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

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.

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects Regime: Further Reforms

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Written Statements

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

Sustained economic growth is the only route to delivering the improved prosperity our country needs and the higher living standards working people deserve. That is why it is this Government’s No. 1 mission and why our plan for change committed us to fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament.

While nationally significant infrastructure projects applications are already being processed on average 50 days quicker than in the last Parliament, achieving that milestone is going to require the planning regime for NSIP to be firing on all cylinders. Yet we know that the current system is too slow and that its performance has deteriorated sharply in recent years. Inefficiencies in the system are delaying the delivery of much-needed infrastructure and driving up costs for industry, billpayers and taxpayers.

The Government are determined to improve the system and to that end the Planning and Infrastructure Bill includes a range of measures—from mandatory and faster updates to national policy statements to reducing the scope for meritless judicial reviews—designed to deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for critical infrastructure.

As the Deputy Prime Minister and I made clear on Second Reading, the measures included at introduction are not the limit of our ambitions when it comes to streamlining the NSIP regime. In responding to the debate, I committed to giving further consideration to addressing the significant elongation of pre-application periods resulting from the way in which statutory procedures are now being applied and made clear that the Government would not hesitate to act boldly if there is a compelling case for reform in this area. Having considered the matter further as promised, we have decided to act.

A key objective of any planning consent regime must be to encourage the submission of high-quality applications that deliver benefits at both the national and local level. High-quality applications should be underpinned by early, meaningful and constructive engagement with those affected—including with local authorities, statutory consultees, landowners, and local communities. When such engagement does take place, the benefits are felt in terms of better schemes, greater local benefits and improved mitigation.

However, the successful functioning of any planning consent regime also requires that it ensure proportionate and timely processes for decision making. This is particularly important for the NSIP regime, which is the primary route for consenting critical infrastructure projects in the national interest. Yet the evidence clearly indicates that the system’s performance has deteriorated sharply in recent years.

In 2021, it took on average 4.2 years for a project to secure development consent, compared with 2.6 years in 2012. The National Infrastructure Commission has highlighted that uncertainty around the time and volume of consultation required resulted in the doubling of the preapplication period for Hinkley Point C to Sizewell C from three to seven years. An Anglian Water application for a new Fens reservoir—to supply 250,000 homes with water—has spent over 1,000 days in pre-application stage. It is essential that we take all necessary steps to drive timescales of this kind back down.

Unique to planning consent regimes, the NSIP system established by the Planning Act 2008 includes statutory requirements for applicants to undertake consultation before submitting an application. These statutory pre-application procedures were created for a regime that originally saw decisions taken by commissioners rather than Ministers. Subsequent to that democratic deficit being addressed through the Localism Act 2011, they were retained on the basis that they helped improve applications prior to submission.

However, there is considerable evidence to attest to the fact that these statutory requirements are driving perverse outcomes. Rather than providing a means by which engagement drives better outcomes, statutory pre-application procedures have become a tick-box exercise that encourages risk aversion and gold-plating. The result is consultation fatigue and confusion for communities, longer, more technical and less accessible documentation, and an arrangement that actively disincentivises improvements to applications—even if these are in a local communities’ interest—because applicants worry this will require a further repeat consultation.

The Government have concluded that these statutory requirements, absent from other planning regimes, including those used to determine applications for new housing, now serve to slow down projects and deter improvements to them—wholly contrary to their nominal purpose of producing better outcomes.

I am, therefore, today announcing that the Government will amend the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to remove the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for NSIP applications, bringing requirements in line with all other planning regimes. This will include removing the requirement for developers to prepare and consult on preliminary environmental information, which currently often leads to applicants duplicating content already required through existing environmental regulation.

This change could reduce the typical time spent in pre-application by up to 12 months, speeding up the delivery of major economic infrastructure—including our electricity networks and clean energy sources, roads, public transport links and water supplies—that is essential to delivering basic services, growing the economy, supporting the UK’s mission to achieve clean power by 2030, and enabling 1.5 million safe and decent homes to be built over this Parliament. Over this Parliament, the change could result in a cost saving of over £1 billion across the pipeline of projects. By speeding up delivery, increasing capacity and reducing constraint costs, it will also contribute to lower household bills.

Following these changes, affected local communities and local authorities will, of course, still be able to object to applications, provide evidence of adverse impacts, and have their say as part of the post-submission NSIP process. The Government are clear that removing these statutory requirements does not signify that pre-submission consultation and high-quality engagement is no longer important—such engagement and consultation will remain vital to delivering successful major infrastructure projects. However, the current system is not working for communities or developers.

We still want the NSIP regime to function on the basis of a front-loaded approach in which development proposals are thoroughly scoped and refined prior to being submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. And we still expect high-quality early, meaningful and constructive engagement and consultation to take place with those affected as part of that process, thereby enabling positive changes to be made to proposals without causing undue delays. Given that such engagement and consultation routinely takes place and leads to improved proposals in other planning regimes without such statutory requirements, and because the development consent order examination procedure rewards high-quality applications, we are confident that developers will continue to be incentivised to undertake it.

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

Principles that we intend to reflect in this guidance will include the benefits of consultation to developing high-quality schemes and the importance of developers taking a proportionate approach to avoid repeated consultations. As the NSIP process will continue to be one built on the principle of front-loading engagement, pre-application services provided by the Planning Inspectorate, statutory consultees and local authorities will continue and be encouraged by guidance, but these services will be reshaped to reflect a renewed focus on the quality of applications and their readiness for examination rather than meeting a statutory test.

Alongside these changes, we will retain the invitation to local authorities to submit a local impact report to the Planning Inspectorate in advance of an examination. We will also retain the requirement for applicants to notify the Planning Inspectorate when they intend to submit an application and extend this requirement to include host local authorities. Publicity requirements, essential to support good quality engagement, will remain in place.

The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, will continue to assess whether applications are suitable to proceed to examination. We expect guidance to emphasise that without adequate engagement and consultation, applications are unlikely to be able to proceed to examination. Both guidance and advice from the Planning Inspectorate will be aimed at helping applications demonstrate that they are of a satisfactory standard.

[HCWS594]

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)).

Residential Estate Management Companies

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this debate. I commend her for giving the House a much-needed opportunity to discuss the important matter of residential estate management companies in detail. I thank her for so clearly highlighting the pertinent issues in her opening remarks. I also thank all the other hon. Members who have spoken for the insight they have provided. I assure them that I well understand the strength of feeling when it comes to this issue.

The debate as a whole has not only underscored the case for acting to tackle the problems associated with freehold estate management arrangements, but highlighted that those problems take various forms. Part of the challenge facing the Government, and why we believe appropriate consultation in this area is essential, is ensuring that the interventions we make in due course capture the diversity of models and challenges.

We have covered a large range of specific issues today. I will address as many as I can in my response. We have also strayed into leasehold and commonhold. The White Paper is very distinct from the freehold estate issues that the majority of hon. Members have spoken about today and on which I will therefore mainly focus my remarks.

The Government estimate that there may now be as many as 1.75 million homes on privately managed estates in England, although I must make clear that not all of them are liable to pay charges. As the debate has made abundantly clear, the prevalence of such freehold estates creates a wide range of problems—problems that, not least as a result of the dogged campaigning by groups such as the National Leasehold Campaign and the Home Owners Rights Network, are now well known and well understood by the public.

Historically, any given local authority and water company would adopt the respective parts of a new residential estate. They would set clear, adoptable standards and provide oversight to ensure those were delivered, but more recently, and especially over the past 10 to 15 years, we have witnessed the growth of private management arrangements, where shared infrastructure, amenities and open spaces are not adopted and responsibility for the costs of ongoing maintenance instead falls on the residents of the estate through an estate rent charge, which residents pay in addition to council tax. The infrastructure and amenities provided on these estates all too often do not meet the minimum standards for adoption. In the worst cases, residents are left living in unfinished and sometimes dangerous developments.

The problem of unfinished housing developments is obviously not confined to freehold estates, and part of the answer is the proper enforcement of planning obligations, but private management models clearly exacerbate the problems faced by many homeowners in this scenario by leaving them liable for the upkeep of the partially completed or unfinished infrastructure.

That is just one of the many problems that residential freeholders living on freehold estates across the country are struggling with. Others include poor service and abuse at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents—we have heard many such examples in the debate today—as well as limited to no transparency about how the charges they pay are spent, onerous restrictions placed on the title deeds of their properties, and a general lack of control over how their estate is managed. These problems are more acute in some cases than others. For example, the absence of any measure of control is most acute in the case of the approximately 20% of freehold estates that have what is known as an embedded management company set in the title deeds of the relevant properties. To take another example, the challenges associated with opaque fees are magnified in estates where management arrangements are fragmented, with more than one managing company; residents have to navigate multiple companies, each of which levy fees for services in a way that significantly increases the potential for abuse.

As many hon. Members mentioned, last year, the Competition and Markets Authority published its study into the housebuilding industry. I encourage any hon. Member who has not yet had the time to read that report in full to do so. The CMA identified the private management of public amenities on housing estates as a detriment to consumers and concluded that

“the root cause of the aggregate detriment…is the decrease in levels of adoption of amenities by relevant authorities”.

The Government agree with the CMA’s conclusion that the housebuilding market is not delivering for consumers and has consistently failed to do so over successive decades.

As hon. Members will be aware, the report made a number of recommendations to Government and we published a response in full. It called for measures to strengthen protection for existing homeowners, as well as for the Government to mandate adoption of all new estates and to implement common adoptable standards for infrastructure. The Government have accepted many of the recommendations in principle, but we recognise that further work is required in a number of areas.

In the immediate term, we need to introduce protections for residential freeholders on already constructed freehold estates. As hon. Members mentioned many times, part 5 of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2004 contains powers to establish a regulatory framework that to provide such protections, including the provision of standardised demands and an annual report; giving homeowners the right to challenge the reasonableness of charges levied; requiring estate managers to consult homeowners where the anticipated costs exceed an appropriate amount; and giving residential freeholders the right to apply to a tribunal to appoint a manager in the event of serious management failure. Taken together, these measures will vastly improve the situation for many residential freeholders, improving transparency and driving accountability among estate management companies.

As I set out in my written ministerial statement last November, the Government recognise the importance of acting as quickly as is feasible to implement these provisions, but the establishment of a new regulatory framework through detailed secondary legislation requires us to grapple with a range of technical questions. It is important that we carry out appropriate consultation to make sure that the new system operates effectively and to the lasting benefit of residential freeholders.

[John Glen]

The Minister is setting out a thorough analysis of the challenge that he faces. Could he say something about the distinction between existing entities and those that are yet to be set up? One of the concerns is that the Government’s legislation will not deal fully with existing arrangements, and that the none of the cases that we have heard about today will get redress from the Government’s intervention.

[Matthew Pennycook]

To be clear, the protections we are talking about, which we intend to switch on as soon as is feasible and were provided for by powers under the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act passed by the previous Government, will benefit existing residential freeholders on existing estates. I will come to the prevalence of those arrangements in due course, but I can reassure hon. Members that we intend to carry out that consultation this year, as promised, and that I am doing everything I can to expedite it.

Beyond the short-term need to protect residential freeholders better, we have to take steps to reduce the prevalence of private estate management arrangements, which are the root cause of the problems we are considering today. In my written ministerial statement, I committed the Government to consulting on legislative and policy options to achieve that objective. I hope that hon. Members appreciate that this is not a simple and straightforward area of policy and that the implications of policy choices are potentially far-reaching.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Yes. I will try to give way to as many hon. Members as I can.

[Lewis Cocking]

I want to make a point about solicitors’ practices and what information people get when they buy their properties. I think that a number of people go into these contracts under false pretences and do not fully understand what they are responsible for and what they may end up paying for.

[Matthew Pennycook]

There are undoubtedly issues around the purchase of homes on these estates. For example, it appears to be fairly common for residential freeholders not to be notified of their future liability for charges early in the conveyancing process. We are giving due consideration to those issues as well.

On the prevalence of future arrangements, the Government intend to seek views from a wide range of interested parties, including local authorities, management companies, developers and residential freeholders themselves. Our consultation will need to consider a wide range of trade-offs, including costs to homeowners, costs to local authorities, potential impacts on housing supply and the links with the planning system. As promised, we will consult on that matter this year.

[Jim Shannon]

Hon. Members have referred to opting out—in other words, if someone is unhappy with their management company, they can opt for another one. Would the Minister consider that, and would it be considered in the discussions he has with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the pertinent Minister?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Given the time available to me, I will have a separate conversation with the hon. Gentleman outside.

Before I conclude, I want to touch on the issue of managing agents, whose performance can present significant challenges, whether they are chosen by residents or employed by developers. Managing agents perform a critical role in managing and maintaining freehold estates as well as leasehold buildings, and the Government are determined to raise standards among them and drive out abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous agents. We remain fully committed to strengthening the regulation of managing agents of leasehold properties and estate managers of freehold estates. We are looking again at the report published in 2019 by the regulation of property agents working group chaired by Lord Best. At a minimum, we believe that the regulation of managing agents should include mandatory professional qualifications. That will apply whether the agent manages a building or an estate. We will consult on the detail of that matter this year and remain committed to publishing a draft leasehold and commonhold reform Bill in the second half of this year to provide for enhanced scrutiny on the part of Parliament.

I again thank the hon. Member for South Devon for securing the debate and all those who have taken part in it. The Government intend to act, and act decisively, to protect residential freeholders on freehold estates and to reduce the prevalence of these arrangements over the long term. I look forward to ongoing engagement with hon. Members on all sides of the House—I welcome the shadow Minister’s invitation to that end—through both the forthcoming formal statutory consultations and more informal engagement across the House to ensure that we reform the system to the lasting benefit of affected homeowners.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

10. What plans she has to build more sustainable housing.

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

The Government are committed to ensuring that the 1.5 million new homes that we will build during this Parliament will be high-quality, well designed and sustainable. We intend to amend building regulations later this year as part of the introduction of future standards that will set more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emissions requirements for new homes.

[Cameron Thomas]

I thank the Minister for his response. While visiting the Netherlands with the Environmental Audit Committee, I saw the benefits of long-term, joined-up, strategic planning. In Rotterdam city centre, rooftop gardens provide mental health benefits and allotment space, while at ground level, sunken community spaces and underground car parks mitigate flooding. The Tewkesbury garden town will bring 4,000 new homes to my constituency. Will the Minister meet me and stakeholders who support the garden town, so that we can set the standard for development across the country?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The approach of the Netherlands, not least to spatial planning and design standards, has much to commend it, but we would need a stand-alone debate to do that subject justice. As for the Tewkesbury garden communities, they are precisely the kind of sustainable and infrastructure-led development that the Government want to see more of, and that we are backing through legislation and policy. I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Member and local stakeholders to discuss what more might be done to deliver on the aspirations set out in the Tewkesbury garden communities charter, which was published last year.

[Michelle Welsh]

Last week, I visited Howgate Close housing development in Eakring in my constituency, and I am proud to say that the homes are the most energy-efficient in the country. It would be easy to assume that houses such as those cost a fortune, but what is remarkable about that development is that they are affordable, including for some of the most vulnerable in our society. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that energy-efficient homes are affordable and accessible to everyone, and will he come with me to visit Eakring to see that incredible development?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It may not surprise hon. Members to hear that I am indeed aware of the nine high thermal mass buildings that have been constructed for rent at Howgate Close, and I commend the site owner, Dr Parsons, for championing such high-quality, sustainable development on his land. We need to ensure that all new homes are future-proof, with low-carbon heating and very high-quality building fabric, including those made available for local people at affordable rents. I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s request for a Minister to visit Howgate Close is given due consideration.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I genuinely thank the Minister for the time he took to meet me and the chairman of a local residents’ association in an apartment block to discuss the problems of building new homes on top of existing apartment blocks, if the work is done badly. Has he drawn any conclusions from that meeting about how to safeguard against unsuitable and unsustainable developments of that sort?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question; we had a very productive discussion about the issue that he highlights. I think he acknowledges some of the bad outcomes that we have seen from the previous Government’s expansion of permitted development rights since 2013. We are keeping the matter under review, and I am more than happy to have another conversation with him as we further consider policy in this area.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

As we build new homes, it is important that we make sure that existing homes are as safe as they can be. I recently met representatives of a leading fire safety business in my constituency, who told me of the unacceptably long delays that it faces from the Building Safety Regulator. Will the Minister meet me and my local business to discuss those delays, and how we can tackle them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. The newly established Building Safety Regulator is crucial to upholding building safety standards, but I acknowledge that its operation is causing delays in handling applications for some building projects. She will be aware that in February, the Government allocated £2 million to the BSR to accelerate the processing of applications. We are working closely with the regulator to support the plan for improved delivery, and we will continue to keep its performance under review.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The Government’s much-lauded policy of building 1.5 million new sustainable homes has been doomed from the start of this Parliament, and we now have that confirmed, with the Chancellor saying last week that only 1.3 million homes will be delivered by the end of this Parliament. But it is worse than that. Office for Budget Responsibility figures show that only 1.06 million homes will be built in England, which is 500,000 fewer than the Government’s target, and around 200,000 fewer than the last Conservative Government built in the past five years. Will the Minister confirm that the goalposts have moved, and that Labour will not meet its target for housing in this country?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am very fond of the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that, characteristically, he has got this one completely wrong. The 1.3—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) give me time to answer? The OBR estimated that our changes to the national planning policy framework alone will increase house building to 1.3 million. That does not take into account the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and the other changes coming forward. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) is simply wrong. We are on course for 1.5 million homes in this Parliament.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

3. What steps she plans to take to support house building in London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

5. What plans she has to improve security and standards in the social rented sector.

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

The Government are taking concerted steps to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing, including introducing Awaab’s law, and consulting on the new decent homes and minimum energy efficiency standards. The majority of social housing tenants already have security of tenure, and our Renters’ Rights Bill will abolish section 21 evictions where those are used by housing associations.

[Jessica Toale]

I have been working with three groups of residents who live in buildings run by the same social housing provider in my constituency. Many residents have come to me having been left living in horrendous conditions, with leaking roofs, damp and mould, and unfinished and unremediated works. Following my intervention, the housing provider has agreed to a multimillion-pound upgrade in one of the buildings, to hire extra staff, and to communicate better with residents. That is great news, but it should not have had to get to this point. What more can be done to ensure that residents such as my constituents are not left waiting years for repairs, and that social housing providers are meeting their obligations?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that her intervention should not have been required to force the provider in question to take action. In addition to the forthcoming reforms that I referred to in my previous answer, she will know that all registered providers of social housing are required to deliver the outcomes of the regulatory standards set by the independent Regulator of Social Housing. The regulator works intensively with providers that are not delivering those outcomes, and has a series of powers at its disposal when it identifies serious failings. I am more than happy to discuss further with my hon. Friend how she might seek redress for her residents.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

My interests are in the register, Mr Speaker. In what precise ways is the Minister intending to improve the decent homes standard?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have been very clear that we are going to consult on a new decent homes standard that applies to both the social rented and private rented sectors, and I would welcome the right hon. Member’s engagement when that consultation is published.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Despite the announcements referred to earlier, the Building Safety Regulator is now advising applicants to plan for 16 weeks to clear gateway 2. That is holding up a disproportionate number of social homes, including 100 in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), and it is much longer than is required for planning permission. What steps will the Government take to reduce the wait back down to eight weeks, as it was?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), the hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. The newly established Building Safety Regulator is crucial to upholding building safety standards, but we acknowledge that it is causing delays in handling applications, particularly for high-rise building projects on gateway 2, and there is gateway 3 after that. The funding we have announced will make a difference, but as I have said, we are working with the regulator to support its plan for improved delivery, including increasing caseworker capacity and guidance to the sector. We will continue to keep its performance under close review.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

8. Whether she plans to include more local people in discussions on development in their area.

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

18. What her policy is on the future role of planning committees in the planning process.

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

Local plans are the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development that their areas need. We want more people to be involved in the development of those local plans, and a key objective of our digital planning reforms is increased public engagement with them. Measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will ensure planning committees play their proper role in scrutinising development without obstructing it, while maximising the use of experienced professional planners.

[Robbie Moore]

Across my constituency, local people are hugely frustrated at Labour-run Bradford council inundating our communities with hundreds of new houses, while not investing in local services and roads. Despite protests and valid concerns, the council has steamrollered through developments at every stage. Yet when vast numbers of local people in Silsden supported the development of a new farm shop on the periphery of the town—exactly the kind of new service that would promote local growth and deliver the new sustainable housing we need—Bradford council blocked the proposal. How will the Minister ensure that local councils listen to local people and are not dictating development plans to them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman needed to make a political point to get his clip, but I am glad that we have Labour councils across the country that back development. Of course residents should have their say, but it is the role and responsibility of local authorities to make decisions about material considerations in planning applications, and I have no reason to think that the local authority in question has done anything other than that.

[Claire Young]

When I was leader of South Gloucestershire council, in partnership with Labour, we restored the right of local people to speak at planning committee site visits, giving people back their voice in the affected community. However, clause 46 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would enable the Secretary of State to bypass planning committees altogether. If the Minister truly wants to get Britain building, will he think again and give communities a real stake in local planning decisions?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have made clear, we want more people involved in the development of local plans. There is nothing in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that will prevent them from objecting to individual applications. The measures simply ensure that the process of determining applications at a local level is more streamlined and efficient. As I made clear in closing the Bill’s Second Reading on 24 March, the Government intend formally to consult on proposals relating to the delegation of planning decisions in England, so the hon. Lady and other hon. Members will be able to engage with the detail alongside the Bill’s passage.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

The number of people needing a social home in Luton has gone up from 8,500 last year to 11,500 this year, so I welcome the Government’s plan for 1.5 million new homes. While we are crying out for houses in Luton, just over the border with Central Bedfordshire developments are taking place right on our border, but without people in Luton getting a look in. What can the Minister do to ensure that local authorities co-operate with each other to deliver the homes that we need?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are taking measures to address precisely the problem that my hon. Friend outlines. Proposals in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will make spatial development strategies mandatory at sub-regional level, so neighbouring local authorities have to co-operate effectively on housing delivery and infrastructure provision across boundaries in just the way she sets out, which will address the challenges she outlines.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

Dunfermline is Scotland’s newest city and as such a large number of homes are being built all the time. However, too often those large-scale housing developments are done without reference to local services, such as GPs, and without proper consultation with local people, partly due to failures in the Scottish SNP Government’s planning policy. What advice does the Minister have about how those issues might be overcome? Will he engage with the Scottish Government to ensure they are learning any lessons from the excellent changes being made in that part of the UK?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Housing is a devolved matter, but I am always keen to convey to colleagues in the Scottish Government precisely the benefits of the proposals we are taking forward when it comes to planning reform and renewed drive for house building.

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

9. What steps her Department is taking to provide safe accommodation for victims of domestic abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

20. What steps her Department plans to take to limit excessive service charges imposed on leasehold properties.

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

The Government recognise the considerable financial strain that rising service charges are placing on leaseholders. That is why we intend to consult on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024’s provisions on service charges and bring them into force as quickly as possible thereafter. This year, we will also consult on strengthening the regulation of managing agents, including, as a minimum, introducing mandatory professional qualifications to set a new basic standard that managing agents will be required to meet.

[Lincoln Jopp]

On Friday, I met with Jacqui, Gary and Simon in Fairwater Drive in my Spelthorne constituency. Jacqui’s service charge is going up from £1,500 a year to £4,800. I sat down and had a look at the bills, and they are without any itemisation, so it is impossible to know where to start with the property manager. The Minister wrote in response to a recent written question:

“We will set out our full position on regulation of estate, letting and managing agents in due course.”

Can he give some reassurance to Jacqui, Gary and Simon that their interests will not be put on to the back-burner and suggest when “in due course” might be?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am sorry to hear about the experience of Jacqui, Gary and Simon. As I said, the Government are fully committed to protecting leaseholders from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents. Despite committing to regulate the property agent sector in 2018, the hon. Gentleman will know that the previous Government failed to do so. This Government will act. We are looking again at the recommendations of the 2019 report commissioned from Lord Best, which was not acted upon by the previous Government over many years. As I have made clear, we intend to consult on the regulation of managing agents this year.

[Darren Paffey]

Many leaseholders in Southampton Itchen who are still waiting for fire remediation work to be done are now being clobbered by extortionate service charges. In one case, a constituent went from paying £800 a year to £3,300 a year, with next to no clarity that that money is being spent well. Despite my recent meetings with developers and management companies, I am yet to be convinced that there is any end in sight for my constituents. What conversations are the Government having with management companies that are letting service charges spiral out of control?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I recognise, as I said, the challenges experienced by leaseholders. When it comes to insurance, the Minister for Building Safety recently met the industry to discuss how we can bring premiums down. When it comes to service charges, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen that we understand, not least because I have significant numbers of such cases in my constituency, the considerable and, in some cases, intolerable financial strain being placed on leaseholders as a result of opaque and unaffordable service charges. We are committed to empowering leaseholders to challenge unreasonable service charge increases, and my hon. Friend will not have to wait long for us to take action to that end.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

14. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Education on the potential implications for her policies of councils becoming insolvent due to inadequate funding for SEND education.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

T2. I was delighted recently to see civic and business leaders in Southampton join the Labour council in launching their Renaissance Vision, setting out an ambitious agenda for regeneration and house building in the city. What steps will the Government take in the upcoming spending review to support and enable house building visions such as this?

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

I do not begrudge my hon. Friend his attempt, but he will have to wait for the spending review outcomes to receive an answer to his question.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

T3. At the end of January, 14,000 people were still on Northumberland county council’s social housing waiting list, yet hundreds of properties right across the county, including in rural Allendale, remain empty. Given the number of people on the housing list and in desperate need of accommodation, it is a disgrace that the Conservative administration has left them empty for so long. Does the Minister agree that a Labour council, backed by a Labour Government, will do much more to get people off the housing list and into homes?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Local authorities already have a range of powers to bring empty homes back into use, but I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this specific issue in more detail.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Last month, I was in a field near the East Carr estate in Hull. With the River Humber in the distance, the field lay submerged under water and sat clearly below sea level. Residents told me that the field acts as a barrier between their homes and the water, and they were really worried that the planned development, which is in the Hull local plan, will leave them with flooded homes. Can the Minister reassure me, and residents in Hull and other low-lying communities, that the Government will ensure that the land use framework for determining areas for development will consider flood risk management and the delivery of sustainable drainage systems?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We took action on SUDS in the national policy planning framework, and we have made very welcome improvements in that area. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has launched a consultation on the land use framework. I take it that the hon. Lady has submitted her views, and we will publish the response to that consultation in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

My constituents in Broxbourne rightly expect new schools and health facilities, particularly GP surgeries, to be in place before any new housing development. What action is the Minister taking to force developers to deliver infrastructure first?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that new housing development is supported by appropriate infrastructure. The revised national planning policy framework, which we published last year, included changes designed to improve the provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, we are also committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions to ensure new developments provide the necessary infrastructure that communities such as his expect.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I have been campaigning for fair renting in Bournemouth, and I recently held my first renters roundtable at the Bournemouth food bank’s café. It was attended by, among others, my constituent Alison Thomas, who cannot cook in her home because water is leaking through her kitchen ceiling and she is scared to turn on any electrical devices. My constituents the Al-Mubaraks, a family of six, rent an overcrowded home, with black mould so harmful that the headteacher of the four children living there has written to my office to express concern. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we need urgent action to improve the state of the private rented sector in Bournemouth East?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for all he does to support private renters in his constituency. I am saddened but, in all honesty, not shocked by the cases he raises. Such experiences are still far too common in both the social sector and the private rented sector. In particular, we know the health risk posed by damp and mould. That is one reason we have chosen to sequence the implementation of Awaab’s law in the way we have, as it will allow us to apply the protections to damp and mould earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

In my constituency of Exmouth and Exeter East, the Lib Dem local council is proposing to build tens of thousands of new homes with little thought for corresponding infrastructure. I have spoken to local councillors, and they believe they have no agency in this process and central Government are telling them what to do. What more can be done to ensure that local authorities are held accountable for their decisions?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Local electors can hold local authorities accountable for all of the decisions they make. On infrastructure, I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer. However, local authorities should, as part of the local plan development process, have infrastructure strategies in place that set out the requirements for infrastructure and how they should be funded.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Next month marks 80 years since victory in Europe, and I look forward to attending many VE Day events in my constituency to thank our service personnel of yesteryear. Homelessness is an issue that affects many veterans, so while I welcome the Prime Minister’s pledge to guarantee a roof over the head of every veteran, can the Minister confirm what extra support there is with homelessness for the veteran community in Banbury?

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

In the London borough of Richmond we desperately need more social homes, but we are really short of sites we can build on. I have long run a campaign for the disused Teddington police station to be turned into a GP surgery and social homes, but understandably the Met wants top dollar to fund its services. Will the Secretary of State look at ways to incentivise public bodies to sell assets below market value for community benefit?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Member will forgive me, but I am not going to comment on the specifics of the case she raises. We are giving serious consideration to how we better utilise public land in general, particularly in areas with constrained land allocation such as her own.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

More than half my constituency casework consists of substandard repairs, poor quality communications from social landlords, and damp and mould. That is why this week I am launching a new safe and healthy homes campaign in Kensington and Bayswater. Will the Minister outline how the Government will work with councils and housing associations, ahead of changes in the law and policy frameworks such as Awaab’s law, to improve standards for social tenants, including in my constituency?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are working closely with the sector and talking through how we can best implement reforms such as Awaab’s law and our intended overhaul of the decent homes standard. As I said in a previous question, all resident providers of social housing are required to deliver the outcomes of regulatory standards that are set by the independent regulator. The independent regulator has powers at its disposal to identify when serious failings are taking place.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

This morning, firefighters in Birmingham made it plain that they will stand in solidarity with the bin strikers in Birmingham and not collect the rubbish. We know that there are only 17 workers, which means this is a drop in the ocean financially. Given that the Government have said they will do all they can to bring the strike to an end, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that they will force the council to make the payment, and that they will deploy the Army to assist the local charities and organisations that are helping to clear up and need extra support?

--- Later in debate ---

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

As the Minister will be aware, nutrient neutrality has had a big impact on Norfolk, holding up many homes and planning applications. The launch of the Norfolk nutrient mitigation fund has helped to make a difference, but we need more environmental solutions. Will the Minister update us on what else we will be doing to address nutrient neutrality, so that good homes and growth can be unlocked in our local area?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are supporting a range of targeted interventions to deal with constraints such as nutrient neutrality. In the longer term, the measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that introduce the nature restoration fund will allow us to provide a win-win for both development and nature, dealing with constraints such as nutrient neutrality and unlocking the development of new homes.

Social and Affordable Housing Capital Investment

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Written Statements

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

In the multi-year spending review later this year, the Government will set out the full details of a new grant programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. Alongside wider investment across the Parliament, this new programme will help deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation.

The Government have already allocated an additional £800 million in new in-year funding for the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. As a result of significant demand from housing providers across the country, this additional funding is already on course to be oversubscribed.

We know that there are a large number of housing providers who could progress new projects in advance of the new grant programme if the necessary funding were made available. We also know that providing greater funding certainty ahead of the forthcoming spending review will encourage more providers to come forward with ambitious projects and help drive up social and affordable housing supply in this Parliament.

The Government are therefore announcing today an immediate injection of £2 billion of new capital investment to support delivery of the biggest boost in social and affordable house building in a generation and contribute to our plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in this Parliament.

This new funding, which will be made available to housing associations and local authorities on the same terms as the affordable homes programme for 2021 to 2026, will act as a bridge to the future grant programme to be announced at spending review and thereby maximise rates of social and affordable house building in this Parliament.

The funding will deliver up to 18,000 additional new social and affordable homes by the end of the Parliament. The majority of that additional funding will fall in 2026-27, and all projects funded will need to have started by March 2027. A tail of funding will cover completions, with projects funded being required to finish by June 2029.

The Government encourage providers to come forward as soon as possible with bids for new ambitious projects, including those ready to commence quickly. We will ask Homes England, the Greater London Authority, and bidders to continue to prioritise homes for social rent in their proposed developments, in line with the Government’s firm commitment to support this tenure and the approach taken to recent in-year top-ups.

The £2 billion of new capital investment announced today will, in time, be supplemented with additional funding for 2026-27 and beyond. Full details of wider long-term and future grant investment will be announced at the spending review. Once the new grant programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme opens for bidding, the window to bid for the £2 billion of capital investment announced today will close and any unallocated funding will then be allocated under the terms of the successor programme.

[HCWS549]

Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 Draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. The draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations were laid before the House on 13 February. The draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025 were laid before the House on 25 February. Let me set out in turn the reasons why we are bringing each set of regulations forward, and what they will provide for, starting with the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations.

Planning is principally a local activity, but a well-established principle is that, in limited circumstances and where issues of more than local importance are involved, it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to make planning decisions. Recent experience, including the response to covid-19, has exposed that the existing route for securing planning permission on Crown land, namely the urgent Crown development route under section 293A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which was introduced in 2006, is not fit for purpose. Indeed, it is telling that it has never once been used. Furthermore, Departments have struggled to secure local planning permission for nationally important public service infrastructure such as prisons.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, passed by the previous Government in the last Parliament, made provision to address those challenges by providing two new routes for planning permission for Crown development in England. The first route, referred to as Crown development, is for planning applications for Crown developments that are considered of national importance. Such applications are to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate directly, instead of to local planning authorities. An inspector will consider and determine the application, unless the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government recovers the application to determine herself.

The second route is an updated urgent Crown development route, which will enable applications for nationally important developments that are needed urgently to be determined rapidly under a simplified procedure. Applications under the urgent route will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. Those new routes can be used for developments only where clearly justified. Provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act require that applications can be accepted by the Secretary of State only if she deems that the proposed development is of national importance and, in the case of the urgent Crown development route, urgent.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that I am a local councillor. Given what the Minister has outlined, will he give us a flavour of how local people can make representations, even if it is straight to the Secretary of State or the Planning Inspectorate? I am concerned that removing applications from local councils and putting them through the new routes he has described will make it harder for local residents to feel that their voice has been heard, even on important national infrastructure projects.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me deal with community engagement under both routes. With the Crown development route, community engagement will be a key part of the process. Communities will be fully engaged throughout. Much like an application submitted to a local planning authority, there will be mandatory consultation and publicity about the consultation for a minimum period of 21 days. That period will be 30 days if the development is one that requires an environmental impact assessment and is therefore an EIA development. That will enable members of the community to view and comment on the application.

We expect that the majority of Crown development applications will be subject to a public hearing. Those who made comments will be notified when that is to take place. Interested parties may attend the hearing if the inspector allows it. Only comments made during the consultation, the publicity period and the hearing that raise material planning matters will be taken into account as part of the decision-making process.

The local planning authority will be consulted and will have a role to play in publicising the application. It will need to place the application and associated documents on its planning register. Where PINS—the Planning Inspectorate—does not have a local presence, the local planning authority will be required to affix site notices during the mandatory period and to notify those owners or occupiers who adjoin the site. For urgent Crown development, the other route that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provides for, the local planning authority will again be consulted as part of the application. That is mandated by section 293C(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In the draft regulations, we have made provision about the consultation procedure.

While we appreciate the importance of community engagement, given the urgency with which decisions must be made, under the approach to consultation with the community in this process they will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In circumstances in which decisions need to be made very quickly, it may not be possible to conduct a meaningful public consultation and reach an urgent decision. I hope that satisfies the hon. Member for Broxbourne on the different types of community engagement under both routes.

The new routes, as I said, can be used only for developments for which it is clearly justified, and provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act require that applications can be accepted by the Secretary of State only if she deems that they are of national importance and, in the case of the urgent Crown development route, urgent. I made a written ministerial statement on 13 February that set out the principles under which national importance and urgency will be determined. When submitting an application, applicants are required to set out the reasons why they consider that the development is of national importance and, in the case of urgent Crown development, needed as a matter of urgency.

The draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations make amendments to primary legislation to reflect the two new Crown development routes. For instance, they amend references to planning permission set out in a range of pieces of legislation. They also remove references to the previous urgent Crown development route in section 293A of the Town and Country Planning Act, which now applies only in Wales. The instrument also sets the fee for an application for planning permission under both routes, set at the same fee, which would have been paid to the local authority.

Following the statutory instrument coming into force, a further suite of statutory instruments will be made through the negative parliamentary procedure. They will set the procedures for the two routes and make further consequential changes to secondary legislation to reflect their implementation. We have published the instruments in draft ahead of the debate, in order to provide proper transparency about how the routes will operate. I reiterate that the Government are committed to ensuring proper transparency to Parliament at every stage when the routes are used. When the matter was considered in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee, I stressed that point to the then Minister.

The following are the ways in which we want to ensure that proper transparency takes place. First, where an application under any of the routes is accepted, the relevant Members of Parliament will be sent a letter. That letter will include details of where the application can be viewed and the next steps. The letter will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Secondly, when a decision is made on whether to grant planning permission, the relevant Members of Parliament will be sent another letter. That letter will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Finally, on an annual basis, the Secretary of State will publish a report of all decisions taken under the routes. Taken together, those steps will ensure that Members in the other House are properly appraised of any applications that relate to their constituencies. It also means that both Houses of Parliament will be provided the opportunity to consider and scrutinise the general operation of the routes.

The second set of regulations we are debating make changes to the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. The changes will ensure that when development comes forward after it is granted planning permission through the Crown development route, such development can be liable to pay the community infrastructure levy if the local authority charges CIL in that area. In addition, under section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act, applicants can apply to the Planning Inspectorate, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, for a planning permission decision when an authority has been designated for poor performance. We are amending the CIL regulations to ensure that the levy can be charged on development that comes forward under this route if the local authority charges CIL in its area. That ensures that fair financial contributions to local infrastructure are made by such development.

Finally, some incidental and consequential amendments are made to the Town and Country Planning (Section 62A Applications) (Procedure and Consequential Amendments) Order 2013 to enable relevant information to be provided in relation to CIL where an application is made under section 62A.

To summarise, the regulations are important in ensuring a more timely and proportionate process for dealing with planning applications for Crown development in England. The Government are taking steps to ensure that the routes are used appropriately, and that there is full scrutiny of the use of the powers. The changes we are making to the CIL regime are also important to ensure that CIL can be charged on development in a consistent and fair way, even when the local planning authority is not the decision maker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, for his constructive tone. I also thank the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for Didcot and Wantage for their questions.

The shadow Minister asked which cases the Crown development route and the urgent Crown development route would be used for. I will discuss each route in turn because they will have different applications. It will ultimately be for the Secretary of State to assess on a case-by-case basis what is deemed nationally important. Obviously, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on specific schemes.

The Crown development route will most likely be used for HMG programme nationally important public service development. That would include but not be limited to new prisons or border infrastructure, to give just two examples. It may also be used for defence-related development, as PINS is able to put in place special procedures to handle information dealing with matters of national security. Special provisions exist whereby the Secretary of State may issue a direction limiting the disclosure of information relating to matters of national security of a premises through section 321 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Crown development route may also be used for particularly sensitive or significant development being brought forward by or on behalf of the Crown. Let me be clear: we expect only a few applications to be submitted through this route each year.

For urgent Crown development, it will again be for the Secretary of State to assess on a case-by-case basis what is nationally important and needed urgently on the basis of what has been submitted as part of the application. Again, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on specific schemes but we expect the urgent Crown development route to be used very rarely, where other planning application routes cannot be used to secure a decision quickly enough. It will be used only in cases where development needs to be put in place quickly, in a matter of days or weeks, and where the development is in the national interest. That may include, for example, medical centres, or storage and distribution for key goods and services in the event of a pandemic.

The shadow Minister asked what environmental protections are in place. We are maintaining important environmental safeguards in both routes, which are subject to existing environmental impact assessment and habitats regulations assessment requirements. For example, where development is considered EIA development, accompanied by an environmental statement, there will be a requirement to publicise the application and consult specific bodies for no less than 30 days. Environmental impacts will remain a key consideration in whether planning permission should be granted. In the Crown development route, we are ensuring that development being brought forward is also subject to mandatory biodiversity net gain—namely, the permission must secure a 10% increase in biodiversity value.

The shadow Minister, if I understood him correctly, raised transparency, as did other Members. As I set out comprehensively in the written ministerial statement issued on 13 February, both routes have important safeguards and transparency measures. That feature was not apparent at the time of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee, and I pressed the then Minister on that point. I have worked very hard—it was very important to me—to ensure that important safeguards and transparency measures are in place so that people will know the rationale for where these powers and routes are used, and what safeguards will apply.

Lastly, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage asked, I think, how we would define national importance and urgency, because there is a subjective element to that. The Government are obviously committed to a planning system in which decisions are made locally. Last night, we had a long discussion about local plans and planning committees on Second Reading of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but it is a well-established principle that in limited circumstances it is necessary for the Secretary of State to make planning decisions where planning issues are of more than local importance.

What is considered to be of national importance will be determined on a case-by-case basis. The Secretary of State will use the principles set out in the written ministerial statement that I mentioned when determining whether a proposal meets this bar. The Secretary of State will, in general, consider a development to be of national importance only if the development would involve the interests of national security or foreign Governments; contribute towards the provision of national public services or infrastructure, such as prisons and border infrastructure, as I mentioned earlier; support a response to international, national or regional civil emergencies; or otherwise have significant economic, social or environmental effects on strong public interests at a regional or national level. It will obviously be for the applicant to set out evidence as part of the statement accompanying the application that demonstrates that at least one of those principles has been met.

What is considered a matter of urgency will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Again, the Secretary of State will use the principles set out in the written ministerial statement. In these circumstances, the applicant will be required to provide a statement to accompany the application, setting out why they consider the development to be both nationally important and needed as a matter of urgency. The Secretary of State will accept applications through the urgent Crown development route only where the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed development meets both those conditions.

Furthermore, the Secretary of State will consider something to be needed urgently only where the applicant can demonstrate the need for an expedited planning process. To that end, the applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposed development needs to be made operational to an accelerated timeframe and is unlikely to be feasible using other application routes, including the Crown development route, and will need to evidence the likely consequences of not securing a decision within the accelerated timeframe. I hope that answers all the points raised by hon. Members.

The two new routes for planning permission that we seek to implement are necessary and timely, and these regulations represent a crucial step towards their delivery. The changes that we are making to the CIL regulations are equally important in order to maintain the integrity of the CIL charging regime. As I said, they will ensure that a clear and consistent approach is taken to the levy regardless of who the planning decision maker is. I hope that the Committee will welcome the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025. —(Matthew Pennycook.)