, we will set out the timing of when training is required, but he asked an important question about what happens if training is not in place when a decision is required and whether that would stall the process. As he will know, local authorities have their own codes of conduct. We trust local authorities to ensure that committees are carried out in accordance with the rules and regulations set out by the clause. We are aware of the need to ensure that undue delays are not caused, so for that reason any decision reached by members who are in breach of the measure will not be invalidated, but the requirement will still apply to local authorities. We are reliant on their code of conduct to enforce it.

Amendment 152 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and spoken to by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. As other hon. Members have said, it raises the excellent point that development must form an inclusive and safe environment for everyone. We wholeheartedly agree that that is of paramount importance.

The national planning policy framework makes it clear that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible. We want to ensure that our mandatory training supports members of local planning authorities to make decisions properly, in accordance with the relevant planning policies, including those I have just mentioned, and other material considerations. That is why we will work closely with the sector to design the mandatory training.

We do not think it is necessary to specify details of all the matters covered by mandatory training in the Bill, as to do so would be exhaustive and would pre-empt the forthcoming regulations and the further detail that I have referred to. I assure the hon. Member for North Herefordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, who tabled the amendment, that we will consult on the content of the training to ensure that councillors are appropriately supported in making decisions in this area.

[Gideon Amos]

I invite the Minister to go slightly further. Will he say today that the regulations will include the requirement for both accessibility and heritage training?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Member understandably tempts me to start to specify what will be in the training, but I will not do that. Further details will be brought forward in due course, but I have certainly heard the case made by Committee members about what the training should include in respect of accessibility and other issues.

Finally, Government amendment 49 is a minor and technical amendment that clarifies that members of mineral planning authorities should also undergo training in planning matters. Mineral sites deal with complex planning issues, so it is only right that members of mineral planning committees, acting on behalf of mineral planning authorities, should be included in the requirement to undergo relevant training.

Along with amendments 50 and 51—which we will come to shortly—this amendment clarifies the position of mineral planning authorities for the purposes of the Bill. To be clear, we want to remove any doubt as to the requirements of the Bill with respect to the training of members of mineral planning committees, and that is what this amendment achieves. For those reasons, I humbly invite the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to withdraw amendment 152.

[Ellie Chowns]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 49, in clause 45, page 58, line 15, at end insert—

“(7A) This section applies in relation to a relevant planning function conferred on a mineral planning authority as if references to a local planning authority were to a mineral planning authority in England.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This amendment has the effect that (if regulations under inserted section 319ZZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are made) members of a mineral planning authority in England who have not completed any training required by the regulations will be prohibited from exercising certain mineral planning functions on behalf of the authority.

Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46

Delegation of planning decisions in England

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 46, page 61, line 39, at end insert—

“(7) Sections 319ZZC and 319ZZD and this section apply in relation to a relevant planning function conferred on a relevant mineral planning authority as if references to a relevant local planning authority were to a relevant mineral planning authority.”

This amendment has the effect that the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring certain planning functions conferred on mineral planning authorities in England to be discharged by certain persons or by committees of a certain size and composition.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 51

Clause stand part.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have set out, the Government recognise the vital role that planning committees play in ensuring that decisions about what to build and where are shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. Under local government law, local authority planning decisions must be a committee function, not an executive one, and presently every council has its own scheme of delegation to identify the circumstances in which planning decisions are taken by the planning committee rather than delegated to officers.

While the vast majority of planning decisions for local planning authorities are made by committees— around 96%— there is some inconsistency, which can create risk and uncertainty in the system. Clause 46 therefore seeks to build on the existing approach by giving the Secretary of State the power to introduce a national scheme of delegation. I reassure the Committee, as I have at other stages, that these measures are not about taking away democratic oversight but about spreading good practice, and there is good practice out there already.

A national delegation scheme will set out which planning functions across the country should be decided by officers and which by planning committees. It will also give the Secretary of State the power to set requirements around the size and composition of planning committees, so that we can have a uniform arrangement across the country as to what is effective in that regard. That will help to address some of the issues that we have identified around the operation of planning committees, which include a lack of consistency and clarity on which applications will be determined by committee; too much time spent considering applications that are compliant with the local development plan, or considering niche technical details including post-permission matters; and a lack of transparency on committee decisions and their consequences.

There is lots of good practice out there, and we know that in almost all instances, committees make good decisions on the basis of planning law and relevant material considerations. However, we are all familiar—in particular those of us who have served in local government and on these committees—with examples of where a development proposal was on a site allocated in the local plan, and in line with all policy expectations, but the committee refused the application against officer advice, and the subsequent appeal was upheld, unnecessarily costing the local authority significant sums of money and creating delay.

[Paul Holmes]

Does the Minister not understand that local plans are usually formed by an administration and executive of the council, and that it is up to local ward members who may be affected by appointed or adopted sites within that local plan, and who feel that they want to have a say, to request that that is called in? If a planning committee decides that it should not go ahead, that is their decision. Does he not see that there is a separation between the power of the executive to meet the guidelines that the last Government and his Government have set out, and the willingness and ability to allow the planning committee to make decisions, even if it is on sites that an executive has already approved in the council’s local plan?

[Matthew Pennycook]

A number of points here are worth pulling out. We have just discussed on mandatory training the need to ensure that all elected members across the country who serve on committees are cognisant of planning law and other considerations to which they must adhere.

I would gently press back. We know there are instances where committees take a decision on allocated sites against officer recommendation, out of line with planning law and those considerations, because it is easy to do so in certain instances—they might be responding to pressure from the gallery. I have had direct experience of that. It is deemed a cost-free decision to refuse an application on that basis, but it is not cost-free to the local authority and it introduces unnecessary cost and delay, and all the burdens that come with appeals.

[Lewis Cocking]

Does the Minister recognise the other side of that coin? There are examples, and I can give him some from my local authority, of where officers recommend a planning application for approval, the committee turns it down, it goes to appeal and the planning inspector has agreed with the committee. It is not one size fits all; there are two sides to the argument and there will be examples of both. This measure puts a lot of trust in, and gives even more power to, planning officers.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It does, and we think that is right. We think we should trust and empower expert planning officers. The appeals process will remain in force. I recognise the scenario the hon. Gentleman outlines. Local planning officers do not get every decision right. To gently challenge him, he is making the case for no scheme of delegation at all. Schemes of delegation are in place across the country. We are not saying that we do not trust expert planning officers to make the decisions on any applications. We trust them in lots of local authorities to make lots of decisions. As I said, 96% of applications go through planning officers.

There are two issues at play here, which we will perhaps draw out in the debate. We should be honest about them. Members may reasonably take the view that there should simply be no national scheme of delegation—that providing that consistency on the basis of a uniform national arrangement is wrong in principle. If that is the case, I respect that decision. That is not the position of the Government. We think there is a case for a national scheme of delegation.

Then there is the detail of what should go into that national scheme of delegation. Have we got the balance right in terms of the applications that should come before planning committees and should go to planning officers? We already trust expert planning officers to make decisions on a host of delegated applications across the country. The problem is there is huge variation in how those local schemes of delegation apply.

[Lewis Cocking]

In the current scenario, local planning authorities can go through their own scheme of delegation, and if there are lots of objections or a significant public interest, they can determine that instead of doing it through the scheme of delegation, they can bring it to the planning committee, which they will not be able to do under the national scheme of delegation.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I refer back to my point: the hon. Gentleman may take the view, which is a perfectly coherent and respectable view, that a national scheme of delegation is wrong in principle. That is not the Government’s view, because we think there are significant advantages to be had from introducing greater consistency and certainty about what decisions go to a committee, so we can have a uniform approach across the country.

[Rachel Taylor]

Does the Minister agree that very often the controversial decisions that go to planning committees and are declined by them, leading to an appeal, result in higher council tax for residents, because of the huge cost of appeals, reviews and so on? A national scheme of delegation, where it is clear which decisions can be made under delegated authorities and which cannot, will therefore simplify the process for developers, remove the delays and costs for them, and keep costs down for local residents.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is not a cost-free decision to refuse an application where a committee does so on grounds that are not robust. That does not apply in the vast majority of instances. As I say, most committees are comprised of elected members who are diligent, considerate and aware of the risks. Through the mandatory training that we have just discussed, we are trying to get to a situation where elected members are trained and are more cognisant of planning law and the considerations they have to take forward. We want to ensure that there is consistency across the country.

As I say, there are two issues at play here. Some Members may take the view that a national scheme of delegation is wrong in principle. If Members do not take that view, which is not the Government’s view, the debate that we should be having, and will have—as I said on Second Reading, we will bring forward details, so that we can consider them alongside the Bill—is what the most appropriate national scheme of delegation would be, to achieve the right balance between making sure that the most controversial, major applications come before committees and entrusting expert planning officers to make other decisions.

[Paul Holmes]

I wonder whether the Minister has given any thought to political proportionality when it comes to any future national scheme of delegation. I will give him an example. Forgive me if this is slightly out there; if so, I can write to him, or we can have a conversation in the Lobbies later.

Say a local authority was 87% made up of one party, and there was one councillor from one party and another councillor from another party. In my constituency, we have a local authority that is overwhelmingly dominated by one party. For many residents, the planning system feels like it is out of touch, because the leader creates a different committee that allows just his party to make a decision—or, in the usual planning committees, local residents do not feel like the administration’s wishes are being taken into account, because the planning committee is overwhelmingly dominated by one party.

Will the Minister please assure us that any national scheme of delegation will not exacerbate that situation where local authorities have very strong political control one way, and political decisions within the planning system are taken by an overwhelming political administration? Will he assure us that we can have future discussions about that, so that such a situation in any local authority would not be made worse by a national scheme of delegation? I hope I explained that right.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The shadow Minister did explain that correctly, and I recognise the challenge. I would say two things: first, I assure him that party political considerations have not factored in any way into the development of the clause. The measure that we are proposing will improve the situation in the sense that, if there are very clear rules about which applications can come before a committee and which should go to national expert planning officers, as per a national scheme of delegation, some of the potential to use specific applications that might not be the most major, controversial applications that should come before a committee, in a political way, will be removed. As I said, the detail regarding what the national scheme of delegation will entail will come forward in due course.

As I mentioned, the clause also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the size and composition of planning committees. Best practice suggests that having smaller planning committees can lead to more effective debates and decision making. We have seen some extremely large and unwieldy planning committees across the country. We want to ensure that there are, within reasonable parameters, some prescriptive views on what the most effective size is.

Our views have been tested with the sector. In response to our working paper, there was broad support for the principle of the proposals from the local government sector, and we will continue to take on feedback as we refine our detailed proposals. That will, as I said, include a formal consultation on the regulations through which the new powers will be exercised. That is a requirement imposed on the Secretary of State by the clause and must happen prior to the regulations being made.

As I said, local democratic oversight of planning decisions remains essential, but it is vital that planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions. Clause 46 is about ensuring that skilled planning officers in local authorities are trusted and empowered in their roles, while retaining important democratic oversight on those sites that local people care about most. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Government amendments 50 and 51 are both minor and technical amendments clarifying that the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring relevant planning functions to be discharged by committee, sub-committee or an officer, and regulating the size and composition of a planning committee, also apply to mineral planning authorities. As the Committee will be aware, a local planning authority is not necessarily also a mineral planning authority; it depends on if and where there is a minerals site.

Mineral planning authorities are a special type of planning authority, and it is only right and proper to include them within these provisions to ensure greater consistency and certainty within the planning system. We must be clear about which local authorities are to be caught by this clause. The amendment clarifies that mineral planning authorities, where they exist, are to be subject to the provision in the clause.

[Paul Holmes]

We will oppose the clause. Our reason for doing so is that this chapter of the legislation is a massive power grab and piece of centralisation. The whole Bill—in particular its planning reform elements and this clause—reeks of this Government’s centralising zeal, as I said on the Floor of the House on Second Reading.

I tried to explain our point of view in my interventions on the Minister. He rightly challenged people to say whether there should be a national scheme of delegation, and Conservative Members wholly say that there should not be. I am grateful that he recognises that that is a not an opportunistic viewpoint; it is one that we sincerely believe.

Local authorities should have the power to do what they wish to do, because they are elected by their constituents and their residents. They, too, have a democratic right to exist and to undertake the responsibilities placed on them by the residents of their wards. They have a democratic right and duty to undertake those responsibilities and to participate in their accountability structures as local councillors, delegated to make decisions on behalf of their residents, and of their towns, cities and villages all over the UK.

As I said, we are concerned that the clause is just another attempt to centralise and to give the Minister and the Secretary of State the ability to build 1.5 million homes without necessarily allowing democratic checks and balances to be in place. In further amendments later in the Bill, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State actively try to take power away from local authorities and locally elected people.

Has anyone on the Labour Benches who was in a local authority—I asked this on Second Reading—been approached by their local councillors saying that they are not happy? Former council leaders and former councillors sit on this Committee, and I ask them whether councillors have told them that their own party is taking away councillors’ power and ability to speak for their residents. Members of Parliament in Committee are actively allowing that to happen if they vote for this clause to stand part.

Many local authorities are allowed to choose the way in which they do their business. That is why we do not believe that there should be a national scheme of delegation. In my own regional structures, the county council has a regulatory committee and two planning committees, and the borough council—although I have vast disagreements with how Eastleigh is managed—has local area committees that are accountable to the local wards in their localities. Such committees are actually more democratic, because different parties might represent the ward on them. When I was a councillor in Southampton, we had one planning committee that looked after everything within the authority boundary. All of that is because local authorities, through their own delegated schemes and democratic structures, pick how they wish to conduct their business. The clause will simply stop those local authorities being able to do that.

I am not talking to the Minister only about the size of the committee and the principles behind that. All the way through this clause are regulations for the Minister to lay, not only about the size and composition of committees discharging such functions, but requiring which functions are to be discharged. Local authorities already have that. We believe that local authorities should be able to decide that.

I challenged the Minister on one of his examples about local plans that are drawn up by an executive but can now be challenged by locally elected members of a planning committee. We do not see anything wrong with that. Local council members represent wards affected by local plans delivered by an executive. Whether that is an executive of the same political persuasion as the councillors who have concerns or of a different political persuasion, councillors have their rights under a local scheme of delegation.

That planning application should be able to go to a planning committee and be called in by a member under the rights that they have as a councillor. If, after its members have been trained through the excellent provision proposed by the Minister, the planning committee still decides to reject the application, that is the power and right of the locally elected councillor, and this Government are taking that right away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

We support the delivery of 1.5 million homes, but a confrontational approach, whereby elected representatives are longer allowed to take decisions on behalf of local people, will alienate people from the planning system, create more conflict and make it harder to deliver the homes that we need. Taking powers away from local elected representatives is taking powers away from local people. So much of planning is already predetermined by national guidance and policy.

Only last Friday, I had two parish councillors at my surgery. They came to ask why Government guidance on highway planning overrides everything that they, local people and their own transport planning expert know about highway safety in their village. Those objectors wanted to support the housing scheme in Cheddon Fitzpaine, but they were asking for a previous commitment to secondary access to be honoured. The councillors were told that there would be costs of £400,000 if they did not follow Government transport planning guidance, and they had no choice but to accept the application without the road. Not for the first time, after that meeting some of my councillors came to me and said, “What is the point of being a councillor if local resources are so constrained that there is no money to provide local services?” Even on planning committee, the Government are taking away decision-making powers from local people. It is totally unacceptable.

[Matthew Pennycook]

This is an important point to try to tease out. The decision the hon. Gentleman has just referred to took place in an instance where, if I have understood him correctly, local residents took issue with the application of national policy and guidance on a planning decision. I do not think it is the position of either the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats that national policy and guidance should not exist, and that it should all be completely localised. We may have disagreements on the spectrum, but we all recognise that national frameworks should be in place in some instances. The NPPF is a good example, as are other policies and guidance.

That is why I think we should have a more rational and proportionate debate—we may disagree at the end of it—about the pros and cons of a national scheme of delegation, and, if one is in favour of it, as the Government are, what it should include. There is this idea that, at present, local authorities and local elected members can do whatever they want—that they are completely free, and their mandate gives them scope—but, no, that is not true. They are constrained in several respects. In fact, we have debated that at length in this Committee. The NSIP regime was introduced in recognition of the fact that certain applications should be determined on a national basis, not by local committees.

I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect and expand on why in this area, local discretion should be untrammelled—if I follow his argument—whereas in other areas he would rightly support the idea that national guidance and policy should be in place. He may differ with the content of that guidance, but local planning authorities are subject to frameworks and guidance that I think we all recognise should be in place.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention, but guidance and policy are guidance and policy. We are talking about giving him and all future Ministers, of whatever party, the power to write the delegation arrangements for each local council in the country and tell them what they may or may not be allowed to decide. The difference is that national infrastructure projects are huge projects that have a national justification and are decided by an elected Secretary of State, but the Bill will forcibly delegate to an employee of a council decisions that will quite often be completely disagreed with by every single member of a council but will stand as a decision of that council. It cannot be logical.

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a separate argument, but the hon. Gentleman cannot pray in aid the case that he has just cited, which was made on the basis of a national scheme of delegation not being in operation, and where his local residents just took issue with national policy and guidance, which he thinks should be in place. He has recognised, quite rightly, that elected members of the Government can take views about what national framework should be in place.

We strongly feel that there is a good case for a national scheme of delegation that does not remove, in the apocalyptic terms that the shadow Minister outlined, all decisions and all ability to input into applications from local residents, but simply sets out where appropriately elected members in committees should make decisions and where decisions should be left to expert planning officers.

[Gideon Amos]

I completely accept that policy and guidance exist, but there is a degree of discretion when it comes to policy and guidance. We are dealing with primary statutory legislation here, and there would be no discretion over its implementation.

I think the Minister should accept that this is not about a fluffy national scheme of delegation that we all agree with; this is about removing the right of councillors to recover decisions to democratically elected members of the council. They may not; they are not allowed to. The clause is very clear that the Local Government Act 1972 will be changed so that councillors may not recover those decisions, and they will be made by employees.

This is not about a national scheme of delegation. We could all agree on a recommended scheme and have a standard scheme of delegation. This is about the law. I am surprised that the Minister is so lightly giving all future Ministers power to deny decision making by local councils.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady; we worked closely together as leaders of neighbouring authorities. I would push back slightly. The point has been made before. I do not necessarily think that the hold-up is the planning system. There are lots of unbuilt planning applications out there—I can reference loads of applications in my constituency from when I sat on the planning committee nearly two years ago where a single house is yet to be built. The Government have an ambition to build 1.5 million homes. If they want to achieve that ambition, they should be going after all the planning applications that are yet to be built out.

The hon. Lady makes some valid points on design codes. I would welcome more guidance so that local authorities can use them more effectively—I think lots of local authorities would agree with that—but design is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. Lots of planning officers do not live within the local planning authority in which they work. Local councillors who stand in a local authority area have to, by law, either live or work there. They are part of the community. I am really concerned about removing the power of planning committees and local councillors to determine planning applications in their area.

This works both ways. As I have said, I have voted to overturn where officers have recommended a refusal. Councillors have to be brave sometimes on planning decisions, as the hon. Lady well knows, and as I well know from being on a planning committee. I am really concerned about the attack on democracy and the lack of accountability.

When the Minister sums up, can he comment on how we will hold planning officers to account if they make the wrong or bad decisions? This is not just a policy where someone has stood for election because they want their bins collected on a Monday and not a Tuesday. Once planning permission has been granted and the application has been built out, the result is there for decades. It is very difficult to retrospectively change that if mistakes are made. Ultimately, the public have their say at the ballot box, but with unaccountable officers, they do not. How will the Government hold planning officers to account under this national scheme of delegation?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me first say that, for entirely understandable reasons, this has been a passionate debate. People feel very strongly about the local planning system, the role of elected members in it, and the role of residents in inputting to those decisions. That is because local planning is principally a local activity. It is for that reason that we as a Government are putting so much emphasis on ensuring that up-to-date local plans are in place in every part of the country, because we think that they are the best way to shape development in a particular area, but we want to ensure that planning committees function effectively.

I will make a couple of points in response to the issues raised. The first is on outcomes. I slightly chide the shadow Minister, because it cannot be true on the one hand that this is a measure, as he alleges, that we are introducing to build our 1.5 million homes and then, on the other hand, to say that it will essentially make no difference to the current arrangements.

Outcomes-wise, we think this is an important part of the reforms that we are bringing forward, because it will ensure that decisions are made in a more consistent and more timely manner. That is why I gave the example on Second Reading of reserved matters applications. I do not know what the views of Members are, but I certainly do not think that every reserved matters application should come back to committees. I think that often delays the process.

We can discuss many of the other challenges that we face in the planning system. It is absolutely true that there is more that we can do on empty homes; we are giving that consideration. There is more that we can do on build-out—watch this space. There is more that we can do on all these things, but it is still the case that the planning system is too inconsistent and slow, and that there are things we can do about that.

To come back to the point on build-out, and we do need to take action on build-out, it is this Government’s view that we need to oversupply consents into the planning system to ensure that we are building out at the rate that meets the housing crisis, because whatever anyone thinks about the rights or wrongs of this reform, we are not building homes at the scale that we need in order to meet housing need and housing demand. We have to do things differently. In terms of outcomes, we think this measure is impactful.

[Gideon Amos]

Another time, I would be interested to discuss what level of oversupply will actually work, because we have huge oversupply permissions already. My point is in relation to reserved matters. The last reserved matters application I dealt with was for a waste site that had 770 objections. I think local residents would have been incredulous to be told that their local planning committee was not allowed to decide that application. There were more objections to that than to any other application in the council area for years. The Bill does not say that this relates to just reserved matters, but even if the Government did bring forward a proposal to say that, does the Minister not see how controversial and significant even reserved matters applications can be?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I take the point, but let me be clear about what I said: every reserved matters application should come back before a committee. I will come back to the point that the hon. Gentleman rightly raises, but in terms of outcomes we think this measure will be impactful.

My second point is about straw men. Parts of this debate have generated more heat than light, if I am honest, and many allegations have been thrown around. Some said that this measure rides roughshod over local democracy, and the hon. Member for Broxbourne alleged that the Government are saying that once a local plan is in place, every decision will just be shoved through. That is obviously not the case, so let me be very clear about what we are talking about.

Local schemes of delegation are in place across the country. In lots of those, lots of decisions are delegated to planning officers. In principle, we all agree that expert planning officers should be allowed to make decisions on certain applications—I do not think that is contested—so let us put what we are discussing in proportion. We are not changing the consultation rules on planning applications. Representations are and will continue to be considered by the decision maker, whether that is the planning committee or the planning officer. In that sense, I will continue to argue that the proposed change does not remove democratic oversight.

My third point is about what is decided. There are understandably a lot of assumptions about what the national scheme of delegation will suggest. I would wager that in a couple of years’ time, when we look back at this, a lot of the concerns raised will seem to have been unfounded. I hope the Government allay those concerns when we bring forward the precise proposals about what we want the national scheme of delegation to entail. It is not the case that the controversial and significant applications that several hon. Members have raised, which we agree should absolutely come before committees, will be ruled out in the national scheme of delegation. The assumption about the amount that we are removing from the system will prove to be unfounded.

[Paul Holmes]

I would say to the Minister that significance is in the eye of the beholder, but may I bring him back to something that he said? I do not want to do him a disservice, but I believe he said that planning officers’ decisions, rather than local committee decisions, would not change under a national scheme of delegation; they will still be there. Can he assure us that any ability that currently exists within local schemes to call in a decision made by a planning officer will not be affected by the national scheme of delegation that he proposes?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I understand why the hon. Gentleman is doing so, but he tempts me to announce the proposals that we will bring forward. I would like to do that as a package so the House can see what the Government are proposing. As I said, at that point I think some of the concerns will have been assuaged.

My fourth and final point, which is the crux of this debate, is that we can have a very sensible discussion about the type of things that should or should not be in a national scheme of delegation. The shadow Minister just inadvertently went down that route, and I am happy to have that conversation. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington gave the game away, in a sense, when he argued that if we were just talking about a scheme of standardisation across the country, that would be fine, but a national scheme of delegation is not. We are, in a sense, talking about a standardised scheme that will ensure consistency in the system about what comes forward.

[Gideon Amos]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will just make this point, then I will give way for a final time. This debate has revealed a very principled difference of opinion, sincerely held, about whether it is appropriate at all to have a national scheme of delegation. I feel very strongly that, just as the Government set frameworks in other areas, it is right that we have a say on schemes of delegation that apply in local areas. I think that is right, both in terms of the outcomes that will be secured and to reduce uncertainty and risk in the system. I understand that Opposition Members feel differently and think that a national framework should not be applied. That is a perfectly reasonable view, but we disagree.

[Gideon Amos]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

But the conversation that we will have to have, because we have the numbers, is what the national scheme of delegation should incorporate, not whether we bring one forward. Three Members want to intervene. We have a few minutes left.

[Gideon Amos]

My point was about the distinction between a voluntary guideline and putting in statute the removal of powers from councillors. I repeat: does the Minister not have any qualms about giving all future Ministers and Secretaries of State in future Governments the power to make any regulations they want to take these powers away from councillors?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think it is perfectly appropriate that we introduce a national scheme of delegation, and that we bring forward, through a regulation-making power, those details in due course. Any future Government would have to consult on changes and take them through via secondary legislation, and it would be up for scrutiny.

I am tempted to comment more widely on regulation-making powers, but I gently say to Opposition Members that some of the placeholder clauses that I saw in legislation in the previous Parliament make this one seem very minor, in relative terms. We can debate that more widely, but I think our approach, both in outcomes and in a reasonable balance between democratic oversight and trusting expert local planning officers, which we all do in certain circumstances, is the right one.

[Lewis Cocking]

The Minister has been generous with his time. Could he comment on how we will hold planning officers to account? At the moment, we can call in planning applications democratically. How are we going to hold planning officers to account under a national scheme of delegation?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that point. It is a point well made, and it was also made by the shadow Minister on another clause. I will go away and reflect on what more, if anything, needs to be done in that regard. It is rightly put that, just as we want to ensure consistency in decisions by elected Members, we want consistency in the decisions and recommendations made by expert planning officers at a local authority level. I will happily come back to the Committee on that.

[David Simmonds]

I gently say to the Minister, who I look up to in many ways, that it is a challenge for the Committee to rely upon, on the one hand, an argument that this is not a big deal because it would affect hardly any planning applications, and on the other hand, an argument that it is so important we have to push it through via a national scheme of delegation. The concern that Members have is considering the 4% of applications that go to committee as a major problem, when in fact, by general acceptance in today’s debate, they are not really much of an issue. We lose the important element of local democratic accountability without any corresponding benefit in planning delivery.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I would say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, we do think there is a corresponding benefit, because we think the change will remove a large element of risk and uncertainty in the system and ensure some very important applications are made in a more timely way. I end by inviting the shadow Minister, at the point we publish our proposals, to come back on whether we have got the balance right. I am more than happy to continue the conversation about what we take forward on the regulations. On the principle of introducing a national scheme of delegation, the Government feel very strongly that it is the right thing to do.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Cold and Damp Homes

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Western.

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on securing this important debate. As hon. Members will be aware, he has long championed housing issues on behalf of both renters and homeowners in his constituency and across the country. He made a powerful case in his opening remarks for action to tackle the blight of cold and damp homes.

I also thank all the other hon. Members who have contributed this afternoon. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for his kind remarks, which I very much appreciate. I also thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick); the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon); and of course the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi).

I will attempt to respond to all the points that have been raised in this debate, but I hope that colleagues who represent seats in Wales and Northern Ireland will understand that, as it is a devolved matter, I am not responsible for housing policy in their areas. However, I will ensure that comments are passed on to my colleagues in the Scotland Office and the Wales Office.

Everyone, regardless of whether they are a homeowner, a leaseholder or a tenant, has a basic right to a safe, secure, affordable and decent home. Yet, as we have heard from the many cases that have been shared this afternoon, and as I am acutely aware from my south-east London constituency, far too many families live in homes that are cold, damp and often mouldy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley is absolutely right to argue that non-decent housing is not simply a housing issue, and the Government recognise that it is also a matter of public health and can exacerbate existing inequalities. It is imperative that we act decisively to improve the quality of housing in all tenures, and that is precisely what this Labour Government are doing. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the points that have been raised in this debate and to provide the House with more detail on the steps that we are taking.

I will begin by addressing the problem of cold and damp homes, which has been the focus of the debate. No tenant should be forced to live in a home that places their health and safety at risk. Although the proportion of homes with the highest energy efficiency ratings has increased over the last 10 years, an unacceptable number of English homes are not well maintained, and the number of homes suffering from damp has grown over the past five years.

A number of hon. Members mentioned several statistics, and I will give my own. In 2023, 5% of all homes in England had damp in them. The situation is worse for tenants, with 9% of privately rented homes and 7% of social homes experiencing damp. As hon. Members will know, one of the main causes of damp is excess cold, and large numbers of owner-occupiers and tenants are living in fuel poverty. Some 7.5% of owner-occupiers, 13.1% of social tenants and a staggering 21.5% of PRS tenants are fuel poor, with all the implications that that has for their physical and mental health and wellbeing.

It is stating the obvious, but it is worth restating that the social and economic benefits of bearing down on the problem are significant. It has been estimated that remedying dangerously hazardous cold in people’s homes would save the NHS over £11 million every year, and that fixing damp and mould would save a further £9.7 million. For those reasons, the Government are taking decisive action to drive up housing standards.

We are clear that when it comes to reducing the number of cold and damp homes, the existing regulatory system is not fit for purpose. Social rented homes must already meet the decent homes standard, but the part that refers to thermal comfort has not been updated since it was developed nearly a quarter of a century ago. Moreover, there is absolutely no obligation for private landlords even to meet that standard, meaning that, as I said, an astonishing 21% of privately rented homes are not decent. That is unacceptable, and it is why we will consult this year on an updated and reformed decent homes standard, which will apply to both the social and private rented sectors. That means that safe, secure housing will be the standard that people can expect in both social and privately rented properties, at no distinction between tenures.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green rightly mentioned enforcement, which is an essential aspect of bringing a new decent homes standard into force. She will be aware—and I give credit to the previous Government for this—that the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 introduced proactive consumer regulations, overseen by the Regulator of Social Housing, which can hold all registered social landlords to account. The regulator has strong enforcement powers, so where there are serious failings it can take effective action, including issuing unlimited fines.

We are also taking immediate action to clamp down on damp, mould and other hazards. Both the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley mentioned the death of two-year-old Awaab Ishak in 2020. As we have heard, Awaab died as a result of prolonged exposure to mould in his social rented home in Greater Manchester. It was an avoidable tragedy, and it shames us as a nation. I say that wherever I go; I think it utterly shames us, and it must never be repeated. That is why we have committed to implementing Awaab’s law, which was commendably legislated for by the previous Government. From October this year, social landlords will be required to address damp and mould within fixed timescales and carry out all emergency repairs as soon as possible, within no more than 24 hours.

[Florence Eshalomi]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will just finish this point, because the sequencing is important for hon. Members to understand. We will then expand the law to include other health and safety hazards in 2026 and 2027.

[Florence Eshalomi]

As the shadow Minister highlighted, the Minister closes his eyes and sees housing; he cares passionately about this area. Additional enforcement areas will rightly help so many social housing tenants, but does the Minister agree that, because of the number of people caught in temporary housing, the Government need to look at regulation in social housing? We are seeing more and more people stuck in frankly unsuitable temporary accommodation for up to five or 10 years, and 74 children have died because of the conditions linked to their temporary accommodation.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the situation for lots of families in temporary accommodation is acute, and we are aware that there are real decency problems in that respect. The Renters’ Rights Bill provides for the extension of the decent homes standard to temporary accommodation, but we are obviously giving very serious consideration to how we improve standards for those in temporary accommodation and how we very rapidly move people out and into, in almost all cases, a decent, safe, secure and affordable social rented home. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for recognising that we have not done enough on that in the past, so we need to do more in the future.

Through the Renters’ Rights Bill, we will extend the requirements of Awaab’s law to private landlords. Beyond Awaab’s law, we are legislating to introduce electrical safety standards in social housing to bring them in line with requirements in the private rented sector. We are working with the housing ombudsman to ensure that tenants can seek redress when things go wrong, and we are committed to ensuring that social landlords have the right skills and qualifications to deliver housing services for their tenants.

As the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, said, we are making tenancies in the private rented sector more secure by finally abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions. That will mean that tenants can have the confidence to complain to their landlords about poor conditions and use their right to take their landlord to court if necessary without fear of eviction.

It is all very well increasing the quality of social housing, but many people struggle to afford to heat their homes. That is not just a health hazard but a direct cause of damp and mould. An energy-efficient home is a warm and dry home, which is why we are already consulting on raising minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector, and have committed to do the same in the social rented sector in the coming months. We have committed an initial £3.4 billion to the warm homes plan funding over the next three years, including £1.8 billion to support fuel poverty schemes. That will reduce annual bills considerably for tenants.

We also recognise the contribution that more energy-efficient buildings will make to meeting our target of net zero emissions by 2050. Future standards, which will be introduced later this year, will set out how new homes and buildings can move away from reliance on volatile fossil fuels, and ensure they are fit for a net zero future. I look forward to updating the House on what those future standards entail in due course.

We know that most landlords, private and social, want to provide high-quality accommodation and work to fix damp and cold conditions as soon as they can, but we also know that our reforms will come at a cost to some. That is why our new warm homes local grant will help the private rented sector, and the warm homes social housing fund will support social housing providers and tenants.

[David Chadwick]

Does the Minister see a greater role for Welsh wool in insulating our homes? He may not be aware that many Welsh farmers actually lose money from shearing their sheep. Wool is a natural product that can be used to insulate homes. It is organic, and it would bring more money into the rural economy, unlike synthetic products.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It has been acknowledged that I have some knowledge of housing, but the hon. Gentleman tempts me into an area about which I do not have particular knowledge, not least because the warm homes plan is the responsibility not of my Department but of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. I am sure that Department will have heard all the comments that have been made about the warm homes plan, and I will ensure that the relevant Ministers reflect on them.

There is currently a zero rate of VAT until March 2027 on energy-saving measures such as insulation and low-carbon heating, making it cheaper for landlords to invest in their properties and reduce their energy usage. Other support is available to landlords to improve their properties. An eligibility tool is available on gov.uk to help people find the support available to them via the home upgrade grant and the Great British insulation scheme.

Of course, it is not just rented homes where we need to take action. We are also considering options to ensure a fair, proportionate and affordable approach to improving the energy performance of owner-occupied homes. The warm homes plan will help people find ways to save money on energy bills and will transform our ageing building stock into comfortable, low-carbon homes that are fit for the future. We will upgrade up to 5 million homes across the country by accelerating the installation of efficient new technologies such as heat pumps, solar batteries and insulation.

Before I conclude, I should mention how our efforts to improve standards and quality in homes of all tenures fit in with a wider housing strategy. In many cases, cold and damp homes are a symptom of the wider housing crisis that we inherited. That acute and entrenched crisis will not be solved by raising quality and standards; we need new supply. That is why the Government’s plan for change includes a hugely ambitious milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England in this Parliament. We know that is a stretching target, but it is deliverable, in our view, and it is essential.

We have already announced changes to planning policy to support the delivery of affordable homes. We have also provided two immediate one-year cash injections totalling £800 million to the affordable homes programme to deliver an extra 7,800 homes. On 25 March, we injected a further £2 billion into the affordable homes programme from 2026-27 to build up to 18,000 new homes by the end of this Parliament. That funding is a down payment on future long-term investment and will act as a bridge to the future grant programme to be announced in the spending review. In that programme, we want to put particular focus on delivering homes for social rent. These are new homes, built to high standards, that will be warm and dry.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is always assiduous and gives good answers. He has put forward many good ideas to ensure that the issue of cold, damp and mouldy homes is addressed in the United Kingdom, especially in England. The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) and I would be keen to ensure that the Minister shares those ideas with the Governments in Northern Ireland and Wales.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We speak regularly with our counterparts in the devolved authorities, but I will make a special point of ensuring that the comments that have been made today are passed on to the relevant Ministers within those authorities and, as I said, with colleagues in the Scotland and Wales Offices.

Once again, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley on securing this important debate, and thank all those who have contributed to it. We all know the detrimental impact that non-decent housing has on the lives of our constituents, and that more must be done to drive up standards across housing tenures. I hope that this afternoon I have provided hon. Members with reassurance that the Government are working with determination to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of housing in this country.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I call Alex Sobel to wind up.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Gideon Amos]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise to move amendment 32, which stands in my name.

We are pleased that the Government have kept their manifesto commitment to publish the long-awaited consultation on the land use framework—something the Liberal Democrats had long called for. The consultation states:

“Optimising how we use England’s land will be essential to delivering the Government’s Growth mission and the Clean Energy Superpower mission”.

It rightly recognises that a

“strategic approach to land use strategy and planning”

is needed if we are

“to avoid siloed…decision-making and…unintended consequences or unanticipated costs.”

It says that that will also inform decisions

“to guarantee our long-term food security...support development...achieve our targets on nature and climate…and support economic growth.”

Those are good objectives. However, the Secretary of State has repeatedly emphasised that the land use framework is not about telling anyone how to use land; instead, it is about providing the principles, data and tools to empower decision makers. It is right that the land use framework should not become prescriptive, but there is a real chance that it will become an expensive waste of time if it is not bolted into the planning system. To succeed, we need an efficient legal link to planning and spending decisions; otherwise, the land use framework will likely only sit on a shelf.

Part 1 of the Bill rightly recognises the need for more efficient ways to keep national policy statements up to date. In the past, NPSs have fallen behind Government policy, which has led to delay. For example, as Justice Holgate noted in the Drax development consent order challenge, the energy NPS designated in 2011 left important questions about greenhouse gas emissions unanswered because it did not reflect Parliament’s net zero decisions.

To avoid that kind of disconnect and delay, NPSs should have a direct link to the land use framework, as proposed in the amendment. The amendment would help to ensure that the land use framework has a dynamic link to major infrastructure decisions, without becoming too prescriptive. That would help to protect the environment and agriculture by guiding projects away from the most damaging options early in the process. It would also help development by improving certainty up front, reducing the challenge of judicial review were the relationship between NPSs and the land use framework left to the courts to determine.

The land use framework must be aligned with national policy objectives to inform the policies needed to deliver those objectives. Failing to consider the land use framework when reviewing national policy statements would also perpetuate siloed decision making. It would leave the land use framework as toothless and without the necessary weight, undermining public confidence in land use decisions. The amendment would not bind decision makers or prescribe specific land uses but would meet the Government’s stated objective of better informing decisions and supporting the delivery of a shared vision for English land use that balances the need for housing, energy, infrastructure and food security with our statutory climate and nature targets.

In his remarks when he launched the land use framework, the Environment Secretary said that the framework

“will work hand in hand with”

the Government’s

“housing and energy plans…creating a coherent set of policies that work together, rather than against each other.”

Ensuring that national policy statements in these areas consider the land use framework is therefore essential to realising the Government’s objectives of joined-up decision making.

The House of Lords Land Use in England Committee highlighted the issue in its report, which found that the “overarching theme” from witnesses to the Committee was the “lack of integration” between nationally significant infrastructure projects, both

“with other NSIPs (including other projects within same policy area), and with the wider planning system.”

It recommended:

“Energy and other large-scale infrastructure projects should be incorporated into a land use framework.”

An obvious and effective way to do that would be to ensure that any review of the national policy statement complied with the land use framework. Without that, and without the amendment and the institutional and legal levers to create change on the ground, a land use framework would likely just be another strategy on the shelf.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Before I speak to clause 1 stand part and respond to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I put on the record my thanks to the large number of witnesses who gave up their time last week to give evidence to the Committee and inform our deliberations.

Sustained economic growth is the only route to delivering the improved prosperity that our country needs and the high living standards that working people deserve; that is why it is this Government’s No. 1 mission. The failure to build enough critical infrastructure, from electricity networks and clean energy sources to public transport links and water supplies, has constrained economic growth and undermined our energy security. That is why the Government’s plan for change commits us to fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament.

While nationally significant infrastructure project applications are already being processed 50 days quicker on average than in the last Parliament, achieving that milestone will require the planning regime for NSIPs to fire on all cylinders—yet we know that the system as it stands is too slow and that its performance has deteriorated sharply in recent years. The Government are determined to improve it and to deliver a faster and more consenting process for critical infrastructure that will drive down costs for industry, bill payers and taxpayers.

Key to an effective NSIP regime is ensuring that national policy statements are fit for purpose. To be clear, those statements are the primary policy framework within which the examining authority makes its recommendations to Ministers on individual development consent order applications and against which the relevant Secretary of State is required to determine an application. However, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington just noted, despite their importance many national policy statements are outdated, with some having not been refreshed for over a decade.

Clause 1 addresses that problem by establishing, on enactment, a new requirement for every national policy statement to be subjected to a full review and updated at least every five years. NPSs can be reviewed at any point within that five-year timeframe, at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Additionally, any statement that has currently not been updated for over five years must be brought up to date within two years of the clause’s enactment.

Having taken on board the views of consenting Departments, a wide range of industry stakeholders and the recommendations of the National Infrastructure Commission, we believe that a five-year timeframe strikes the right balance between ensuring that statements are kept up to date, while avoiding rapid change and the consequential uncertainty for the infrastructure sectors that would be caused by a more rapid review timeframe.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The Minister may come to this later, but he will also be aware that clause 1 will make provisions for the Secretary of State to update an NPS later than required when there are exceptional circumstances, including laying a statement to Parliament. We will discuss in relation to later clauses our concern about transparency and engagement with the House. Will he outline how the Secretary of State will be able to consult the House, once she has laid that statement, to help to form her view and the Government’s view going forward?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for his question, and I look forward to what I know will be constructive debates over the days and weeks to come. He makes a fair point, which I am just coming to, in relation to the clause also providing for the ability to delay a mandatory update when there are exceptional circumstances that the relevant Secretary of State considers make the delay unavoidable.

I stress to the hon. Gentleman that those circumstances must be exceptional. We have in mind an extremely high bar: for example, if Parliament was suspended and could not sit. He will know that in instances where a national policy statement, for example, does not need to undergo a material change, a rapid update can take place on that basis. It does not have to go through consultation or the necessary parliamentary scrutiny requirements. The vision is that this particular part of the clause will be used with an exceptionally high bar, in very limited circumstances. If he wishes, I am happy to provide the Committee with further examples, but I think they will be extremely limited.

In such circumstances, as the shadow Minister said, the Secretary of State must, before the five-year deadline expires, lay a statement before Parliament explaining the reasons for the sought-after extension and when they expect to update the national policy statement, with the delay lasting only as long as the exceptional circumstances exist.

In summary, the changes give Ministers the power to ensure that national policy statements are kept up to date so that they can effectively support the delivery of the critical infrastructure that our country needs and the economic growth that its provision will deliver. I commend the clause to the Committee.

I turn to amendment 32, which, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington set out, seeks to insert a requirement for the land use framework—on which the Government consulted between January and April this year—to be complied with whenever a national policy statement is reviewed. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary because the Secretary of State is already obliged to take into account all relevant material considerations when reviewing national policy statements as a matter of law, under sections 104 and 105 of the Planning Act 2008.

If a future Secretary of State considers the final land use framework to be relevant in the circumstances of the specific national policy statement being reviewed, it must therefore be taken into account. The Secretary of State will, in those circumstances, give the land use framework the weight that they consider appropriate in their planning judgment, but their assessment of relevance cannot and should not be prejudged by writing such a requirement on to the face of the Bill.

The majority of national policy statements are not site or project-specific. For national policy statements that do identify locations as suitable or potentially suitable for a particular development, those locations will already have been the subject of strategic level environmental assessments and appraisals for inclusion in the national policy statement.

When deciding whether to grant development consent for a nationally significant infrastructure project, sections 104 and 105 of the 2008 Act require the Secretary of State to have regard to any matter that they think “both important and relevant” to the decision of whether to grant consent. Once published, the land use framework could be given such weight as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, where they consider it “both important and relevant” to the particular consenting decision that is in front of them.

For those reasons, the Government cannot accept amendment 32, which seeks to introduce an unnecessary layer of regulatory complexity, undermining our ambitions to streamline the NSIP planning system.

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

I agree very much with the Minister’s point about not introducing excessive complexity. A key issue, though, that this element of the Bill highlights is where there are complex interactions—with legal obligations that are placed on local authorities, for example. I think of my experience with Heathrow airport, where air quality duties are an absolute obligation on the local authority. Parliament can decide to derogate from that, but that does not remove the possibility of the local authority being judicially reviewed, having failed to oppose the Government’s position on a national planning policy statement.

When there are such obligations on other affected public bodies but the decision has been taken from them and is being made instead by Parliament, how will the Government ensure that those public bodies will not find themselves held liable and find that the whole process is effectively derailed—because although parliamentary decisions cannot be judicially reviewed, the involvement of that public body in decisions can be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point but, if I have understood him, it is a slightly different issue from the one we are considering. I will give him some extra clarity about the land use framework and any other material consideration that would need to be assessed. When looking at a national policy statement, the Secretary of State will have to have regard to such material considerations, be they the land use framework or any others, for the decision to be legally sound.

The reason we cannot accept the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is that it is not necessary to specifically require that, as it would effectively repeat public law decision-making principles on the face of the Bill that would have to be taken into account anyway. For that reason, we cannot accept the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, so I hope he will withdraw it. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. In our view, the land use framework is a really important document about the sustainability of the development of land in the UK, and simply referring to it as one of a number of documents that must be taken into account does not guarantee that it will be delivered on in the really important national policy statement framework. Our intention is that it should be a requirement that national policy statements are in accordance with the land use framework for those reasons; it should not simply be a background document.

I am bleary-eyed this morning, but I have spotted that there are more Members on the Government side than on the Opposition side, so we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

National policy statements: parliamentary requirements

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I will adhere to your guidance and orders on this Committee, Mrs Hobhouse. I intend to speak to clause 2 first, and then I will address amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. We welcome the premise of parliamentary scrutiny of the national policy statements, but we understand that although the usual steps for publishing and consulting on material changes—21 days under the legislation—still apply, the Secretary of State is no longer required to respond to feedback from Parliament or its Committees during that process.

That is a step back on the democratic checks and balances that the House has under current legislation. We are concerned about whether the Secretary of State will have increased power to make decisions without that scrutiny. All Ministers, including the two sitting opposite me, try to make good decisions and do their best by the country, but it is unacceptable that the legislation includes a retrograde step whereby Parliament is unable to feed back on changes proposed by the Secretary of State. We see that as a retrograde step for scrutiny.

We have seen in legislation for other Departments a centralising move into the hands of officials and Ministers. What is the benefit of this provision in the Bill? What is the benefit of taking away a very simple and usual step of Parliament being able to give its views on the Secretary of State’s movements and proposals? It does not make a tangible difference to the process. It just seems to be a power grab—that may be unfair on the Minister—or at least a movement of power away from the ability of Parliament to have traditional checks and balances.

[Matthew Pennycook]

In the interest of focusing the debate on the actual changes that we are making in the clause, when a national policy statement has been reviewed and is to be updated, and involves material changes, all the assessments and consultation that need to take place, including laying the NPS before the House of Commons, will remain in place. We are talking about a specific set of categories of reflective, small changes that, as I will make clear in my remarks later, have already been debated by Parliament in their own terms.

[Paul Holmes]

I understand that, but the fact of the matter is that the Secretary of State will no longer be required, under the Bill, to respond to feedback from Parliament. That is what the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is trying to sort out with his amendment. We very much support that amendment, because it would require the Secretary of State to provide a response to the House on amendments to national policy statements.

I have no disagreement on the provision of NPSs and what we discussed in the debate on the last clause. What tangible difference does it make to the Bill if Parliament is taken note of by being able to respond, and the Secretary of State is required to respond to that feedback? The Select Committee has a right to issue its views. Why is the Secretary of State no longer required to respond to that feedback from Parliament? To us, it seems slightly undemocratic to remove transparency and the ability of elected Members of this House, of all parties, to be able to scrutinise the movements of the Secretary of State and Ministers in national policy statements. Perhaps the Minister can explain in his comments what tangible difference it makes to his life or that of his Department that the Secretary of State no longer has to respond to feedback from elected Members of this House.

As I said, we agree with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. It would encourage greater accountability as part of the process outlined in the Bill and would enhance parliamentary scrutiny over crucial development policies that the Secretary of State has oversight of.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I draw your attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I concur with my colleagues. I have concerns about removing the response from Ministers to Parliament. We are told that constituents and residents will be kept at the heart of such decisions—they will have some say in the national planning policy framework through consultation on national infrastructure projects when they are in their area. Indeed, I asked the Prime Minister a question on the topic at PMQs. I was not convinced by his answer.

How can the Government, on the one hand, say that we will keep local people at the heart of those decisions and allow local people to have a say on them, while on the other, in this part of the Bill, remove parliamentary scrutiny? That will fill the British people with dread, that they will not have such a say in some of those infrastructure projects in their area.

[Matthew Pennycook]

May I correct the hon. Gentleman? Local people in any part of the country affected by a development consent order will still be able to have their say on it. Nothing in the clause affects that arrangement.

[Lewis Cocking]

My point is, if we remove parliamentary scrutiny, the British people out there watching this will think, “Well, hang on a minute, the Government are saying on the one hand that we will still have a say and feed into that process, but on the other they are removing parliamentary scrutiny from the process, so how do we weigh that up?” When the Bill has been through the full process to Third Reading, how can we and the British people trust that they will still have a say over national infrastructure projects in their area if parliamentary scrutiny is being removed? That is taking with one hand and giving with the other, and it could be perceived that people will not have a say; they might not believe the Government saying that they will have a say. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me be clear. I appreciate the concerns that hon. Members have expressed. I hope that I can provide some reassurance, but I am more than happy to have further exchanges on this point, which is an important one.

The clause introduces a new streamlined procedure for making material policy amendments to national policy statements, where the proposed amendments fall into four categories of changes to be made since the NPPS was last reviewed: reflecting legislative changes or revocations that have already come into force; relevant court decisions that have already been issued; Government policy that has already been published; and changes to other documents referred to in the NPPS.

A good example is our recent changes to the national planning policy framework—consulted on publicly and subject to a significant amount of scrutiny in the House. If a relevant NPPS had to be updated to reflect some of those policy changes, which have already been subject to consultation and scrutiny on their own terms, as I said, that would be a good example of where this reflective procedure might be useful.

The primary aim of the clause is to expedite the Parliamentary process for updating national policy statements. By doing so, it ensures that amendments that have already undergone public and parliamentary scrutiny can be integrated more swiftly into the relevant NPPS. In enabling reflective amendments to be made, the new procedure will support the Government’s growth mission by ensuring that NPPSs are current and relevant, increasing certainty for developers and investors, and streamlining decision making for nationally significant infrastructure projects.

Hon. Members should be assured that, where applicable, the statutory and regulatory prerequisites of an appraisal of sustainability and habitats regulation assessment will continue to apply to amendments that fall within this definition, as will the existing publication and consultation requirements for material changes to a national policy statement. The clause does, however—this is the point of debate that we have just had—disapply the requirements for the Secretary of State to respond to resolutions made by Parliament or its Committees. We believe that change is necessary to enable reflective changes to be made to NPSs in a more timely and proportionate manner.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way in one second, if the hon. Member will allow me, because I think this is some useful context for some of the discussions that have taken place over recent months.

The Government are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and the relevant Select Committee Clerks for engaging with me and my officials on the implications of the new procedure. We have agreed on certain guarantees to ensure that there will still be adequate parliamentary scrutiny when the procedure is used.

As such, I am happy to restate today that, when the Government intend to use the reflective amendment route to update a national policy statement, we will write to the relevant Select Committee at the start of the consultation period. We would hope in all instances that the Select Committee responds in a prompt and timely manner, allowing us to take on board its comments. Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the Committee during that period, in so far as that is practical.

The process retains scope for Parliament to raise matters with the Government in the usual fashion. Should a Select Committee publish a report within the relevant timeframes of the public consultation period—in a sense, that is one of the challenges we are trying to get at here: not all select Committees will respond in the relevant period, therefore elongating the process by which the reflective amendment needs to take place—the Government will obviously take those views into account before the updated statement is laid before the House in the usual manner.

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the Minister for reminding us that we are talking about a specific amendment to a specific clause about a specific thing. But the issue that is at stake here was communicated by his complaint that parliamentary process might slow things down. Surely, the whole point of Parliament is to make our laws. I am worried by the implication that Government see Parliament as a hindrance to getting things done, rather than as a crucial part of scrutiny and checks and balances. If the Minister has concerns about timescales, it is perfectly achievable to address those by setting timeframes. But the removal of the clause that requires the Government to pay attention to the views of cross-party Committees scrutinising particular statements is concerning.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I say gently to the hon. Lady that she has ignored everything I have said. Every one of the changes that will be able to be made through this process will have already been subject to relevant consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. There is the example of changes to the national planning policy framework, which underwent a huge amount of parliamentary scrutiny through a Select Committee and a statement on the Floor of the House. It is not particularly problematic that we should be able to quickly, in a timely manner—with Select Committee input if it is able to respond in the necessary timeframe—make that change to a national policy statement to ensure that it is up to date and effective.

It is worth considering what the current arrangements require. Currently, the consultation, publicity and parliamentary scrutiny appeal that the Government must follow when updating an NPS, even for a minor change of the kind I have spoken about, is exactly the same as designating an entirely new NPS. There is no ability at the moment for timely and often minor reflective updates that will only reflect policy changes that have already been made subject to scrutiny, and court decisions that have been issued—there is not process for that. We think the system would work far better in most cases if there were.

Although it is a matter for the House, we would hope that in nearly every instance the relevant Select Committee would be able to respond in time, and that those views would be taken into account to help the NPS be updated in a more proportionate and effective manner.

[Paul Holmes]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister mid-flow, but if the utopian vision that he has outlined is the case—if a Select Committee comes to them within the right amount of time they will listen to its views, but the timescales are currently too long—and the Minister genuinely wanted to allow parliamentary scrutiny and responses to be taken into account by his Department, he would have come to the Committee today outlining a number of steps contained in the legislation setting standard response times for Select Committees and the processes of this House, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said.

The Minister could have clearly outlined in the legislation an aspiration for the amount of time that he would want the changes to be worked through with Parliament. I understand that there are Standing Orders of the House, but I remind the Minister that the Leader of the House is currently a Minister under his Government, and he could have got a workaround instead of taking out the scrutiny powers of the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I simply disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a matter for the House rather than the Government. On their own terms, we think the changes made through the clause are proportionate and will ensure that the system is more effective. Again, I make it clear that we are talking about reflective amendments to national policy statements in the four specific categories I have given.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way one last time, and then I will make some progress.

[Lewis Cocking]

If we are talking about small, minor changes, surely the consultation period does not need to be that long—it will not take Select Committees long to produce a report to feed into the process if these are only minor changes. I do not see the need for change that the Minister is setting out.

[Matthew Pennycook]

All I would say is that if the hon. Gentleman looked at the history of the response times on some of these matters he would see that in not every instance is there a timely response. It can delay the process quite significantly. We appreciate the concerns, but the procedure cannot and will not be used to bypass due parliamentary scrutiny.

Any court decision change being reflected in the NPS will have been scrutinised by the public and Parliament on its own terms. We are adjusting the parliamentary scrutiny requirements to update an NPS, so that it is more proportionate and enables those documents to be updated more quickly. The process retains scope for Parliament to raise matters with the Government. The Secretary of State is required to lay a statement in Parliament announcing that a review of the NPS is taking place. The Government will write to the relevant Select Committee at the start of the consultation period, and Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the relevant Select Committee during the consultation period, so far as is practical. Finally, the NPS as amended will still be laid in Parliament for 21 days and can be prayed against.

I turn to amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington; we have covered many of the issues it raises. In seeking to remove clause 2(3)(a), it is a wrecking amendment, in our view. It would fatally and fundamentally undermine the introduction of a new streamlined procedure for updating national policy statements by requiring the Government to respond to a Select Committee inquiry before being able to lay a national policy statement before Parliament. We will therefore resist it. As I have set out, the new procedure introduced by clause 2 will help to unlock growth in our country by enabling policy to be updated more easily, providing certainty for applicants using the NSIP regime and for decision makers. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, and I commend clause 2 to the Committee.

[Gideon Amos]

I thank the hon. Members who have spoken. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for reminding me of the discussion about Hinkley, which is 13 miles from my home and is where a lot of my constituents work. In the evidence sessions, much was made of the fish disco. If memory serves, it is an AFD—not a political party in Germany, but an acoustic fish deterrent—which would cost a fair amount, but would stop about 3 million fish being killed every year in the 7-metre diameter cooling tunnels that suck seawater into Hinkley. Many of my constituents are concerned about species loss, habitat loss and the effect on the natural environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am struggling to follow what the hon. Gentleman’s specific concern is. He keeps throwing out the after-dinner speech example; that would not meet the threshold for a reflective amendment through this route. If the Government have made a policy change that has been subject to consultation and scrutiny in this House—

[Paul Holmes]

If it suits you.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Well, it would have to have been subject to consultation and scrutiny in this House in order to meet the criteria. We think that it is therefore reasonable to take it through in this manner. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is suggesting that there will be a complete absence of parliamentary scrutiny, and in that way is misleading the Committee regarding the effect of the clause.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to be able to get back to the clause. Clause 2(3)(d) of the Bill is clear that any published Government policy can be the basis for a change through this expedited route, which does not involve parliamentary scrutiny. As I explained earlier, court cases have held that a speech can be admitted as Government policy. There is another danger with this approach. It may be said that there will be only occasional changes. Were the clause restricted to where there have been legal judgments or thorough parliamentary debate, those of us on this side of the Committee would be more relaxed about the changes, but it is not; it covers all published Government policy.

One of the other dangers, besides quick changes in Government policy that would help particular projects, is a potential cumulative danger. There could be numerous changes to national policy statements through this minor amendments route, and anyone who thinks that that is unrealistic needs only to look at the cavernous website of the national planning practice guidance, which is voluminous, ever expanding and always changing. One of my concerns is that this process, through gradual attrition and minor changes, will degrade the importance of a national policy statement as a single statement that has been voted on in Parliament, rather than a mass of amendments over many years, on an ever expanding website of guidance.

If the Minister suggests that there is a very high test, clause 2(3)(d) says that the only test is that it is “published Government policy”. That is not a very high test for what can go through this expedited process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman has already made it clear that he will press the amendment, but let me take one last opportunity to reassure Members on this point. We have to be clear what the current requirements entail: they do not require the Government to agree with a Select Committee report, if it is issued in a timely manner; they just require the Secretary of State to respond to resolutions made by Parliament or its Committees. Those resolutions can ultimately be set aside if the Government disagree.

As I said, we are not trying to remove wholesale parliamentary scrutiny or the ability of the public to engage and consult. All the changes that will come down this route, when it is appropriate and necessary to use, will have been scrutinised by Parliament and, in many cases, by public consultation on their own terms. However, we think that the removal of an aspect of parliamentary scrutiny is justified by the nature of changes that can be better reflected in policy within a national policy statement. We have had extensive engagement with the Chair of the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), and the relevant Select Committee Clerks on what guarantees we can provide, while removing this requirement, to ensure that there is still adequate parliamentary scrutiny when the procedure is used.

Finally, I want to bring home to Members what we think the change will allow. We estimate that, in many cases, the requirement to respond to resolutions, particularly in cases where a Select Committee’s response is not timely, adds at least three to six months to the process of updating a national policy statement. Given that we are talking about minor changes that are already policy and court decisions, we think that this is a necessary and proportionate means of ensuring that policy statements are up to date and that investors have confidence in the policy framework being applied. We therefore think that we can streamline the process, and will resist the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Planning Act 2008 provides a uniform approach to consenting, covering a wide range of sectors and types of development. However, this may not always be proportionate for specific developments. Clause 3 provides a new power for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to disapply the requirement for development consent for specified developments that would otherwise fall under the NSIP regime. The clause contains several conditions governing when a direction may or may not be given by the Secretary of State, such as when a request for direction is needed, who may submit such a request, and what such a request may contain.

The Secretary of State may give a direction only if they consider it appropriate for an alternative consenting regime to apply to a specific development. This would mean that a development consent order is no longer required and that the development in question could instead be considered by an alternative appropriate consenting authority, bringing greater flexibility to the system of planning consent by ensuring that the appropriate regime is used, based on the specific circumstances at hand rather than on strict statutory definitions and thresholds. This will help to reduce burdens on applicants that may otherwise be disproportionate, and to develop a more streamlined and responsive decision-making process.

Let me make it clear to hon. Members what the current arrangements provide for. Section 35 of the Planning Act allows the Secretary of State to bring into the NSIP regime specified developments that do not come within the statutory meaning of a nationally significant infrastructure project. Clause 3 will provide similar flexibility but in the other direction, enabling more proportionate and efficient consenting processes. I can provide several examples of where such flexibility may be beneficial. A railway development may be within the scope of the Planning Act, but its impacts and benefits may be more local, and it may not require the compulsory acquisition of land. It might be more appropriate for such cases to be considered under the Transport and Works Act 1992 regime.

Similarly, other large developments often include multiple elements that need to be considered under different consenting regimes, leading to disproportionate work and costs in preparing multiple applications. For example, an access road that is secondary to the main development may require consent under the NSIP regime, while other elements of the development, such as housing, may fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regime. Clause 3 will allow for a direction to be provided by the Secretary of State to enable the applicant to include the access road in the planning application under the Town and Country Planning Act route.

There have also been cases where it has been argued that a development close to exiting statutory thresholds could be more appropriately considered through other, more proportionate regimes. We have all heard the examples—I have heard them in many debates secured by hon. Members—and they were highlighted again in our planning reform working paper. There are many examples of solar developments that have been deliberately kept just below the Planning Act threshold of 50 MW to avoid coming within the NSIP regime. We committed to increasing the statutory threshold for solar developments to 100 MW in December 2024, but as the technology continues to improve, similar issues may occur in the future, and other examples could emerge in other fields.

The current arrangement has resulted in the clustering of developments just below the NSIP threshold and less energy being generated overall, undermining our work to strengthen this country’s energy security. The clause provides far more flexibility at local level so that, even under the new arrangements, an applicant who wants to bring forward a 120 MW solar application need not be deterred by the nature of the present NSIP system being slow and uncertain, which we are taking steps to address. They will be able to divide their application into, say, four different applications within the TCPA regime if they have a constructive and pro-development council that they feel they can work with. That would be a faster route to getting a decision on their application, as the clause allows them to apply to the Secretary of State to make a redirection into an alternative consenting regime.

[David Simmonds]

How does the Minister propose that this measure will address boundary issues? It is not uncommon for a significant construction project to be located in one local authority while the access road, as he described, is in another local authority. Particularly where a section 106 benefit is derived from a development that is taking place, the consenting authority will undertake those negotiations, so clearly it will be necessary to have taken that into account. Can he indicate how such an approach will be built in, so that everyone has an assurance that that will be fully dealt with?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It will be for the Secretary of State to consider applicants’ requests when they are made. They will issue their policy on redirection decisions, and issue guidance for clarity about precisely how the process will operate in certain circumstances. The access road example that I gave the hon. Gentleman is a good one. In that type of scenario, there is a very strong case for an access road application not to go through the full NSIP regime, particularly if the applicant in question is dealing with a local authority that is well skilled and well resourced, and that they feel is able to better deal with the application in a more timely fashion. They can apply to the Secretary of State to make such a redirection, but we will issue guidance on specifically how the power could be used.

[David Simmonds]

May I press the Minister a little further on that? I am thinking of the Southall gasworks site, a very large housing development on a former gasworks site in London. The only possible access route to facilitate the development involved constructing a bridge from the London borough of Hillingdon, where none of that development took place, into the borough of Ealing.

Clearly, one of the issues there is that the large scale of housing being delivered is of benefit to Ealing, since it goes against its housing target. The section 106 yield also goes to Ealing as it is the consenting planning authority. However, the loss is that an access road has to be driven through a nature reserve and leisure facility in the neighbouring local authority.

I am just keen to understand how the clause will be used. When the decisions sit with two separate local authorities in normal due process, one of which has a lot more at stake and the other a lot more to lose, how will the Secretary of State be able to balance them so that local residents—constituents—can be assured that their concerns are taken into account?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I want to be very clear about the circumstances in which this measure can be used. As he will appreciate, I will not comment on a specific application, for reasons he will well understand, but, in such a scenario, I struggle to see how that application could feasibly come within the NSIP regime process at all. It sounds like a straight-down-the-line application that would be made by the applicant, across two local authorities, through the Town and Country Planning Act regime.

What the clause seeks to do is ensure that, in cases where, due to the nature of the development, the only route to go down is the NSIP regime via a development consent order, an applicant can apply to have that application determined in a different consenting order if it will lead to a faster, more proportionate and more effective decision-making process. As I say, it will therefore be for the Secretary of State to consider the unique circumstances and impacts of any specific development so that the consenting of certain developments can be undertaken by whatever body the applicant appealing to the Secretary of State says is the more appropriate route. In most instances, I would assume that that would be the local planning authority, but I gave the example of the Transport and Works Acts regime for roads.

We are trying to get at the type of examples where developments need limited consents or may not need compulsory acquisition—in a sense, when the one-stop-shop nature of the NSIP regime may not be the most proportionate means to take that through. The redirection under the clause will not be appropriate for all developments, and, for a direction to be given, the Secretary of State must consider that it is appropriate for an alternative consenting regime to apply rather than the Planning Act.

[Lewis Cocking]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Has his Department done any analysis of how many requests the Government are likely to get under the clause, and how many applications will want to change how they are determined?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think the thrust of the hon. Member’s question was about a numerical analysis. No, we cannot account for the behavioural change that would come if this clause is enacted. What we do know, from significant engagement with stakeholders in the infrastructure sector, is that lots of applicants would make use of the redirection route and are eager to do so.

The examples I have heard from particular major economic infrastructure providers are where, as I say, they have a constructive and healthy working relationship with a local authority that they are confident is resourced and able to take the decision to approve or reject an application in a timely manner and they do not want to have to take it through the NSIP regime, which is currently their only route.

As I said, section 35 already allows the Secretary of State to pull applications from other regimes into the NSIP regime. This will work the other way, and just provides a necessary flexibility. The point of clause 3, though, is to ensure that any given applicant can make a case to the Secretary of State to go into the regime that they feel is the most appropriate and proportionate for the application in question.

[Lewis Cocking]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. I just want to press him a little more. He is saying that people can choose to go through the Town and Country Planning Act regime, but we were always told by this Government that that is a long, arduous process that developments take a really long time to go through. Why are they suggesting that they might want to put more development through that process if, as they are saying, it is not working?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government are agnostic on which route a developer will wish to go down. As I say, developers will have to apply to the Secretary of State and make a case that, in the specific circumstances in which they are operating, there should be an alternative consenting route. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are making significant efforts to speed up and streamline the town and country planning regime. From previous debates, I know that he takes issue with some of that, but if he has had a conversion, I would very much welcome it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

Without wanting to shock the Minister too much, I rise to support the clause. The Liberal Democrats want measures that will help to facilitate net zero and other developments, and the clause will provide an opportunity for many decisions to go into the Town and Country Planning Act regime, which is local, is accountable and involves local planning committees. That shows that this does not necessarily need to be a slower process; it could at times be a quicker process with more local involvement. I have been involved in NSIP projects that could have gone through that process but in fact came through the Planning Act 2008 regime. Direction under the proposed new section could be very helpful in ensuring more local processing of planning applications.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am slightly taken aback by the supportive comment from the hon. Gentleman, but I very much welcome it.

Before I make my main point, it may be helpful if I give hon. Members another example of the types of alternative consenting routes that may be considered more appropriate. We spoke about the Town and Country Planning Act and the Transport and Works Act regimes. Offshore generating stations are another good example. If they are wholly offshore, responsibility for electricity consent functions under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 may be more appropriately transferred to the Marine Management Organisation under section 12 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009—again, rather than the NSIP regime. We will provide further detail, through guidance, about all the regimes that it will be considered appropriate to use in relation to this power.

I gave hon. Members assurances on the fact that we will work across Government to prepare and publish policy that will provide clarity about the Secretary of State’s considerations when determining requests for redirection of a project. As I said, we will also issue guidance that makes the process clear. However, I am more than happy, in response to the shadow Minister’s point, to write to the Committee to set out in more detail how we think this process will work. That will include responding to his specific point on proposed new section 35D—

[David Simmonds]

It would be helpful if, when the Minister produces that response, he could also set out for the Committee how the processes in place will ensure consistency of decision making. As he described, some local authorities may be more pro in a particular area, or less so. There is a need to ensure transparency that a given nature of development and a given scale will be dealt with in a consistent manner.

Can the Minister tell us whether any consideration has been given to any time constraints? I am just mindful of the fact that one issue that certainly occurs in local authorities and potentially in central Government is that if the end of a Parliament, a general election, is coming up, there is a risk of developers thinking, “At this point, I’m more likely to get the Minister to sign things off if I go down this route or that route,” regardless of the merits, on a planning basis, of the individual projects that are being put forward. Can we be assured that that will be properly addressed so that we do not see development being constrained by an imminent election or, indeed, advanced without due process because of an imminent election?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that entirely reasonable question. It would certainly be our intention, in preparing and publishing policy, to provide clarity. As I said on the Secretary of State’s considerations when determining requests for redirection of a project, we would hope that guidance absolutely provides certainty and clarity. It will not help the Government’s objectives through the Bill if applicants and investors are not clear about how this process works.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s other point, about clarification of the timelines for how the process could be used, I recognise the concern, but I again remind him that it will be for the Secretary of State to make a decision only on whether an alternative consenting regime can be used. It will be through the normal processes of whatever consenting regime is used, if such a redirection is allowed, that a decision will be made on the material considerations at play in any given application; it will not be for the Secretary of State to decide. This is merely a power to allow, as I said, an applicant to redirect an application into an alternative consenting regime from the NSIP planning process through the Planning Act 2008. On that basis—

[David Simmonds]

May I press the Minister a little more on that point? I understand and thank him for the clarity that he has brought. As he set out, one purpose of the change is to ensure greater certainty for investors and applicants about the process. We are all very aware that planning issues can often become quite significant local political issues as well.

How will the regime avoid a situation where, with an election in the not-too-distant future, there is a political trade-off that involves a Government, a Minister or a candidate saying, “If we win the election, we are going to push it down this route” in order to try to produce outcome A, versus “We think we should push it down an alternative route” in order to produce a different outcome through the planning process? How can we make sure that it is sufficiently insulated from that political turmoil to ensure certainty?

[The Chair]

Order. I remind the Committee that we need to get through quite a lot of stuff. The Minister has already said that he will write to the Committee, so I urge Members to press on. I know that these are very important matters, but the Minister has already said that he is going to write.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse. Those of us on the Government Benches will certainly take that stricture into account and limit the length of our contributions. On the specific point, I must say, in all candour, that I struggle to foresee how the dynamics that the hon. Gentleman has just outlined will operate. It is not for the Government to make a judgment on any particular application that a developer may wish to make. It is not the Government’s position to take a view on which consenting regime would be most appropriate, other than on which will produce the most timely and proportionate determination of an application. It will be for the applicant to decide in writing to the Secretary of State, and to make a request to use an alternative consenting regime.

All the Secretary of State will do is decide whether the circumstances at play are such that there is a good case for an alternative to the NSIP regime to be used in a given scenario. As I say, we will set out in policy and guidance more detail about the regimes to which we think this alternative can apply and how we foresee the redirection power being used. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Applications for development consent: consultation

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 4, page 8, line 21, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment is consequential on NC44.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 58.

Clause stand part.

Government motion to transfer clause 4.

Clause 5 stand part.

Government amendments 60 to 67.

Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.

Government new clause 44—Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements.

Government new clause 45—Applications for development consent: changes related to section (Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements).

[Matthew Pennycook]

As hon. Members will be aware, last week the Government announced that we will reform the pre-application stage for nationally significant infrastructure projects to remove the statutory requirement for applicants to consult. Although the Government are committed to consultation and the value that early and constructive engagement plays in developing high-quality infrastructure schemes, feedback on Second Reading and since the Bill’s introduction has shown that the status quo is not working. Evidence indicates that the statutory requirements, which are unique to the NSIP regime and not found in any other planning consenting regime, are now creating perverse incentives.

Rather than driving better outcomes and improving infrastructure applications, statutory pre-application procedures have become a tick-box exercise that encourages risk aversion and gold plating. The result is that communities suffer from consultation fatigue and confusion, with them having to cope with longer, ever-more technical and less accessible documentation. The arrangement also actively disincentivises improvements to applications, even if they are in the local community’s interests, because applicants worry that any change will require further repeat consultation and added delay to the process.

As the Deputy Prime Minister and I set out on Second Reading, we would not hesitate to act boldly if a compelling case for change was made, to ensure that the NSIP regime is firing on all cylinders to deliver on our ambition for building the homes and infrastructure needed to grow our economy.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Does the Minister, like me, recall the evidence we heard last week from the chair of the National Infrastructure Commission? A report written by the organisation in 2023 said that one of the reasons for the extravagant delays to nationally significant infrastructure projects was “disproportionate consultation”. My constituents are acutely aware of that issue because they have had to wait more than 15 years for the lower Thames crossing to be consented, partly as a result of the very disproportionate consultation that Sir John Armitt referred to. Does the Minister agree that the clauses and amendments he is proposing will provide a significant change to the speed at which NSIPs take place, which will benefit those who are currently suffering as a result of the lack of infrastructure in their area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I completely agree with him. The system was set up with very specific objectives in mind. It was created initially without a role for Ministers. That was addressed by the Localism Act 2011, but the statutory pre-consultation requirements were kept in place on the basis that they were helping to improve applications prior to submission. However, according to lots of the evidence we have received in response to our working paper on the subject, the feedback from external stakeholders and the calls on Second Reading for us to look again at this specific area, the statutory requirements are now driving perverse and often bad outcomes, including for the communities affected by them.

Last week, I made a written ministerial statement explaining the changes that the Government intend to make. We are tabling a clean package of amendments to implement these reforms through the Bill. The amendments fall into three broad categories.

First, new clause 44 will remove the relevant sections of the Planning Act to give this change effect. That includes removing the sections that require applicants to consult local authorities, landowners, statutory consultees and local communities before submitting applications for development consent. It will also remove from the Act definitions for those groups.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend puts it probably more bluntly than I have, but he is absolutely spot on. I know he has an enormous amount of experience in local government negotiating around exactly these kinds of points.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I want to tease out a point here, because one of the reasons the Government are confident that the change will lead to beneficial outcomes is that high-quality engagement and consultation routinely takes place in other planning regimes that do not have statutory pre-application requirements. Why do Opposition Members think that their removal, which will equalise all planning consent regimes so that statutory pre-application requirements are not at play, is damaging in this instance? In the TCPA and the types of residential application they are talking about, bad engagement happens, but high-quality consultation and engagement happen too, and residents and other stakeholders get their say post-submission.

[David Simmonds]

I think that most of us who have been on a planning committee, as the Minister has, probably recognise that, if anything, to satisfy the concerns of our constituents we should be going further with the consultation on small applications, rather than reducing it in larger ways. We are debating developments that will have an enormous community impact, and there are often important points of detail that influence the level of consent.

We have had multiple debates in this and the previous Parliament about the loss of high-quality agricultural land to solar farms, for example. It is quite likely that a community, if it fully understands exactly how a developer will mitigate that impact, will come around to supporting such a development; but if the community is simply faced with, “Here is the planning application. We have made it already. Take it or leave it,” there is a risk from not allowing the opportunity for the level of consent to be built up. That will in turn encourage, and in the case of local authorities’ statutory obligations, force, the exploration of other legal routes of objection to prevent the application proceeding.

While I understand what the Minister is saying, like the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, we will use the opportunity given by the provisions being tabled relatively late in the day to explore alternative methods by which concerns can be addressed. It seems to us fundamental that if a major application is made, those who are affected by it should have the opportunity in advance to learn what it means for them, their community and their home, and should not simply be told that the planning application has been made.

There is a world of difference between a planning application that means, “Your house is going to be demolished in order for something to proceed,” and a planning application that indicates a much less significant impact. It is those kinds of issues that need to be teased out; that is what the pre-application discussions and consultations are there for. We encourage the Government to think about a different, more nuanced way to address fully the concerns that have been expressed cross-party, although in slightly different ways.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns]

Q On the first part of my question, what do you think the purpose of planning should be?

Faraz Baber: Planning is there to help, for want of a better phrase, with the placemaking and the delivery, and to ensure that there are guidelines for how plan making should take place. It is there to ensure that the various levers associated with the plan-making process and the development process are understood. Planning is the guardian that ensures that sustainable development can come forward.

Victoria Hills: One of the most important questions that anybody—elected leaders or executive leaders—can ask is “Why?” Why are we doing it? What is it all about? What is the purpose of this Bill? What is the purpose of planning? That is why we think it is essential, within the realms of this Bill, that a public purpose of planning is stated up front. You do not have to take our word for it. Our research published yesterday shows that the vast majority of the public do not have a clue what planning is. They do not know what it is for, and if you are going to drive through a major reform programme for planning, the likes of which we have not seen for 15 years, it might be a good idea if we are very clear on what the purpose of planning is.

For us, the purpose is really clear; at a strategic level, it is about the long-term public interest, the common good and the future wellbeing of communities. You need to be open and honest with the public up front that all this change that is coming in planning and infrastructure is actually for the long-term common good. Some of it people may not like in the short term, but we are talking about the long-term common good— delivering on climate, delivering on sustainable development goals and delivering for communities. We think it is really important that the opportunity is not missed, not only to help inform the public and everybody else who needs to know what the purpose of planning is but to provide that north star, that guiding star, as to the why. Why are we doing this? What purpose does it have?

Thank you for your question. We are absolutely clear that having a public purpose of planning is really important for this legislation, and we will continue to make that case.

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

Q I have two quick questions: one on planning decisions for Victoria and one on development corporations for Hugh. Victoria, you will know that at the moment individual local planning authorities have schemes of delegation. It would be great to get your take on how effective they are. What variation do we see out there? What principles should inform the national scheme of delegation that we intend to introduce via the Bill?

Hugh—the Bill provides a clearer, more flexible and more robust framework for the operation of development corporations. You know that it is clearly our view that they have to do a lot of work in the coming years to drive the kind of delivery we need and the types of development we want to see come forward. What is your assessment of how effective those development corporation powers are to support development and regeneration?

Victoria Hills: One thing we know about from our members, but also from those people who are actually in the business of building things—of course, that is really what is important if you want to see some growth coming—is consistency. You asked about the variation. Some councils have fantastic schemes of delegation and it is very clear what is and is not going to committee, but other councils have a slightly more grey scheme of delegation—let’s call it that—whereby things can pop up in committee on the basis of an individual issue or individual councillor.

The opportunity afforded to us by the Bill is for some consistency through a national scheme of delegation. We have in place some very robust processes that look at the business of development, through the local plan process. It goes to not one but two public inquiries, through the Government’s inspectorate, and then back to the community. What we recognise is that if you have had some very robust considerations of the principles of development and you have good development prescribed by, for example, a design code that says, “This is what good development looks like here”—so we have worked out what we want, where it is going and what it looks like—it is perfectly possible that suitably qualified chief planning officers can work out whether something is in conformity with a plan. We therefore welcome the opportunity to clarify that through a national scheme of delegation.

This is not to take away anybody’s democratic mandate to have their say. Of course, there are all sorts of opportunities to have that say in the local plan process, but if we are to move to a national scheme of delegation, we would want a statutory chief planning officer who has that statutory wraparound and has the appropriate level of competency and gravitas to be able to drive forward that change, because it will be a change for some authorities. For some, it will not be a change at all, but taking forward that innovation via a national scheme of delegation will require that statutory post, so that those decisions cannot be challenged, because they will be made in a professionally competent way.

Hugh Ellis: I think development corporations are essential if we are going to achieve this mission. You would expect the TCPA to say that, because we are inheritors of the new towns programme. The interesting thing about them is that, for the first time, they bolt together strategy and delivery. The existing town and country planning system is often blamed for not delivering homes, but it has no power to build them.

The development corporation solves that problem by creating a delivery arm that can effectively deliver homes, as we saw with the new towns programme, which housed 2.8 million people in 32 places in less than 20 years of designation, and it also paid for itself—it is an extraordinary model. The measures in the Bill to modernise overall duties on development corporations are really welcome. I assume you do not want me to talk about compulsory purchase orders right now, but hope value and CPOs are critical accompanying ideas in the reform package that go with that. In the long run, I think that they will become critical.

Obviously, the new towns taskforce has to decide what it wants on policy. The challenge that we face with them is legitimacy, and there is still work to do in making sure that there is a Rolls-Royce process of getting public consent for this new generation of places. However, the outcome is such an opportunity to generate places that genuinely enhance people’s health, deal with the climate crisis and provide high levels of affordability. What a contrast that is with what we have delivered through town and country planning at local plan level, which is a lot of the bolt-on, car-dependent development. Frankly, as a planner, I find that shameful. The opportunity with development corporations is there and I hope that the Government seize it.

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

Q Clause 46 is about delegating decisions away from elected councillors, which is something that the Liberal Democrats oppose. This is directed to Dr Hugh Ellis, but the others may wish to jump in. I am a planner, you are a planner; perhaps all these decisions should be taken by planners. Would you like to respond?

Hugh Ellis: I will be honest: as a planner, I am really worried about it. The one difficult thing is that you cannot build without consent, and I think governance in planning is really important. Environmental governance in general is important. I am sceptical about the degree to which this is a really big problem. I can see evidence coming through to suggest that delegation rates for normal applications that you can decide locally are very high already.

I made this point earlier on, but what worries me more than anything else is that if you sideline the opportunity that the public currently have to be represented at committee, the appearance—if not the intent—is that you are excluding people. In periods of change, you have to lean into consultation, participation and democratic accountability. You must accept that while it is not a veto, because you as parliamentarians may wish to decide that the development proceeds, it is either democracy or it is not.

For us, the idea of democratic planning is so central, and it was so important in 1947. That Government had a choice: it had proposed a Land Board, which could have made all the planning decisions centrally, but it gave those decisions to local government on the basis that people locally understand decision making best. My own experience is that people are a solution, not a problem. Wherever I go, I find people who know detail about development and can improve it, particularly on flood risk, and they want to contribute.

I do not accept that there is an anti-development lobby everywhere, and there certainly is not in my community. Instead, there are people concerned about quality, affordability and service provision, and their voice should be heard. The Bill could create the impression, even if it is not the intent, that there is a non-respectful conversation going on. Finally, as a planner, I would never want to be in the firing line for taking a decision on a major housing scheme that is ultimately a matter of politics, and should always be so.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

Q I would like to ask you both about the interaction between green-belt and farming areas. In a constituency such as mine, which is on the edge of London, as well as a lot of edge-of-city constituencies, there is land that is both in the green belt and farmland. That has significant implications for the landowner because the hope value is significantly higher than farmland might be elsewhere, but it also needs additional protection because it is ancillary to the existence of the city. It sometimes provides a source of food and leisure, as well as the environmental benefits of it being a green space.

I am interested in your view on whether the Bill sufficiently addresses the balance between green belt and agricultural use. What improvements would you want to see on compulsory purchase processes to ensure that landowners in those locations have appropriate recourse? Also, where it is clear that the land in question provides a broader public benefit, as opposed to simply being a business standing on its own, how can we ensure that the broader public benefit can be accounted for in the reckoning up of the value of that land?

Rachel Hallos: It is almost like having ransom strips next to urban conurbations. That green belt gets sucked into that urban conurbation and, all of a sudden, it becomes a brown belt—I think “grey belt” was also considered at one stage. The reality is, when you are in that situation—I can completely understand, although some of my members would not; that is the leadership role that we have to take—that that land is of national benefit through development. That is because it increases the size of the town, the infrastructure—the whole thing. On what the Bill needs to do, again it goes back to doing the number crunching. What is the long-term benefit of this?

We also have to remember that when we compulsorily purchase land from a farmer who is running their business and living there, they have every right to make a decision to restart their business elsewhere. What if the land value goes up and they are being paid just the flat agricultural rate? Everybody wants that land, because guess what? Everybody wants land right now. Everybody wants land for everything, so land prices are creeping up anyway. There is then artificial inflation of the land price in that area because everybody is after it.

That bit also needs to be taken into consideration when it comes to recompensing anybody who has land taken away from them. It is a complicated formula, but the Bill really does need to look at that if we are to go anywhere near rebuilding confidence and trust between the agricultural community and Government. Especially if we put it in the package of everything else that is going on, we are very much in danger of having it go “bang” again. This has to stop. We all have to get on with life. We all have to get on with what we do—produce food, infrastructure or growth for the country.

Paul Miner: Green belt is a planning policy, but as you have rightly pointed out, green-belt land often has a wide range of public benefits and meanings for people who live in the towns and cities that the green belts surround. We strongly support the Bill’s provision for spatial development strategies, because you need effective strategic planning in order for green-belt policy to work effectively.

Also, from our perspective, we should not just be looking at how the planning policy should work. If we accept that the vast majority of green-belt land will not become grey belt in the future but will remain designated green belts, we need to think about how we can better manage that land. That is why it is really important that in spatial development strategies and in the Government’s land use framework, we have policies for improving the management of green-belt land. Until now, green-belt land has been relatively poorly served by successive Governments’ environmental land management schemes. There is relatively low take-up in green-belt areas. We urge the Government, as part of the land use framework but also with spatial development strategies, to seek to improve the quality of green belts for nature and for climate.

Rachel Hallos: May I add one last thing to that? Sorry to be rude. When it comes to the spatial development strategies, LNRSs and all the different things that are going on and are being consulted on at the moment, there is no legal requirement to consult the land manager. That worries me. It is just wrong.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Rachel, may I press you on CPOs, because you have raised some very stark and serious concerns? Could you outline for the Committee what you understand the CPO reforms in the Bill to do? Specifically, could I ask whether you accept that we are, through the Bill, not changing the core principles of compulsory purchase and that, when it comes to removing hope value by directions, the Bill will merely extend an existing power, introduced by the previous Government, to town and parish councils? What is the great fear about what we are doing on CPOs through this legislation?

Rachel Hallos: It is bigger than just this Bill on CPOs. There is a mistrust. There is a concern that people are not taking food production or agriculture seriously. This is what it is encapsulated in, but the CPO element for me is that people have felt the pain of badly delivered CPOs, through High Speed 2 in particular; other things have gone on in this country. That has lingered really heavily, so when you start mentioning compulsory purchase to any land manager or landowner, it sends shivers down their spine.

We are concerned that disregarding a hope value puts landowners and farmers in that tailspin again, so where do we go from here? How do we deal with this? We have found that especially with our members and HS2—I will keep referring to HS2 because it has been an absolute nightmare, and it is still a nightmare. They are still waiting for the final, agreed payment in many cases, so that they can start getting on with their life. That is the concern when it comes to the hope value.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q If I have understood you correctly, there is a general dislike of CPO, and a general objection to the powers introduced by the previous Government’s Bill, but nothing very specific about what is in this legislation.

Rachel Hallos: It is the fact that there is potential they will not get paid the true value of that land or that farm—that is the concern.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q In some cases, they will get paid an astronomical value.

Rachel Hallos: Ultimately, it is a person’s life and livelihood. They are going to get paid only the basic agricultural value, out of no fault of their own, and they have to start up elsewhere. This is not going to happen just once or twice; if we follow the huge infrastructure plans that we all know the country needs—we accept as a union that we need to grow—this will inflate land prices elsewhere, as people choose to continue their livelihoods elsewhere and go looking for that land. That is the difference.

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is very useful. Thank you.

[Paul Holmes]

I will come back again, although I know you are under the cosh at the moment.

Rachel Hallos: It’s fine; that is why I am here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Yes.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Nationally significant infrastructure projects, which I do not think you have chosen to talk about.

Councillor Hug: No—they are coming through very quickly. From a local authority perspective, I think the point is making sure that, if they are not formal consultees, there is some other mechanism for local authorities and others to feed into the process in a structured way to make sure that their voices are heard, even if formal statutory consultees are being reformed.

[Paul Holmes]

We are removing statutory consultees.

Councillor Hug: There is significant concern about that removal. That process is how you identify some of the specific issues on the ground that need significant further investigation. I do not think you will save any time by removing that, because the investigation will turn up at the planning stage. You will just delay planning, because these will be areas around statutory consultees. What it will do is give the public the impression that things are just being rubber stamped and railroaded through. That will be catastrophic. NSIPs are such contested spaces already. We have to give people the chance to raise concerns to identify issues on the ground at local level that need further work and further attention. If we do not do that, people will lose all faith in that process, and they are already sceptical enough.

Councillor Clewer: I have the same concerns. NSIPs are decided by the Secretary of State. I have five in my district at the moment, including battery farms, solar farms and a reservoir. It is not about objection—consultation can bring forth some really good ideas, some solutions and some changes. It is massively important. For instance, even if there will be an impact on your community, the community benefit could be discussed right at the start. All sorts of improvements could be put in place through consultation before it gets to the formal stage. It is also about the appearance of removing that consultation. At a time when LGR devolution is meant to be bringing decentralisation, to just say that this is all going to be decided centrally is not a good picture.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Could I ask you about the reforms in the Bill relating to planning decisions, and specifically our intention to take powers to introduce a national scheme of delegation? How do you think that could be best designed? What are the types of applications that you think should always be taken by planning committees, and which types of applications could be appropriately delegated to expert planning officers?

Councillor Wright: For a start, the vast majority of planning permissions or planning applications are already decided by officers anyway in many councils—something like 97% in my authority were decided—so what exactly do you think we are now going to pass when under more pressure?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q We heard earlier from the RTPI about the variation in the quality and effectiveness of schemes of delegation at a local level.

Councillor Wright: With regard to a national scheme, if it was advisory not mandatory—if there was some general advice out there that could be given as guidance —that would be better than mandating. What could be mandated for one area, when you look at super-urban areas compared with rural areas, might not be exactly the same sort of decision making that you are looking for.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q The Bill will mandate it, so I am asking you what you think is the most effective design for the national scheme of delegation that we intend to introduce. It is perfectly fine if you do not want it, but I am trying to get to that, given that we are intending to introduce it.

Councillor Hug: I think there should be a common core. I am not quite sure how the mayoralties and others will feed into responding to particular issues around the urban and rural geographies. I think there should be a basic common core to this. Looking at how it might operate, again, I am coming from an authority that has only 3% going to committees—all told, it is about 1.4%, if you include all the advertising and listed building concerns that get through. A very small amount go through, so there is a lot of good practice happening already.

In terms of how that works, one of the things that we want to ensure that we do not lose is the ability, for example if a scheme is likely to be rejected by officers, to put that to a committee that might come to a more pragmatic decision than just a rigid response based on policy. There are some other things, such as we want to ensure that there are opportunities for councils to go beyond the scheme of delegations; if there was a nationally set thing, you want to make sure that it is not just a cap on what is delegated.

I think that some flexibility around urban and rural, and working with local authorities about the design of the specific scheme, would be good. It is clear that they will want as much guidance as possible about the types of things that the Government are wanting to see happen. Obviously, from our perspective we understand the point about the centrality of getting the local plans and making them as robust as possible to give people clarity about what goes on in future.

The challenge comes when quite a lot of schemes come forward that are not in full compliance with policy, because the real world is messy and things have to be traded off against each other. The question is basically to what extent can those trade-offs be dealt with at office level versus at committee. That is why we want to get into the details of that with you, to make it work effectively.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q I should say that we are formally consulting about this matter alongside the Bill, but it is useful to draw out what you think in design terms.

Councillor Clewer: I have a couple of points to add. There are elements in what you are proposing that I would welcome. On mandatory training, goodness knows why we do not have that already—it is desperately needed. I am not sure that Richard would entirely agree, but when it comes to local plan allocated sites, I struggle with the idea that they could come to committee to then be refused. I think there is a benefit in committees or someone looking at elements of design and whether 106s are being carried out appropriately, but once something has gone through a local plan, I think we have to be careful about where committees step in.

To give an example of where I think you have to be incredibly careful with this, I took a planning application to committee last week for a listed building where someone wanted to cut and raise a beam by 10 inches. They had had a stroke, and they were in a position where they were literally having to live in a conservatory. Officers had said no. I got that application to a committee so that the beam could be raised to allow a stairlift to go in—when the person leaves the beam could be lowered—and the committee almost unanimously approved it.

We had the ability at an incredibly basic level to give someone the dignity of being able to get to their bathroom through a planning system where the harm was conceived by everyone as minimal. We cannot lose that ability to resolve those local and micro issues in a really local way. Finding the balance there is going to be challenging. Too much permitted development, too many automatics, will prevent us from being able to do that. I am sure we could all give further examples of where we have needed to use that ability to deal with things, very often with refusals, to enable them to be granted.

On the flipside, sometimes it is fair to say that members will get something that is recommended for approval and call to committee because they do not like it. I think we have to be able to justify on good planning grounds why on earth we are calling something to committee. If we do not have them I have no problem with officers turning round and saying, “I am sorry; you haven’t got planning grounds,” but it is about finding the right balance.

Councillor Wright: With regard to local plans and to what Richard has just referred to there, we have already instigated that in our authority you have to give planning reasons for bringing something to the planning committee. You might consider that you could just delegate a decision on a local plan allocated piece of land, but some of those could be of considerable size; they could be for a sustainable urban extension, for instance, so you cannot just act on the principle that because it is in the plan it does not need to be at committee.

We are makers of place: we build homes, not houses. We do not want to see officers suddenly having to make a delegated decision on how many houses go on a piece of land based on how the developer wants to bring it forward. The master planning, the design coding and all those issues need to be taken into consideration. It should not be left to officers who will end up getting the same grief that members get, but as unelected officers.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q If I have understood you, I do not think we are suggesting that. We want the most important, most significant major applications to come to committee. Given the examples we have given before, should every reserved matters application come before a committee?

Councillor Clewer: No.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Should every small site application come before a committee?

Councillor Hug: No. We had a thing where someone in a public report was saying we had only built x number of houses, but the reality was that far more homes had gone through under delegated authority than had actually gone to committee, so we were being wronged by the fact we had done that process.

Councillor Clewer: But there may be some specific circumstance that creates a nuanced judgment where it absolutely should go to committee. And please do not just talk about the big projects; it is those small ones that are deeply personal to people where national policy says no, but circumstance actually says that you can get round national policy.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I take the point about the nuance. That is helpful—thank you.

[Gideon Amos]

Q As a former councillor whose wife is a current councillor, I know the struggles and challenges. You have made a powerful case about the importance of councillors and the public acceptance of the decisions that you are talking about, and you have highlighted approvals where the recommendation has been refusal. As Liberal Democrats we oppose the clause completely, but if the Government insist on it, would you want to see in the Bill some qualification of the power of central Government to write your delegation agreements to your officers, because at the moment the regulations that could be laid are completely unqualified?

Councillor Hug: As the Minister pointed out, the consultation is going on in parallel with the Bill. Hopefully we can make this national scheme of delegation work, provided that there is a degree of flexibility built into it. I hope that working between local government and national Government can help to resolve some of those issues at pace. Obviously some things may need to be specified, but we are hopeful that that kind of engagement can help to resolve some of the issues.

Councillor Clewer: If in the scheme of delegation we see guidelines around how a scheme of delegation should work, I am not sure that that would concern me hugely. If they are prescriptive rather than guidelines, we will fall into the problem that you will create cases where you need to get round them but you cannot.

This is a simplistic example—I will get into trouble now with the New Forest national park authority—but we allow parish councils there to call things into committee. I think that that is crazy. It ends up with all sorts of things coming to committee that should never go near them. I would love a delegation that said that they cannot do that, on a personal level. There are elements where I think Government guidance would be really helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Q Thank you, Catherine. The Minister and I have regularly been on Committees in the House where we—the Conservative party—agree with the Government’s proposals over planning fees. We have been on many Committees together where we have not contested those. Could you elaborate on how helpful you think the Government’s proposals on ring-fencing and planning fees are, how prescriptive you find them and whether they could be improved?

Could you also outline how you think the proposal could help the speediness of planning applications, but also have a greater impact on local government’s workforce challenges in recruiting and holding on to planning experts? Do you think the legislation will allow local authorities to have enough funding to keep town planners in local authority town halls and not going off to private companies?

Catherine Howard: The way the legislation is drafted, it looks to me like it is highly prescriptive and will be very effective at ringfencing. It talks about the need to secure that the income from the fees or charges is applied towards the carrying out of the functions that are listed. Those are functions such as dealing with planning applications, certificates of lawfulness, tree applications and listed buildings. There are things it does not deal with—that is presumably deliberate—such as general enforcement and plan making. It seems to me that, the way it is drafted, you could not use the money from all of those developer application fees and just apply it to plan making and those kind of functions. If that is the intention, that is what it appears to achieve.

Regarding recruitment, I know that fee recovery has been put into law in a number of different planning regimes. I am more of a specialist in the national infrastructure regime, where those provisions have been added quite liberally. It will be interesting to see how effective a pay-as-you-go system is. My concern still, in terms of how effective that will be at recruitment and retention, is that I do not know how much flexibility statutory authorities will have to set public pay scales. I would have thought—I am not an expert in this area—that if you want to attract and keep people who are otherwise tempted to go off to the private sector where pay seems to be higher, particularly with supply and demand the way that it is, you will need to make the applicable pay scales higher.

I am not sure that the fees that are attracted by a developer can just be used to give people bonuses or higher salaries within the private sector. That is my concern. If the fees can somehow be used to recruit and retain more people within planning authorities, that must be a good thing. It seems to me that there has been more of a drain of talent out of the local authorities and all of the public sector authorities and regulators post Covid in particular, now that people can work from home. Some of the benefits of working with slightly more flexibility, which the public sector was always better at than the private sector, have slightly gone. I imagine there is more of an inducement for people to move across if they are being offered more money, so I recognise the problem.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Thank you, Catherine, for giving up your time this afternoon. I have two questions on the NSIP regime and development consent orders, which is your specialism. First, you will have seen that the Government tabled a series of amendments yesterday to remove the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage. Could you give us your sense of the impact you think that will have on the speed of the consenting process overall? What do you broadly expect applicants to do now that those requirements have been removed, but new statutory guidance will be introduced setting out what we expect? Is it a mature enough system now that we can expect most applicants to still consult and engage meaningfully, and what are the incentives at play there to ensure that they will?

Secondly, on the broad ambition to provide for a faster and more certain consenting NSIP process, do you think there is anything that we are missing here that we should still look at?

Catherine Howard: I hugely welcome the change that was made yesterday, in terms of speeding up and cutting out unnecessary bureaucracy that helped no one, except for helping professionals like me to spend more time and gain more fees out of our clients. There is, as we just talked about, a lack of enough professionals in the whole industry to staff the system. The Government’s ambition is to triple the rate of DCO consenting to get 150 DCOs through in this Parliament. We cannot magic up more comms consultants, lawyers, environmental impact assessment consultants and planning consultants in that period, so we desperately need a way to apply those professionals most efficiently in a really focused way across all the projects we need.

I have seen it in my career, having consented a number of projects since 2008, when the regime came in. Without the law changing at all, custom and practice has built up gold plating and precedent to slow the system down hugely. That is particularly true for the pre-app process, which I think the Government’s stats say has gone from an average of 14 months in 2008 to 27 months a few years ago—I suspect it is even longer now. I have seen more and more rounds of consultation on small changes. I have seen developers not putting through other changes that would be really beneficial and that communities or statutory consultees want, because they would have to have a three, four or six-month delay to do more consultation on the change.

I think the cart is before the horse. It has become a very clunky and bureaucratic legalistic process, rather than what planning should be and is in all other regimes—town and country planning, and even hybrid bills—where you have more latitude to change your mind, do some lighter-touch consultation if appropriate and do some focused consultation with the key statutory consultees on the key issues, rather than producing these huge preliminary environmental information reports, which are incredibly daunting and time-consuming for everyone to read. The public sector, local authorities, regulators and the public are feeling overwhelmed by the amount of information that is put out there, which is ultimately just a form of legal box-ticking without the laser focus that you really need on key issues, so I hugely welcome the change.

I was with an international investor yesterday who is interested in investing in a big portfolio of solar projects in the UK that have not yet been consented, and I was asked to explain the regime. The pre-app is always something I feel I have to apologise for and explain, and give the best story about how quick it might be, but it was great yesterday. They really welcome this change. I can see it being highly beneficial for investors who can shop around Europe and elsewhere, in terms of bringing development here.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Is there anything we are missing, broadly on speeding up and making more certain the NSIP process?

Catherine Howard: Perhaps some guidance to the Planning Inspectorate about how to run the examinations with slightly more focus than we have seen. There has been a drift towards more questions and more rabbit holes, and we do not have time for this or enough professionals in the industry. That does not seem to benefit the consenting system, which has also slowed down, become a bit less focused and become more bureaucratic. I would welcome anything that we can do to encourage the examination process to be more focused—possibly shorter, but certainly less labour-intensive, unless there is a purpose to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Q Fine. One very quick question; I am afraid it is to you again, Mr Benwell. I apologise to the other witnesses; it is no reflection at all on your character or expertise. I hope you do not think I am being cheeky by asking this, but a lot of today’s questions from myself, my colleagues and Liberal Democrat colleagues on the Committee have been about the resourcing and the ability of Natural England to undertake the responsibilities that the Secretary of State is proposing.

Given your previous role within the Department, working with a Secretary of State, and given your expertise from your current role, do you think that in its current guise Natural England is capable of undertaking the responsibilities outlined in the legislation? Are you worried about the resourcing of that organisation going forward, considering that it will have quite new, detailed and complicated responsibilities?

Richard Benwell: There is no doubt that Natural England will need a significant uplift in resourcing to enable it to do this job properly. Natural England was subject to some pretty serious cuts over the last decade, and the last settlement was not very positive for Natural England either, with more job losses coming. When you look into the statistics of Natural England’s funding, some of the increases in recent years have been on capital fund rather than day-to-day spend on the kind of experts we need to do this work out on the ground. Part of the problem sometimes, with the risk aversion surrounding the current incarnation of the habitats regulations, is the lack of expertise from advisers, to give it the confidence to go out and suggest where strategic solutions can happen and to implement the law well.

Natural England will definitely need a boost. It is worth noting that it is not even able to fulfil all its current duties to the standard that we would expect. Only half of sites of special scientific interest have been visited in something like the last decade, and Natural England is already having to focus its work on statutory advice for planning applications. It will need more of that expertise, but we have confidence in the organisation and its leadership. We hope that the Government will properly resource Natural England and other agencies to help to make this work if it goes ahead, as amended.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Thank you all for coming to give evidence. This is a question for Richard, but I am sure the other two witnesses have views, assuming that you share some of the concerns that have just been outlined.

Richard, you will know that we do not accept that development has to come at the expense of nature. We are very much targeting a win-win solution when it comes to development and the environment. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I have had a huge amount of engagement with you and others in the sector to try to develop a solution that achieves that. I therefore want to drill into some of the concerns you have outlined, in two ways.

First, on the introduction, you welcomed the

“legal guarantee that the Nature Restoration Fund must not only compensate for damage but actually benefit protected wildlife.”

But the claim today is that the Bill leaves us open to regression. Could you elaborate on how those two square together?

Secondly, you have just said that you have confidence in Natural England and its leadership. Marian Spain, the chief executive officer, gave evidence earlier today. She said that the Bill effectively maintains the mitigation hierarchy, but you have just said that the Bill undermines the mitigation hierarchy. Can you clarify why you have a difference of opinion with Marian on that particular issue?

Richard Benwell: Of course. On the first question, we were grateful for engagement ahead of the Bill’s publication, and we were really pleased to hear your aspirations to achieve a win-win. The question is whether the overall improvement test in clause 55(4) does what it is meant to do.

The legal drafting suggests that a Secretary of State can agree an environmental delivery plan only if he is satisfied that the benefits for a protected feature “are likely” to outweigh the harm to that protected feature. That comes some way short of the high bar of legal certainty that is expected in the current habitats regulations.

If you dig further into the Bill, you find that once an environmental delivery plan is in place, if there is evidence that it is not meeting the standards expected, it is up to the Secretary of State whether to withdraw the EDP and then only to take measures that he considers appropriate to remediate for any shortfall in environmental benefits that are supposed to be derived from the measures in the Bill.

Both of those points leave far more leeway for a Secretary of State to undercut nature restoration compared with the current situation, especially when it can happen up to 10 years after the initial harm to nature. We have all heard of circumstances where promised offsets for supposed harm to nature never materialise or die a couple of years down the line.

We think this can be fixed. We think that if you were to strengthen that requirement so that it matches the kind of legal certainty that we see in the habitats regulations, you would be in a much better position. On the positive side of the scale, if that promise to outweigh harm were a more substantive requirement to go beyond just about offsetting into real nature restoration, you start to get to the territory where this really could be a win-win.

We know you will be advised by Government lawyers to minimise risk. That is what always happens, which is why Governments like to have these subjective tests. But as it stands, the level of certainty of environmental benefit that is required of an EDP up front, and that is then required of proof of delivery along the way, is less than under the current law.

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a very clear elaboration. On the Natural England point—on the mitigation hierarchy?

Richard Benwell: As it stands, before a development that would have adverse effects on a protected site can go ahead, it is necessary, first, to try to avoid those harms, then to reduce those harms and only then, once all those steps have been gone through, if a project is of overriding public interest, can it go ahead with compensation in place. The Bill essentially short-circuits that process.

In clause 50, there is a provision that makes it explicit that the compensatory measures set out in an EDP do not need to apply to the particular features and the particular site that is affected by a development. Once a developer has paid their levy, they can essentially disregard the provisions that are in the habitats regulations at the moment, and go straight to development. Of course, that is something we could also fix in the Bill by requiring Natural England to have confidence that development applications have sought to avoid harm before they go ahead. I think there would still be substantial and material benefits for developers from the simplicity of the process and their legal confidence, even if that requirement to avoid harm were put back in.

We know there would need to be flexibility, such as on the phasing of benefits versus time, but you could still have this important principle that you should not go straight to squishing the ancient woodland, or make it easy to splat the species. You need to make sure that you try to avoid that harm first, before the development goes ahead.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q I want to be really clear, because this is important, given what we are asking Natural England to do. Without causing any tension between you and Marian Spain, do you disagree that, as she put it, “the Bill effectively maintains the mitigation hierarchy”?

Richard Benwell: Yes, certainly at the project level. There is more of a requirement for Natural England to consider some of those circumstances at the EDP level. When it comes to specific projects, where it is all-important for the particular site or species, we think it is short-circuited. We will check in with Marian on that afterwards.

[The Chair]

We can possibly get two more colleagues in, so let’s be succinct with our questions and answers.

Planning and Development: Bedfordshire

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this debate and on so clearly setting out his case and his concerns about the type of development and infrastructure provision he wants to see in his constituency.

Sustained economic growth is the only route to delivering the improved prosperity our country needs and the higher living standards that working people deserve. That is why it is this Government’s No. 1 mission and why our plan for change commits us to build 1.5 million new homes and fast-track 150 planning decisions on major infrastructure projects in this Parliament.

To support the achievement of those milestones, the Government are progressing an ambitious planning reform agenda. In our first six months in office we overhauled the national planning policy framework to reverse the anti-supply changes made by the previous Government in December 2023 and to introduce a range of new pro-growth measures. Our landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, had its Second Reading on 24 March and begins its Commons Committee stage tomorrow. We have made a series of other changes, including taking steps to implement a new plan-making system that will help to facilitate sustainable growth, and we intend to announce, and in many cases consult on, further changes to the planning system over the coming weeks and months.

The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire raises a wide range of distinct issues, and I intend to cover as many points I can in the time available. However, he will forgive me if I set out at the start that, as I know he will appreciate, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process and the potential decision-making role of the Deputy Prime Minister, I will not be able to comment on individual local development plans or individual planning applications, or for that matter on how individual local planning authorities may interpret national planning policy.

We believe in a plan-led system. As I never fail to say, it is primarily through local development plans that communities can shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development that their areas need, and those plans must remain the cornerstone of our planning system. However, we are clear that local decisions must be about how to meet housing need, not whether to do so at all. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, through the revised national planning policy framework, published on 12 December last year, the Government implemented a new standard method for addressing housing needs to increase supply and better direct new homes to the areas where they are currently least affordable and therefore most needed. I certainly recognise—it is a point well made—the contribution that his constituency and neighbouring constituencies have made to housing supply over recent years.

The revised standard method is now the mandatory starting point for planning for homes. Local planning authorities, including those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, are expected to use it, although as I am sure he will be aware, they can seek to justify a lower housing requirement on the basis of local constraints on land availability, development and other relevant matters such as national landscapes, protected habitats and flood-risk areas. We expect local planning authorities to explore all the options to deliver the homes their communities need, including by maximising brownfield land—he will know that we have set out proposals for a brownfield passport to prioritise and accelerate the development of such land—and also by working with neighbouring authorities on cross-boundary housing growth and, where necessary, reviewing green belt.

It is probably worth touching very briefly on the specific areas the hon. Gentleman highlighted about villages and rural areas. The Government are committed to supporting rural communities to build new homes for local people and, in particular, to boost the supply of rural affordable housing. It cannot be right that young people in particular are often unable to remain in the villages they grew up in. That harms not only them and their families, but the vibrancy and long-term viability of those rural communities. That is why national policy promotes sustainable development in rural areas and why we want to see more affordable housing in them. That will also contribute to our wider ambition to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation.

National policy makes it clear that local authorities should ensure that their planning policies and decisions respond to local circumstances and support housing that reflects local needs. That includes promoting sustainable development in local areas and ensuring that housing is located in areas where it will maintain and enhance the vitality of rural communities.

We also want more affordable housing in rural areas, and have already taken steps to support the delivery of that. For example, our golden rules for green development will ensure an affordable housing contribution 15 percentage points above the highest existing affordable housing requirement that would otherwise apply to the development, subject to a cap of 50%. That will unlock new affordable housing provision in a range of rural locations. Other measures, such as rural exception sites, can also make an important contribution. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, they allow local authorities to address the housing needs of rural communities by creating sites where local residents and others with a strong family or employment connection can live in affordable homes in perpetuity.

We recognise the strong support for those measures and the potential for strengthening policy in this area. That is why we made clear in our response to the consultation on the revised NPPF that we are giving further consideration to how we can better support rural affordable housing, including through the use of exception sites. That will include consideration of how we can drive greater uptake of rural exception sites and introduce a more streamlined approach. I will set out further details about our thinking on that matter in due course.

The hon. Gentleman and others rightly spoke about the need for up-front infrastructure for development. We recognise the importance of ensuring that new housing development is supported with appropriate infrastructure. He was wrong to say that we have taken no action in this area to date. The revised NPPF, published last year, includes changes designed to improve the provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure. He was absolutely right that we need to strengthen the existing system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide the necessary infrastructure that communities expect.

[Richard Fuller]

I am very grateful for the Minister’s thoughtful speech. One of the problems with the provision of public services in Bedfordshire—and, I am sure, some other high-growth areas—is that we are dealing with a backlog, due to the fact that for many years the population has grown too fast for us to provide the additional services. If the Government come forward with a new town in Tempsford, it is important that the Minister addresses the legacy issue—the backlog—as well as the provision for the additional houses that will come with the new town.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, which is well made. I will certainly note that. We have had discussions about the matter previously.

In general terms, I will make a couple of points about infrastructure provision. First, local development plans should address needs and opportunities in relation to infrastructure, and identify what infrastructure is required and how it can be funded and brought forward. When a local plan is being prepared, practice guidance recommends that local authorities use available evidence about infrastructure requirements to prepare an infrastructure funding statement. I have mentioned some of the other changes that we have made in terms of the NPPF, and hon. Members know that the Government also provide financial support for essential infrastructure in areas of the greatest housing demand through land and infrastructure funding programmes, such as the housing infrastructure fund.

I want to be clear that what we have announced so far is just a first step. We recognise that there is more to do in this area across Government and with the sector to ensure that the right infrastructure gets built. I say gently to Conservative Members that the previous Government did not manage to find a solution to this thorny problem in 14 years. There is no simple and straightforward answer, but we are cognisant of the need to do more in this area, not least to ensure that we get more buy-in from communities for the development we need.

I agree that there is too much bad development, which unhelpfully plays into the yimby/nimby debate— I have never engaged in it because I find it reductive in many ways. Although there is a group of people in the country who want no development whatever anywhere near them—we will happily take them on—there is a far larger group that wants good development, with good amenities and infrastructure. We must therefore ensure that exemplary development is the norm, not the exception, as it is now.

I want to quickly touch on green belt, because the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire mentioned urban sprawl. The manifesto on which the Government were elected is clear that the green belt has an important role to play, and that a number of the intentions behind it, including preventing urban sprawl, have served our towns and cities very well over many decades. We will always look to brownfield first. Ours is a brownfield-first approach, as was the previous Government’s, and as I said, we took measures in the NPPF last year to strengthen that approach to brownfield land. We are also consulting on brownfield passports.

However, we have also been clear that there is not enough brownfield land in the country on brownfield registers, let alone in locations that are viable and that can be brought forward, to meet housing demand and need in full. We therefore need to look for a more strategic and smart way to release the right parts of the green belt—primarily and in the first instance low-quality, grey-belt land. Then, because of the value that the public attach to the green belt, we need a clear quid pro quo in terms of golden rules to ensure that sufficient rates of affordable housing and infrastructure come forward.

In the time left to me, I will cover a couple of the other issues raised by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire: the environment, new towns and Universal Studios, although I am limited in what I can say on that final point. He will know that when it comes to development and the environment, we are absolutely convinced that we can do better than the status quo, which too often means both sustainable house building and nature recovery stalling. Instead of seeing environmental protections as a barrier to growth, we want to unlock a win-win for the economy and nature. As he will know, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will introduce a new nature restoration fund, which will unlock and accelerate development while going beyond neutrality to unlock the positive impact that development can have in driving nature recovery. He has submitted many written questions to me on this point, so he is familiar with our approach, but I look forward to his engagement as the Bill progresses.

[Blake Stephenson]

Will the Minister take this opportunity to talk about building on flood plains? He may be coming on to this matter, but it is close to the hearts of my constituents and, particularly, constituents in North Bedfordshire. It is important that we do not build houses in areas that are going to flood.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will turn to that point briefly in a moment.

On Universal Studios, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has agreed in principle to consider any proposal. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, given that the proposals remain subject to a planning decision, I cannot comment on any proposal, because to do so could prejudice the position of the Deputy Prime Minister. However, should the Department receive such a request, it will carry out a proper and impartial consideration of the planning merits of the proposed development.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to address flooding. We are clear that all local plans should be based on the best available flood risk data. The revised NPPF, which we published last year, makes it clear that developments of all sizes should use sustainable drainage techniques where the development could have drainage impacts, and should have appropriate maintenance arrangements in place. These changes will mean that sustainable drainage technologies are taken up more widely in new developments, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we continue to explore what further changes might be necessary. On a related matter, to avoid the issue of existing sewers not being able to adequately cope with new developments—we had an extensive debate just a few weeks ago about the investment cycle around the water sector being somewhat out of line with the planning cycle—there is more we can do in this area, and we are giving due consideration to that.

Finally, hon. Members are aware that the Government are committed to bringing forward the next generation of new towns. This Government’s new towns programme will include large-scale stand-alone new communities, as well as a large number of urban extensions and urban regeneration schemes, which will work with the grain of development in a given area. The unifying principle will be that each of the new settlements will contain at least 10,000 homes, although we expect a number to be far larger. Collectively, we expect that they could provide hundreds of thousands more homes in the decades to come.

As I have said in relation to development more generally, we want exemplary development to be the norm, not the exception. The next generation of new towns must be well connected, well designed, sustainable and attractive places where people want to live, and must have all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities. The new towns code will ensure that they deliver to the highest standards and help to meet housing need by targeting rates of 40% affordable housing, with a focus on genuinely affordable social rented homes.

As hon. Members are aware, last year we established the independent new towns taskforce, which is chaired by Sir Michael Lyons, to support this mission. It will submit its final report, including its final shortlist of recommended sites—I do not have that shortlist to hand, so I cannot tell the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) whether Tempsford or any other site in the country will be the location of a new town—this summer, and then Ministers will select from the recommendations. There will be local buy-in where appropriate, but we are clear that we will make the decisions in the national interest where we need to do so.

[Blake Stephenson]

Will the Minister confirm whether new towns will contribute to current house building targets or be in addition to them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think I have answered a written question on this matter, but I put it on the record again, because I understand the need for clarity in this area. The Government have been clear, not least because the new towns will begin construction only towards the end of the Parliament, that new towns will deliver over and above the targets produced by the standard method. We will keep under review how the taskforce’s forthcoming recommendations on new towns interact with housing targets across the country.

To conclude, I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire once again on securing the debate. I thank him for outlining his views on planning and development in his constituency. The Government are committed to establishing a planning system that delivers the homes—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).