Oral Answers to Questions
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Not least because we will only begin construction of the next generation of new towns towards the end of this Parliament, the Government have been clear that they will deliver over and above the targets produced by the standard method. We will, of course, keep under review how the taskforce’s forthcoming recommendations on new towns interact with housing targets across England.
Blake Stephenson
Communities in Mid Bedfordshire have always done their bit to take new housing, but continued pressure to build is chipping away at our beautiful countryside and the historical character of our towns and villages. Will the Minister assure communities such as mine that the new towns taskforce cannot hit us with a double whammy of house building?
Matthew Pennycook
The independent expert taskforce, chaired by Sir Michael Lyons, will be submitting its final report to us in the summer and, as such, we have absolutely no idea which locations it will recommend to Ministers for decision. We have been clear, as I have said, that our ambition is that new towns will contribute over and above the targets produced by the standard method, but obviously we want to make sure that the right incentives are in place to support proactive local authorities, such as his, coming forward with these large-scale new communities.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
We know that future generations of older people are unlikely to have had generous pensions or even to have been homeowners during their working lives. Will the Minister therefore confirm whether housing targets will include specific reference to older people’s housing and the growing need for age-appropriate accommodation?
Matthew Pennycook
I would say two things to my hon. Friend. First, the older people’s housing taskforce recently reported, and we are weighing up its recommendations. We have also made clear through the national planning policy framework that we expect local authorities to take into account the types of tenure and homes that they need for their local areas, and local plans are the primary way that different types of housing for different demographic demographics should be brought forward.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government recognise the considerable financial strain that opaque and unfair fees and charges are placing on leaseholders across the country. As my hon. Friend will know, on 21 November last year, I made a written ministerial statement setting out the steps the Government intend to take to provide leaseholders with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes by implementing those reforms to the leasehold system already in statute. We will also progress the wider set of reforms necessary to end the feudal leasehold system for good.
Rachael Maskell
I welcome this Labour Government getting a grip on the feudal racket that enslaves leaseholders to ever-rising management fees and ground rents, making it impossible to pay and impossible to move. Will the Minister provide transitional arrangements to cap those costs while ensuring that all new developments—even developments that are soon to enter the planning stage, such as the one at York Central—can make the transition to commonhold as soon as the law changes?
Matthew Pennycook
The Government have no plans to cap service charges for tenants and leaseholders, given that would prevent necessary funds from being raised for legitimate purposes, but we do plan to tackle unregulated unaffordable ground rent provisions through legislation. As the White Paper published today makes clear, we want to make the process of converting to commonhold as easy as possible, and we will set out proposals in the draft leasehold and commonhold reform Bill, which is to be published later this year.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I welcome the Government’s announcement today of changes to leasehold and the introduction of commonhold, but thousands of leaseholders across the country are still crippled by both high service charges and failing delivery. I am sure that the inboxes of Members across the House are full of complaints from constituents, particularly in relation to FirstPort management company. What can the Government do to hold individual management companies accountable for the services they deliver to our residents?
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we intend to bring into force this year the provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which is designed to drive up the transparency of service charges so that leaseholders can challenge them more easily if they consider them to be unreasonable. We intend to strengthen the regulation of managing agents, imposing minimum standards in relation to, for example, qualifications. I would say to any managing agent—and I know that Members across the House have been holding them to account—that they should improve their performance in the light of the changes coming forward in the near future.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me explain, as simply as I can, what we want to do. As the White Paper makes clear, we will ban the sale of new leasehold flats so that commonhold becomes the default tenure, and we will ensure that the process of conversion is as simple as possible so that those leaseholders in existing leasehold blocks who want to make that change can do so as simply as possible. But we have to ensure that those who do not want to make that change have the powers, rights and protections in relation to their homes that will give them the immediate relief that my hon. Friend talks about.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
What steps are the Government taking to help those leaseholders with doubling ground rents who now feel trapped and unable to remortgage or sell their properties without meeting the massive costs of changing their leases, which, as I know from personal experience, can amount to five-figure sums?
Matthew Pennycook
I well recognise the problem. As the hon. Gentleman will probably know, historically ground rents were nominal sums—often peppercorn sums—but over the past 20 years we have seen a very different system develop. We have made a commitment, which we will honour, to take action on unregulated and unaffordable ground rents through legislation, and we will provide further details in due course.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government are committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. In our first eight months in office, we have announced £800 million in new funding for the affordable homes programme. This top-up will support the delivery of up to 7,800 new homes, with more than half being social rent homes. We will set out details of new investment to succeed the 2021-to-2026 programme at the spending review.
John Slinger
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. What measures will his Department consider to support councils that find themselves in viability negotiations with developers, who sometimes push down the quota of social homes and, indeed, affordable homes?
Matthew Pennycook
I am aware of several schemes in my hon. Friend’s constituency that are having viability issues. Financial support is indeed available. While the £500 million of new in-year funding for the affordable homes programme announced at the Budget is already oversubscribed as a result of significant demand from housing providers across the country, the further allocation of £300 million, which we announced last month, will help ensure that more social and affordable homes are delivered. In the case that my hon. Friend describes, I would encourage both his local authority and local social housing providers to bid for that money.
Mike Tapp
I recently visited Aylesham village with Persimmon Homes in my constituency, and I was delighted to see the number of solar panels on roofs across the estate. What are this Government doing to ensure that, for new builds, including social housing new builds, we deliver solar panels on every roof, high levels of insulation, and charging points on driveways?
Matthew Pennycook
The previous Government, to their credit, introduced changes to the building regulations that came into force in June 2022, and under those standards, new homes are being built with high-quality insulation and electric vehicle charging points. Those standards also encourage the use of solar panels, or other forms of low-carbon technology, such as heat pumps. This Government 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 emission requirements for new homes.
Steve Witherden
The most recent data shows that nearly 11,500 people are stuck in temporary accommodation in Wales, unable to move on from homelessness due to a shortage of social housing and unaffordable private rents. Given the escalating need for affordable housing across the UK, what conversations has the Department had with the Welsh Government to urgently address this crisis and collaborate on quickly increasing the availability of social homes?
Matthew Pennycook
I understand well the pressures in Wales that my hon. Friend describes so eloquently. We know that increasing the supply of social homes is a cornerstone of the Welsh Government’s plans to prevent housing problems and homelessness. We speak regularly with our colleagues in the Welsh Government, and we will continue to work closely with them on our shared objective of getting more social homes built by councils and housing associations.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
Building more social housing and affordable housing was a principal promise made by Leicestershire county council in the proposals for the Lutterworth East development. That development is subject to a call-in, so I do not want to go into any details, but I want to ask the Minister this very basic question. If a senior civil servant in the Department gives a commitment to an MP, to encourage that MP to drop an amendment to legislation, can the MP rely on the assurances given by that senior civil servant?
Matthew Pennycook
I note the question the hon. Member asks. We are grateful to all the civil servants who serve the Government for acting with integrity. The civil service code is clear that civil servants must act truthfully and cannot deceive or knowingly mislead Ministers or Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman has serious issues that he wishes to raise regarding civil servants, he can do so with the Department’s permanent secretary.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Chichester’s planning policy dictates that 30% of all homes in new developments should be social and affordable housing. However, we have recently noticed a worrying trend of registered providers refusing to take on contracts in smaller and medium-sized developments, and favouring larger developments. That is putting a lot of the social housing in Chichester at risk. What is the Minister doing to ensure that registered providers continue to take on smaller contracts in mixed-use developments?
Matthew Pennycook
We know that registered providers are facing real challenges when it comes to their capacity, or headroom, to take on additional section 106 units. The hon. Lady may be aware that we set up, through Homes England, a clearing service to try to better match developers with units that are not being picked up. We are giving lots more thought to what can be done in this area, and I am more than happy to speak to her about the options available to the Government.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The building of more council houses throughout the UK is welcome news, especially in Ashfield, where we have 7,000 people on the waiting list. Does the Minister agree that when we are dishing these houses out, British-born, hard-working taxpayers should be prioritised?
Matthew Pennycook
I would say to the hon. Gentleman that they already are. There are very strict requirements in place when it comes to the allocation of social housing. As I am sure he knows well, local criteria can be imposed—I am not sure that his council has them in place—in terms of the amount of time someone needs to be resident in an area before they qualify for social rented housing.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Every day, another family contact my office because they are homeless, and they are placed in a hostel, with no functioning kitchen and no private bathroom, miles away from their children’s schools. I am sure that other hon. Members can say the same. What is worse is that the placements cost councils at least three times as much as permanent social homes. So-called affordable homes are of no use to these families at all. At the same time, new homes are being rejected by registered housing providers because the standards are not high enough. What are the Government doing to progress the future homes standard, so that the homes being built are not rejected by registered home providers, who say that the homes are not good enough for them, and will have to be retrofitted?
Matthew Pennycook
I understand the point the hon. Lady is making. I refer her to my previous answer. The Government intend to bring forward, through changes to building regulations, future standards that will increase the energy efficiency and carbon emission requirements on new build homes. That will give housing associations, in particular, that have got ahead of the changes and standards the comfort that they need to start adopting those units.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government are committed to maintaining strong protections for our protected landscapes. We are clear that the scale and extent of development within such designated areas should be limited, so that we are able to pass on their attractions and important biodiversity to future generations. National planning policy is clear that significant development within a national landscape should be refused, other than in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest.
Edward Morello
West Dorset desperately needs new housing that is actually affordable for local people, especially key workers and young families looking to get on the housing ladder, but 70% of West Dorset falls within a protected national landscape, formerly an area of outstanding natural beauty. Rigid housing targets could lead to inappropriate developments that undermine the character of this protected area. What discussions has the Department had with local authorities in Dorset on adjusting housing targets to reflect the constraints of the national landscape and our rural infrastructure challenges?
Matthew Pennycook
Local authorities use the standard method to assess housing needs, but they can show evidence of any hard constraints in their areas, including protected landscapes. Those will be assessed by the Planning Inspectorate to judge whether the plan is sound. We are clear that local authorities should explore all options to deliver the homes that their communities need, including maximising the use of brownfield land, working with neighbouring authorities and, where appropriate, reviewing their green belt.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I well recognise the situation that my hon. Friend describes, but I also recognise the reluctance of local authorities to take on substandard housing estates that have been built. We have decided to consult this year on options to reduce the prevalence of private management of estates of the kind he describes. We will also, importantly, implement new consumer protections for homeowners on private estates in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Matthew Pennycook
I agree with my hon. Friend. Last year, as the housing emergency took hold, the SNP Government cut £200 million from the affordable housing budget. It was only as a result of Labour’s record budget settlement that they were forced to reverse those cuts, but they are still not showing the adequate ambition that we need. The SNP Government must set out a real plan to reform planning and boost house building to meet their affordable housing targets.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Matthew Pennycook
To add to the responses I gave earlier, we intend to take action to provide leaseholders with the transparency of standardised service charge invoices, so that they can better challenge unreasonable rent hikes. We also need to strengthen the regulation of managing agents, including those such as FirstPort that, as is clear from the feeling in the House, are not performing the necessary services for their residents.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Welcome though the hundreds of millions of pounds extra for adult social care in the Budget were, can the Secretary of State confirm that the cost of rises in national insurance contributions and the minimum wage will run into the billions, and that local authorities will in fact be worse off than they were prior to the Budget in tackling social care? Can she confirm that—yes or no?
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The planning proposals for Laindon Road and Mountnessing Road in Billericay and for Noak Bridge were previously rejected because of the green belt aspect but are now being reconsidered under grey belt. Will the Minister urgently meet me, the Billericay Action Group and some of the local councillors to look at the issues around where grey belt is perhaps not being used in the way the Government originally intended?
Matthew Pennycook
Local authorities can be clear about how grey belt should be used because we released planning policy guidance last week to give them a better sense of where it is appropriate to be released and be brought forward for development.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Matthew Pennycook
I assure my hon. Friend of that fact, and we are also succeeding where the previous Government failed, in that we are finally abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions. The Renters’ Rights Bill will empower tenants to challenge unreasonable within-tenancy rent increases. We also need to boost supply, which is why we set the hugely ambitious milestone, as part of our plan for change, of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in this Parliament.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
In the Lake district and the dales of Cumbria, average house prices are around 20 times average household incomes. Will the Minister try to tackle this issue by making sure that there is a specific and unappealable designation of social housing-only developments that national park authorities and local councils can enforce?
Matthew Pennycook
We want to see far greater use of rural exception sites in particular, and I am more than happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman—I think we have already planned to do so—to discuss short-term lets as well as this issue.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Phil Brickell
These include unacceptably long delays for repairs and exorbitant costs at Greenmount Court in Smithills, despite spiralling fees, poor transparency and little to no communication from the agent. What steps is the Minister taking to deliver a fairer deal for existing leaseholders and to hold poorly performing managing agents to account?
Matthew Pennycook
We need to balance speed with care, because we will not make the mistake that the previous Government did and pass flawed legislation that requires us to fix it, therefore delaying reform for leaseholders. We will, as soon as possible, introduce the provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which will allow us, as I said, to bring in transparency around service charges to allow leaseholders to better challenge unreasonable increases, and we intend to strengthen the regulation of managing agents.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
On 8 February, the Court—a grade II listed landmark in Chorleywood in my constituency—burned down in mysterious circumstances. I met the three local councillors—Councillors Cooper, Hearn and Reed—on Friday to discuss the matter. I am not asking the Secretary of State to comment on this specific case, but will she confirm that where listed buildings are destroyed without permission, there should be a presumption that they are rebuilt brick by brick to how they were before the destruction?
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Matthew Pennycook
The publication of the “Commonhold White Paper” today marks the beginning of the end of the feudal leasehold system. We will succeed where the previous Government failed and bring that system to an end, but we are determined to provide immediate relief for leaseholders suffering from unreasonable and unfair charges at present.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I rise to gently follow up on a critical request for urgent help that I made in November. In September 2023, Kirklees council temporarily closed Dewsbury sports centre for safety reasons due to reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. The centre remained closed until 5 November 2024 when the council unilaterally decided to permanently close the centre without investigation. I raised the issue with the Secretary of State for DCMS and have written to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor for assistance. Will the Deputy Prime Minister facilitate an update for me on the issue?
Local Plan Making and Guidance
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Planning is principally a local activity. It is local plans that set out a vision and a framework for the future development of any given area, addressing needs and opportunities in relation to housing, the economy, community facilities and essential infrastructure—as well as a basis for conserving and enhancing the natural and historic environment, mitigating and adapting to climate change, and achieving well-designed places.
Local plans are the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development that their areas need and we know that areas with up-to-date local plans deliver more homes overall than those without one. For these reasons, the plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our planning system.
I am today updating the House on further steps the Government are taking to progress toward universal coverage of local plans and to realise the full potential of the planning reforms we initiated last year.
Responding to the 2023 consultation on implementation of plan-making reforms
While there are clear benefits to communities of having an up-to-date local plan, fewer than a third of local areas have one in place. That is partly the result of how inaccessible and cumbersome the plan-making process can be.
The current way of preparing plans is not optimised for community participation. Plans can be lengthy, hard to read and difficult for those without specialist planning knowledge to engage with. They also often take a long time to prepare, at least seven years on average, which means they can be out of date too quickly, and communities struggle to understand the many different consultation phases.
The Government want to make new local plans simpler to understand and use, so that communities can more easily shape them. We want them to clearly show what is planned in a local area—so that residents can more easily engage with them, especially while they are being drawn up. We want them to be prepared and examined more quickly to ensure they reflect current local needs. And we want them to make the best use of new digital technology, to enhance access and drive improved productivity and efficiency in the plan-making process.
Following detailed analysis of all the responses submitted, as well as extensive engagement with the sector, the Government are today publishing our response https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/plan-making-reforms-consultation-on-implementation/outcome/government-response-to-the-proposed-plan-making-reforms-consultation-on-implementation to the previous Government’s consultation on the new-plan making system. We intend to proceed largely as set out in that consultation, with necessary regulations, policy and guidance to be confirmed later this year.
Local planning authorities have also told us that they need clearer guidance and more practical tools to speed up plan-making. We are therefore launching today a new dedicated home for plan-making resources on gov.uk: “Create or Update a Local Plan” https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/create-or-update-a-local-plan This brings together all the essential tools and guidance councils need to quickly develop a local plan, underpinned by quality data. We will be adding more practical resources to this site over the coming months to help planners at all stages of the plan-making process.
Updates to green belt, local nature recovery strategies and effective use of land planning policy guidance
The Government are also revising planning practice guidance to support local planning authorities in their plan making.
We are clear that development must look to brownfield first, prioritising the development of previously used land wherever possible. However, we know brownfield development alone will not be enough to meet our housing need. That is why the revised national planning policy framework published in December 2024 included a new approach to the green belt, prioritising the release of lower-quality grey-belt land within it and introducing “golden rules” to ensure any green-belt development benefits communities and nature.
To ensure our green belt reforms are implemented effectively and to support a more consistent approach to assessing green belt land, we have today published new guidance https://www.gov.uk/guidance/green-belt for local planning authorities. This will support authorities with the production of local development plans whilst also making sure that planning applications and development on suitable grey-belt land can proceed in the short term in areas where up-to-date plans are not in place.
Guidance https://www.gov.uk/guidance/effective-use-of-land has also been revised today on making effective use of land setting out how to apply paragraph 125c of the NPPF. This gives substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, taking into consideration other policies including those relating to the protection of heritage assets when making decisions.
We have also published new guidance https://www.gov.uk/guidance/natural-environment#local-nature-recovery-strategies on local nature recovery strategies as part of updates to the natural environment and plan-making planning practice guidance. LNRSs are new strategies being prepared across England to agree priorities for nature recovery and propose actions in the locations where they will have the greatest impact for nature.
They will also provide valuable evidence for plan making and may contain information to support decisions on planning applications, so the updated guidance provides clarity on how local planning authorities can have regard to LNRSs in both the plan making and decision-making process. One of the 48 LNRSs has been published (West of England Combined Authority) and the other 47 are expected to follow during 2025.
Funding support for local authorities
Alongside the publication of the revised NPPF in December 2024, we announced funding https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/funding-to-support-local-authorities-with-the-costs-of-local-plan-delivery-and-green-belt-reviews-successful-local-authorities to support local authorities with the costs of carrying out green belt reviews. Eligible local authorities were invited to submit an expression of interest to request a share of this funding.
We are today announcing that 133 local authorities will receive £70,000 of pump- priming funding each to contribute towards the costs of carrying out green belt reviews in their areas. This will be paid to those local authorities shortly. We are keen to hear feedback from local authorities as to whether this is a sufficient level of funding and we will be reaching out to affected local authorities in due course.
We also want to help local authorities continue to drive forward their local plans whilst taking new policy into account. That is why on 14 February 2025 we announced new funding to support local plan delivery for authorities at regulation 18 stage. This is in addition to the funding for local authorities with plans at regulation 19 stage, announced in December 2024. Eligible local authorities are invited to submit an expression of interest form by 28 February 2025 to request a share of this funding, and we will announce which local authorities will receive both regulation 18 and regulation 19 local plans funding in due course.
Pathways to Planning funding
The Pathways to Planning programme provides local planning authorities with a pipeline of talented graduates, adding value to local authority planning teams and contributing to the sustainability of the planning profession. Almost 90 graduate planners started work through the programme last year, and the current recruitment process has seen more than 2,000 graduates apply.
The Government remain committed to enhancing the capacity and capability of local planning authorities. We are therefore allocating £4.5 million for the Local Government Association’s latest Pathways to Planning initiative to fund salary bursaries for new planning roles in councils. We are setting ambitious targets for the programme, where we are hoping to exceed the 300-planner target by the end of 2026. Local planning authorities can indicate their interest in a salary-funded role on the programme’s expression of interest form https://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=7uRi4U8FPEuNOXVSTKjy6Q3gBMH2WphCmXSUOX7QdS9UQkJQUUhRU05URUcxTkpQN0MxSTVaQVdURS4u and canlearn more about the programme here.
[HCWS480]
Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 13 January 2025, increase planning fees for householder and other applications, with a view to providing much-needed additional resources for hard-pressed local planning authorities. Alongside other steps that the Government are taking to support local planning authorities to build their capacity and capability, the regulations will help to ensure that our planning system is faster and more efficient, and equipped to facilitate our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament.
Let me start by providing some important context to the regulations. Planning application fees were last increased by 35% for major applications and 25% for all other applications in December 2023, yet when it comes to planning application services in England, we still face a national funding shortfall of £362 million. Moreover, the types of planning application with the greatest gap between the fees that can be charged and the actual costs associated with processing them constitute the majority of applications received by local planning authorities. In short, the arrangement that the Government inherited is simply not sustainable.
By increasing the level of fees charged for making those applications with the greatest funding shortfalls, we will ensure that local planning authorities can cover a greater proportion of the costs associated with processing them. That will provide an immediate boost to local planning authority resources. We estimate in the impact assessment that the changes will generate an additional £56 million annually for local planning authorities across England. I am sure that the Committee will agree that this is a substantial sum that will significantly enhance the capacity, capability and therefore efficiency of planning services in every part of the country, to the benefit of applicants of all kinds.
I will now turn to the detail of the regulations. The regulations increase the fees for householders who want to enlarge, extend or alter their home from £258 to £528 for a single house and from £509 to £1,043 for more than one house. While I acknowledge that this is a large increase, it is necessary to meet the estimated costs to local planning authorities of determining such applications, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would accept, in principle, that it is right that those who seek and will directly benefit from the planning permission cover those costs rather than the taxpayer. The application fee represents a small proportion—less than 1%—of typical overall development costs. As I am sure you know, Ms Jardine, certain householder development can also be undertaken through permitted development rights without the need for a planning application, and so incurs no fee at all.
The regulations also increase fees for a range of other application types that are currently also set too low. They increase the planning fees for prior approval applications from a flat fee of £120 to £240, and from £258 to £516 where they include building operations, and for a change of use of commercial buildings to residential uses from £125 per dwelling to £250 per dwelling. The regulations also increase the fees for discharge of conditions from £43 to £86 for householders, and from £145 to £298 for all other applications, including discharge of biodiversity net gain plans.
Finally, the regulations introduce a new three-tiered fee structure for section 73 applications that are used to vary or remove conditions on extant planning applications. That reflects the higher costs associated with section 73 applications on major developments. The regulations also make corrections to two fees that were erroneously set too low when the fee regulations were last amended in December 2023. Taken together, the fee increases provided for by the regulations will reduce the current funding shortfalls for the various application types to which they apply, and will thereby enable local planning authorities to hire more staff, invest in better technology and streamline their internal processes, all of which will contribute to faster and more efficient decision making.
I want to be very clear that the Government expect local planning authorities to use the income from planning fees on their planning application services, so that they can build up their capability and capacity, and improve their performance. That is what applicants expect in return for paying higher fees. The fee increase is not made in isolation, but is part of our broader efforts to resource and streamline the planning system. As hon. Members will be aware, in the Budget the Chancellor announced a £46 million package of investment in the planning system as a one-year settlement for 2025-26. As part of that investment, we are working with delivery partners to understand how we can scale delivery and fund the recruitment and training of at least an additional 300 planners. That includes expansion of the Pathways to Planning programme, which has had significant interest from prospective graduates wanting to take up roles in local planning authorities and train while they work.
The Government have also announced our intention to introduce a measure in the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill that will enable local planning authorities to set their own planning fees to meet their costs. That measure will provide local planning authorities with the flexibility to adjust fees according to local needs and circumstances, ensuring that they can manage their resources sustainably and continue to deliver a high-quality service. As a result of those measures, we will ensure that local planning authorities are not only better funded but better equipped to handle the significant demands placed upon them.
As we progress measures for local fee-setting through the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill, today’s regulations will provide local planning authorities with an immediate boost in resourcing and greater financial sustainability. That will ensure that they are better equipped to boost housing supply and deliver economic growth. I hope that hon. Members from across the Committee will join me in supporting the draft regulations.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank both the Liberal Democrat spokesman and the shadow Minister for their contributions. I note that the shadow Minister does not feel strongly enough about the reforms to formally divide the Committee, but he makes a number of pertinent challenges and asks a number of questions that I will seek to answer.
Both Members outlined the problem we face, which is that local planning authorities are significantly under-resourced and hard pressed. On planning application fees, despite the increases made by the previous Government in December 2023, we have a funding shortfall across the whole of England of £362 million. That is the problem we are attempting to address with the regulations. Fees were consolidated in 2012 by the coalition Government and have been increased only twice since, in 2018 and 2023. Importantly, prior to changes in 2023 that will come into effect on 1 April, they were never index linked, so they have never risen with inflation. As such, the gap between the cost of processing an application and the fees charged has widened over time.
The Government propose, through the regulations, to increase the fees on certain types of applications, which as I said in my opening remarks constitute the bulk of applications to local authorities, where the funding shortfall is most acute. The current fee of £258 on householder applications—just to give the shadow Minister a sense of the shortfall we are talking about—covers less than half the cost of processing the application to the local authority. As I have said, we think it is right in principle that taxpayers should not bear that burden, but the people making the application who will directly benefit from consent once it is processed. The planning application fee represents a small proportion—as I said, less than 1%—of typical overall development costs and, through permitted development rights, certain types of applications incur no fee at all.
The shadow Minister rightly raised ringfencing. The Government are clear that they expect the income from planning fees to be retained and directly invested in the delivery of planning application services. Managing public money principles should ensure that planning fees are effectively ringfenced. We believe that they are in most instances, but I have heard anecdotal accounts of planning fees being used to cross-subsidise other council services. We are therefore considering ringfencing as part of the Government’s longer-term plans for planning fees, which will enable local planning authorities to set their own fees.
On performance, in return for increasing planning fees, we expect local authorities to invest more in their planning service to deliver better performance. We are able to monitor, and will continue to monitor, the performance of local planning authorities through the planning performance dashboard and the quarterly planning statistics seen by the Department. The planning performance regime ensures that underperforming local planning authorities are held to account. The previous Government took action in that respect and we stand ready to do so where necessary.
Both Members raised concerns about general funding for local authorities. The Government are under no illusions about the scale of the financial issues facing councils and the potential for continued instability as we work to fix the foundations of local government. That is why we have a framework in place to support councils in the most difficult positions and why we work on a collaborative basis to help councils to manage their financial challenges.
Lastly, let me say something about local fee-setting. As we have said, it is important that local planning authorities are well resourced so they can deal with planning applications efficiently and do not hold up the development necessary for economic growth.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a local councillor. The Minister proposes to increase fees, but from my understanding they will not go to full cost recovery. Will he set out why they are taking a leapfrog approach and not going to full cost recovery, if that is indeed where the Government want to get to?
Matthew Pennycook
We think we are striking the right balance between increasing fees on the type of applications outlined in the regulations and making it very clear that nationally set planning fees can never be set in a way that covers every local authority’s costs for their planning application service, because costs vary between local authorities. The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware of that in his role. We think the only way to do this is ultimately for local planning authorities to be able to set their own planning fees. As I said, we intend to introduce a power in the proposed planning and infrastructure Bill that will enable local planning authorities to set their own fees, so that they will be able to recover their costs for their planning application services.
The proposed increases in fees are necessary and timely. The changes address the critical funding shortfalls faced by our local planning authorities and will provide them with the resources they need to deliver improved services in the short term. I hope the Committee will welcome them. As I have made clear, they will help to ensure that our planning system is faster and more efficient, and better equipped to facilitate our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Affordable Rural Housing
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) on securing this important debate. She has only been in the House a relatively short time, but she has already established a reputation as a doughty champion of her constituency. Those she has the privilege of representing should be reassured by the fact that she has already assiduously conveyed their views and concerns to Ministers on a range of matters, including the one we are considering today. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) and others who have made contributions to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire raised a number of distinct issues on the provision of affordable rural housing and I will seek to respond to as many of them as I can in the time available to me. Before I do, I would like to make some brief remarks about planning reform and the role of the planning system in delivering homes of all kinds and meeting identified need for affordable housing, as a means of providing some important context.
It is not in dispute in this Chamber, I do not think, that the Government have inherited an acute and entrenched housing crisis, or that significantly boosting the supply of homes of all tenures is essential to tackling it. That is why we acted decisively to overhaul the national planning policy framework last year, to revise the anti-supply changes made by the previous Government in December 2023, and to introduce a range of pro-growth measures that will enable us to build the homes and infrastructure our country needs.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) on securing this important debate. I think it is true that all of us would like to see more affordable housing delivered for our constituents, but does the Minister agree that top-down housing targets for all areas of the United Kingdom are not always suitable? I am thinking of my own constituency on the Isle of Wight, where on average we deliver 300 homes a year and are committed, through our local plan, to deliver 450. The Government are asking us to deliver 1,000. Does the Minister agree that there have to be some areas of the United Kingdom where the standard method does not apply?
Matthew Pennycook
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We think the changes we have introduced and the revised standard method are appropriate. Every part of the country will need to play its part in achieving our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million new homes across the country. That is the scale of ambition we need commensurate with the crisis we face, and that crisis affects every part of England.
The Government believe in a plan-led system. It is through local development plans that communities shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their areas need. Local plans must remain the cornerstone of our planning system and we are determined to progress towards universal coverage. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire will appreciate that I am unable to comment on her local plan or how her local planning authority may interpret national planning policy due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process, but there is merit in me making some general comments on plan making in local authority areas that overlap with national landscapes, as is the case in her own area.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government are committed to maintaining strong protections for our protected landscapes. We are clear that the scale and extent of development within such designated areas should be limited so that we are able to pass on their attractions and important biodiversity to future generations. National planning policy is clear that significant development within a national landscape should be refused, other than in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest, taking into account a range of considerations. That includes fully exploring the role of planning conditions and developer contributions to mitigate the impacts of development or support infrastructure provision as appropriate.
When it comes to plan making, local authorities are expected to use the revised standard method to assess housing needs. However, they are able to justify a lower housing requirement than the figure set by the method on the basis of local constraints on land availability, development and other relevant matters such as national landscapes, but also protected habitats and flood risk areas. Local authorities will need to consider these matters as they prepare their plans, but we expect them to explore all options to deliver the homes their communities need. That means maximising brownfield land, densifying available brownfield sites, working with neighbouring authorities on cross-boundary housing growth and, where necessary, reviewing the green belt. They are then expected to evidence and justify that approach to planning for housing in their local planning consultation. An examination of their approach will be scrutinised by a planning inspector to determine whether the constraints are justified and the plan is sound.
I turn to the focus of my hon. Friend’s remarks—namely, the case for supporting rural communities to build new homes for local people, and in particular for boosting the supply of rural affordable housing. The Government are committed to doing so, and it was a pleasure to have the chance to discuss this matter with my hon. Friend last month. It cannot be right that, as a number of hon. Members said, young people in particular are often unable to remain in the villages in which they grew up. That harms not only them and their families but the vibrancy and long-term viability of rural communities.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the most important policies that we can look at in planning reform to deliver genuinely affordable homes in rural communities are a bold approach to land reform, the abolition of hope value and the reform of compulsory purchase orders to allow our local planning authorities to assemble the land that we need in our rural communities?
Matthew Pennycook
As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, we have already brought into force a discretionary power to disapply hope value in certain instances where a public interest test could be met. We are committed, through the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill, to bring forward further reform of the compulsory purchase process and compensation, so he can look forward to seeing more action in that area.
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 where it will maintain and enhance the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and flourish, especially where that will support local services. We also want more affordable housing in rural areas, as part of our manifesto commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. We have already taken steps to support the delivery of affordable rural housing. For example, our golden rules for green-belt development—which 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%—will unlock new affordable housing provision in a range of rural locations.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
Will the Minister say a few words about the massive change in our lifetimes? Doctors, policemen and teachers had houses owned by their local authority body, and they have now been sold. That pressure is continuing. Does he think we should go back to that to ensure that people can work in those sectors?
Matthew Pennycook
I think the hon. Gentleman is making a wider point. I am not sure what specific legislative provision he is referring to in the past. There is a very clear place for ensuring we are building the right types of homes in all parts of the country, including homes that support key workers and other frontline public sector staff, and I am more than happy to discuss that matter with him outside the Chamber.
The Government have been clear that we want to look further at measures to support affordable housing in rural areas. That is why we asked a question on that issue as part of the consultation on reforms to the national planning policy framework last year. The responses we received are informing our ongoing work in relation to producing a set of national policies for decision making—national development management policies, as they were referred to under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Although I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire a firm date today, I can assure her and other hon. Members that we will consult on those policies in the spring, as promised, and I will update the House in due course.
My hon. Friend also knows that, since taking office, the Government have provided additional grant funding to support the delivery of affordable homes in all parts of England. At the Budget on 30 October 2024, the Chancellor set out details of an immediate one-year cash injection of £500 million to top up the existing affordable homes programme, which will deliver up to 5,000 new social and affordable homes. On 12 February 2025, the Government announced a further cash injection of £300 million to the existing affordable homes programme, which will deliver a further 2,800 new homes, more than half of which will be for social rent.
At the multi-year spending review this year, the Government will set out details of new investment to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. That new investment will deliver a mix of homes for sub-market rent and home ownership, with a particular focus on delivering homes for social rent. We know that delivering affordable housing in rural places can be especially challenging. There are particular challenges that come with the delivery of sites in rural areas, so that is one of the factors that will be taken into consideration in the design of the future capital investment programme, which will succeed the existing one.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire might also like to know that, to provide additional support for rural housing delivery in settlements with populations of fewer than 3,000 people, Homes England has developed a rural housing strategy and has dedicated rural housing champions in each of its operating areas.
My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the significant contribution that can be made by rural exception sites. As she is aware, these 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 and in perpetuity. Rural exception sites tend to be just outside village boundaries, where housing is not normally granted permission, so it is possible to create them even in the green belt or designated rural areas. We recognise the strong support for rural exception sites and the potential for strengthening this policy. That is why we made clear in our response to the consultation on the revised national planning policy framework that we are giving further consideration to how we can better support rural affordable housing, including through 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. Again, I will set out details about our thinking in due course.
I will take forward this work with my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, including by considering the role that rural housing enablers play in supporting rural affordable housing. My hon. Friend mentioned a case in her own constituency. Again, I am afraid that I cannot give her any firm assurances in this debate in respect of ongoing funding because that is subject to the Government’s ongoing business planning, but I can assure her that we will provide an update at the earliest possible opportunity.
I want to briefly reference a couple of issues that hon. Members raised, as I have the time. The first is the problem highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire of developers and housing associations—in her case, Sovereign—selling off much-needed social and affordable homes in rural areas. She might like to know that when and if grant-funded homes are sold or part-sold, there is a system in place to recover Government grants through the recycled capital grant fund. That means that the cash value of the grant is placed in a fund to be used for further investment in new affordable housing supply. I am more than happy to discuss with her the specific issues with Sovereign in her own constituency.
Briefly, on short-term lets and the existing developer contribution system, Members across the House will know that we have debated this issue at length on various occasions. We are committed to taking forward the previous Government’s measures—a registration scheme for short-term lets and the abolition of the furnished holiday lettings scheme, which comes into force on 1 April—but we have been clear that that is not enough and we are giving very considered thought to what further powers local authorities need, in particular, though there is a balance to be struck, to deal with excessive concentrations of short-term lets that often deny local people not only homes to buy but, increasingly, homes to rent.
On section 106 contributions, we are reviewing viability and we are committed to strengthening the existing section 106 system, in lieu of taking forward the previous Government’s approach, which was an infrastructure levy. When taking those reforms forward, we need to ensure that local authorities are better able to negotiate at the point that those agreements are reached and are then able to ensure that developers honour the commitments that they make in those agreements, when struck.
In conclusion, I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire for securing this important debate, giving the House an opportunity to consider a range of important issues relating to affordable rural housing supply.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not—I am just winding up, I am afraid.
I hope that I have not only conveyed the Government’s firm support for delivering much-needed affordable housing in rural areas, but reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire and others that I am actively considering what further measures are necessary to ensure that we do so while balancing the need to ensure that development is sustainable and appropriate. I hope I can continue to draw on the insights provided by my hon. Friend and other colleagues, as the Government continue to develop their thinking in this area.
Question put and agreed to.
Large-scale Housing Site Delivery
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The delivery of significant numbers of large-scale housing developments in England is integral to driving economic growth and meeting the Government’s ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in this Parliament.
I am today updating the House on the progress that is being made to build out large sites across the country and to take forward the next generation of new towns.
The next generation of new towns
The post-war new towns programme was the most ambitious town-building effort ever undertaken in the UK. It transformed the lives of millions of working people by giving them affordable and well-designed homes in well-planned and beautiful surroundings. This Government will continue to invest in their regeneration, but we also remain committed to bringing forward the next generation of new towns.
In September 2024, we established an independent New Towns Taskforce and tasked the experts on it with identifying and recommending locations for new towns within 12 months. Over the past five months, the taskforce has made significant progress. Its nationwide call for evidence, which invited proposals for sites with the potential to accommodate large-scale new communities of at least 10,000 homes, attracted over 100 submissions from every region in England, demonstrating the enthusiasm that exists across the country to be part of this transformative programme.
Today, the taskforce is publishing an update on its work, setting out the vision and aims of the programme, as well as the unique benefits it would deliver and the lessons learnt from a comprehensive review of the three phases of the post-war new towns programme.
The Government have been clear that we want exemplary development to be the norm not the exception, so that more communities feel the benefits of new development and welcome it. We remain fully committed to creating high-quality, beautiful, and sustainable buildings and places.
We are therefore determined to ensure that the next generation of new towns are well-connected, well-designed, sustainable and attractive places where people want to live and have all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving mixed communities, including public transport and services like GP surgeries and schools.
The taskforce is also today sharing its emerging thinking on how best to meet these expectations, setting out what principles should guide the delivery of the kind of new large-scale communities we want to create through the programme. The intention is to begin a national conversation about what constitutes an ideal new town, and a series of engagement events will be held with the residents of existing new towns to secure their insight.
The Government are clear that public investment, leadership, and focus will be needed to kick-start the delivery of the next generation of new towns. However, our clear long-term objective is to ensure that the settlements brought forward under the programme pay for themselves through the value they create. This requires that the price paid for land reflects the costs of quickly and efficiently providing the infrastructure, amenities and affordable housing essential to the creation of high-quality places. We look forward to receiving the taskforce’s recommendations as to how this can be best achieved.
The taskforce will submit its final report to the Deputy Prime Minister and I in the summer, setting out its recommended locations for potential new towns, and its view on how best to fund and deliver them. The Government will then make decisions on the basis of those recommendations and begin the process of initiating the programme.
The spending review will confirm the Government’s plans to provide certainty for this transformative programme, demonstrating our commitment to bringing forward sustainable new communities and unlocking economic growth across the country. In the immediate term, an initial £15 million has been allocated for the next financial year, to enable early scoping work on new sites to begin, ensuring delivery can start as soon as ministerial decisions have been made.
New homes accelerator
Following its launch in July 2024, the new homes accelerator has been working with national and local partners to speed up housing delivery on a series of large sites across the country.
These include seven sites that were previously announced, namely Liverpool central docks, Northstowe, Worcestershire Parkway, Langley Sutton Coldfield, Tendring Colchester Borders garden community, Stretton Hall, and Biggleswade garden community, which together have the potential to deliver more than 28,500 homes.
Through intensive engagement with other Departments and statutory consultees as a convener and broker, the accelerator has also helped progress a number of other sites with the capacity to deliver more than 20,000 homes.
The call for evidence that the accelerator launched last year identified 350 sites, with a combined potential delivery pipeline of approximately 700,000 homes, as requiring some form of support to progress.
Today, the accelerator is announcing that it will focus attention on three new sites: Frome Gateway regeneration area in Bristol, south of Cayton in Scarborough, and Beam Park in London. Together, these have the potential to deliver more than 7,400 homes.
The new homes accelerator is also providing £3 million of grant funding to local authorities for site-specific support. This will be supplemented by the ongoing direct advice provided by its dedicated team of built environment specialists. We are also announcing £1 million of funding to key statutory consultees and £2 million of funding to the Building Safety Regulator to accelerate processing of applications.
Regeneration funding
To further increase the supply of new homes, I am today announcing several new investments. These include confirming £29.6 million from the brownfield infrastructure and land fund to unlock 1,000 new homes in Broadford City Village; announcing £1.5 million to support a joint venture between Manchester city council and private partners to deliver a new district in Manchester Victoria North; and £20 million towards remediating small council-owned brownfield sites, as part of the brownfield land release fund.
[HCWS452]
Crown Land: Planning Permission for Development
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Planning is principally a local activity, but it is a well-established principle 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 introduced in 2006, is not fit for purpose, and it is telling that it has never once been used.
I am therefore confirming today that the Government will implement two new routes by which Crown bodies can apply for planning permission for development on Crown land in England, as legislated for through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.
The first route, referred to as the Crown development route, will allow planning applications for Crown developments which are considered of “national importance” to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate directly instead of to local planning authorities.
Allowing such planning applications to be determined in this manner will allow for a more timely and proportionate process. Applications taken through this route will still be determined on the basis of their planning merits, with due consideration of local and national planning policy, and local communities and local planning authorities will still be fully engaged throughout the decision-making process and their views taken into account.
This process will be led by an independent planning inspector, with the inspector usually taking the decision, with provision for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to make the final decision where deemed appropriate.
The second route, an updated urgent Crown development process, will enable applications for “nationally important” development that is needed “urgently” to be determined rapidly under a simplified procedure. Applications under the urgent route will be submitted to, and dealt with directly by, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, and Local Government.
The Government believe that it is vital to ensure these routes are in place, and it is our sincere hope that it will remain a matter of cross-party consensus that where circumstances warrant it, decisions on nationally important development by the Crown can and should be made appropriately at the national level.
However, as I argued in opposition during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, it is imperative that such powers are used only where necessary, and that appropriate safeguards to their use are put in place. Where they are used, I also want to ensure there is transparency not just with those involved, but with Parliament. In implementing these routes, we have been careful to account for both points, which I will address in turn.
First, these new routes can only be used if the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government considers the proposed development from a Crown body to be of “national importance”. To this end, all applications must be accompanied by a statement setting out why the development is considered to meet that criteria.
The Secretary of State will in general only consider a development to be of national importance if, in her opinion, the development would:
involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments;
contribute towards the provision of national public services or infrastructure, such as new prisons, defence, or border infrastructure;
support a response to international, national, or regional civil emergencies;
or otherwise have significant economic, social, or environmental effects and strong public interest at a regional or national level.
For urgent Crown development, the Secretary of State must in addition be satisfied that the development subject to the application is genuinely needed as a matter of urgency. The Secretary of State will only consider this to be the case where the applicant can demonstrate the need for an expedited planning process. The applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposed development will need to be made operational to an accelerated timeframe that is unlikely to be feasible using other application routes, including Crown development, and will need evidence of the likely consequences of not securing a decision within the accelerated timeframe.
Secondly, where these routes are used, the Government are committed to ensuring proper transparency at every stage. This will take the form of three distinct steps:
First, where an application is accepted by the Secretary of State, the relevant Members of Parliament will be notified at the same time as the applicant and the relevant local planning authorities. A notification will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and will include details as to where the application can be viewed and the process that will follow.
Secondly, at the point of decision, and again at the same time as the applicant and relevant local planning authorities, the relevant Members of Parliament will be notified of either the grant or refusal of planning permission, and this letter will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
Thirdly, on an annual basis, I will publish a report of all decisions taken under these routes, including a link to the decision letters, which again will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
I am confident that, taken together, these steps will ensure Members are properly appraised of any applications being considered through these routes that relate to their constituencies, and will provide the House as a whole with the opportunity to consider and scrutinise their general operation. The Government will keep these steps under review as the routes begin to be used.
Finally, with regards to implementation, I have today laid draft regulations which make consequential amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and other primary legislation, as well as to planning application fee regulations, to reflect the two new Crown development routes.
These regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, enabling Parliament to debate them. To support scrutiny ahead of parliamentary debates, I will publish in draft the regulations setting out the procedures for both routes, which will be laid following parliamentary approval of the affirmative regulations. Our aim, subject to parliamentary approval, is to bring both routes into force in April 2025. Further guidance will be published on the operation of the two routes closer to implementation.
[HCWS454]
Social and Affordable Housebuilding and Supported Housing: Next Steps
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Further support for social and affordable housebuilding and next steps on supported housing
England is in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis. The detrimental consequences of this disastrous state of affairs are now all-pervasive. We have a generation locked out of homeownership; 1.3 million people languishing on social housing waiting lists; millions of low-income households forced into insecure, unaffordable and far too often sub-standard private rented housing; and 160,000 homeless children living in temporary accommodation.
Among the most important causes of the housing crisis is a failure over many decades to build enough homes of all tenures to meet housing demand and housing need. That is why the Government’s plan for change includes an ambitious milestone of delivering 1.5 million safe and decent homes in this Parliament.
We are also determined to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation. Today, I am announcing further support for the affordable homes programme and the local authority housing fund, and outlining the steps the Government intend to take to raise standards and better regulate supported housing.
Affordable homes programme
We will set out details of new investment to succeed the 2021-26 affordable homes programme at the spending review later this year. This new investment will deliver a mix of homes for sub-market rent and homeownership, with a particular focus on delivering homes for social rent.
In October 2024, we announced £500 million in new in-year funding for the affordable homes programme. As a result of significant demand from housing providers across the country, that additional funding is already oversubscribed.
I am therefore pleased to announce that the Government are allocating a further £300 million to the affordable homes programme. This will support the near-term delivery of more social and affordable housing, delivering up to 2,800 new homes with more than half being social rent homes.
Local authority housing fund
In addition to further funding for the 2021-26 affordable homes programme, I am announcing a £50 million increase to the third round of the local authority housing fund (LAHF 3). This takes the total funding for this round of the programme to £500 million, alongside about £30 million of existing funding being reallocated.
LAHF provides funding to local authorities to help them deliver better-quality temporary accommodation and to support UK commitments to those on Afghan resettlement schemes who are fleeing persecution. The fund’s third round, which we confirmed in July 2024, has had high levels of interest from local authorities, with over 150 taking part. In total, LAHF 3 will deliver more than 2,700 homes by 2026.
The majority of the additional £50 million allocated will be used to procure better-quality temporary accommodation so that local authorities can appropriately support local families in need of housing.
We recently invited councils to express an interest in delivering additional housing through LAHF, and we will be contacting those councils shortly to confirm the allocation of both the additional and reallocated funding.
Supported housing
While there are many excellent supported housing providers undertaking crucial work to help vulnerable people get back on their feet and improve their lives, there are still significant numbers of unscrupulous providers who fail to provide high-quality accommodation to their tenants and a minority of rogue exempt accommodation operators who exploit gaps in the existing regulatory regime to profiteer.
The impact of poor-quality, non-commissioned exempt accommodation on vulnerable individuals can be devastating, whether it is the physical and mental consequences of living in squalid conditions, the risks that arise from the absence of effective supervision and safeguarding arrangements, the money gouged from hard-up residents through service charge costs that are ineligible for housing benefit purposes, or simply the inability to sustain an exempt accommodation tenancy, or to move on from one, because of a lack of care or support.
This Government are determined to improve the quality of accommodation in the supported housing sector and assisting local authorities to drive up standards in their areas. That is why we are committed to implementing the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023.
We are today announcing that on 20 February 2025, we will publish a consultation on a number of the regulatory reforms contained within it. These include proposals for national supported housing standards and a locally-led licensing regime to give local authorities the powers they need to effectively manage the supported housing markets in their areas.
We are committed to taking a sensible and proportionate approach to the introduction of these planned reforms and we look forward to receiving feedback through the consultation from good providers, local authorities and residents to ensure we get things right.
[HCWS447]
Rural Housing Targets
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I note your stricture on the two minutes at the end, Ms Jardine. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair.
I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate. I also thank him for so clearly articulating his concerns about the implications of housing targets for his constituency. As he might expect, I take issue with a number of the arguments he made, for reasons that I will come to, but no one can be in any doubt as to his commitment to forcefully representing the views of those he represents. I also thank the shadow Minister and other hon. Members for their contributions in what has been a thoughtful and well-informed debate.
I must make it clear at the outset that I am unable to comment on individual local plans or local planning applications, or, for that matter, on how individual local planning authorities may interpret national planning policy. That is due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process and the potential decision-making role of the Deputy Prime Minister. I can and will, however, make general comments as they relate to the various matters raised, and I will touch on each of the three specific points raised by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire in his opening speech.
I do not think any Members present would dispute that England is in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis, and we have heard several arguments to that effect. The crisis is blighting the lives of not just those at the sharp end in temporary accommodation, but the many families out there desperate to buy a first home of their own. It is also hampering economic growth and productivity, and consuming ever-larger amounts of public money in the form of the rapidly rising housing benefit bill.
The crisis has many causes, but among the most important is a failure, over many decades, to build enough homes of all tenures to meet housing demand in both rural and urban areas. The Government are absolutely determined to tackle it head on, which is why our plan for change commits us to an ambitious and stretching—I have never been anything other than candid about the fact that it is incredibly stretching—milestone of building 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. I gently say to the shadow Minister that it is not enough to will the ends; we have to will the means as well. That is why we have instituted various reforms to date, and we are planning more.
Planning reform is integral to meeting that manifesto commitment, which is why we have already 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 measures that will enable us to build the homes and infrastructure that the country needs.
We believe in a plan-led system. It is through local development plans that communities shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development that their area needs, 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. That is why we have restored mandatory housing targets, as the manifesto on which we stood and won a decisive victory last July committed us to doing. That means that local authorities must use the standard method as the basis for determining housing requirements in their local plans.
However, we made it clear that a mandatory method is insufficient if the method itself is not adequate to meet housing need. That is why our revised NPPF implements a new standard method for assessing housing needs, which aligns with our ambitions for 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. We think that the new standard method strikes the right balance. Indeed, we adjusted it from the proposals we consulted on last July in response to significant feedback from experts, developers and local authorities across the country, much of which pressed us on the fact that the formula we consulted on was not sufficiently responsive to affordability demands. The revised NPPF that we published on 12 December contains the adjusted method.
The new method better responds to affordability pressures by using a higher affordability adjustment in its calculation. That recognises the importance of housing affordability in assessing housing needs, and helps direct more homes to where they are most needed and least affordable. It also provides greater certainty to the sector through more stable and predictable housing numbers compared with the previous approach, which, as the shadow Minister will know, relied on out-of-date demographic projections and unevidenced and arbitrary adjustments.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire raised a specific concern about how the standard method translates into local plan making. Although local authorities are expected to use the standard method to assess housing needs, they are able to justify a lower housing requirement than the figure set by the method on the basis of local constraints on land availability, development and other relevant matters such as national landscapes, protected habitats and flood risk areas. Local authorities will need to consider these matters as they prepare their plans, but we expect them to explore all options to deliver the homes that their communities need. That means maximising brownfield land, densifying available brownfield sites, working with neighbouring authorities on cross-boundary housing growth, and, where necessary, reviewing the green belt.
Damian Hinds
Does the Minister accept the point that local councils do not want to end up in legal proceedings? They can cost an awful lot of money, and there is an awful lot of weight placed on knowing that the plan is sound. A council takes a risk by deviating from the standard method. Yes, the guidance says that it can deviate as long as it can prove—well, I am genuinely not sure what the guidance says, but whatever it says is not totally clear to people. It leaves a great deal of nervousness that deviation would leave councils exposed to potentially very high costs, which are ultimately borne by local people. Could the Minister look at clarifying the advice on how one can deviate from the method?
Matthew Pennycook
I will reflect on the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raises about the clarity of the guidance, but local planning authorities can and do prepare, develop and submit local plans, arguing that those constraints exist and that their housing requirement should therefore be lower than the standard method indicates. They are expected to evidence and justify that approach to planning for housing in their local plan consultation. Ultimately, at plan examination, that will be scrutinised by a planning inspector to determine whether the constraints are justified and whether the plan is sound.
The right hon. Gentleman and others mentioned the balance between rural and urban housing targets. We recognise that the targets we introduced are ambitious and mean uplifts in many areas. However, we believe that the significant and entrenched nature of the housing crisis in England means that all areas of the country, including rural areas, must play their part in providing the homes that their communities need. That will enable us to deliver 1.5 million homes.
I strongly reject the idea that, through the new formula, we are reducing the number of houses that need to be built in urban areas. The new formula directs housing growth to our large urban areas. It does not do so on the basis of an arbitrary 35% urban uplift like the one the previous Government applied to the 20 largest cities and urban centres. Instead, across all city regions, the new standard method increases targets by an average of 20%, and through it housing growth is directed towards a wider range of urban areas—smaller cities and urban areas, as well as the core of large cities. We think that is a better method by which to proceed.
Several hon. Members mentioned the green belt. The manifesto on which the Government were elected was clear that the green belt has an important role to play, and that a number of its intentions, including preventing urban sprawl, have served our towns and cities very well over many decades. The Government will always look to brownfield first; ours is a brownfield-first approach. We took measures in the revised NPPF last year to strengthen that approach to brownfield land. We are consulting on a brownfield passport to make it easier to prioritise and accelerate delivery on brownfield land.
We have also been very clear that there is not sufficient land on brownfield registers across the country, let alone enough that is viable and in the right location, to build all the homes we need, so we need to take a different approach to the green belt to ensure that it better meets the needs of the present generation and future generations. Our changes are intended to ensure that we go from the haphazard approach to release and development under the previous Government—plenty of green belt was released haphazardly—to a more strategic and targeted approach that ensures that, where we are releasing the green belt, we release the right parts of it, such as lower-quality grey-belt land, and that golden rules apply so that communities have the quid pro quo of sufficient affordable housing, access to nature and good infrastructure.
Andrew George
On greenfield development, whether it be in the green belt or outside it, rural housing developments often take place in green locations. In the light of that, will the Minister ensure that the Government strengthen local authorities’ ability to use the rural exception policy? We would rather pay 10 times agricultural value than 100 times agricultural value, because we cannot deliver affordable homes on land at that price.
Matthew Pennycook
I will come on to rural exception sites, but the hon. Gentleman draws attention to an important point. Under the revised NPPF, it will be for local authorities to make these decisions and conduct green-belt reviews to identify the grey-belt land in their areas. The Government will provide guidance and support with the methodology, but ultimately local areas will make these decisions through the reviews they carry out. We have ensured that the sustainability of sites in the green belt is prioritised. No one wants isolated and disconnected development, which is why our policy asks local authorities to pay particular attention to transport connections when considering whether grey belt is sustainably located.
I want to touch briefly on infrastructure. The Government recognise that providing the homes and jobs we need is not sufficient to create sustainable, healthy places. Our communities also need to be supported by an appropriate range of services and facilities, as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire made clear. National planning policy expects local authorities to plan positively for the provision and use of shared spaces, community facilities and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments, taking into account local strategies to improve the health, social and cultural wellbeing of all sections of the community.
The revised NPPF also includes changes intended to ensure that the planning system supports the increased provision and modernisation of key public services infrastructure such as health, blue light, library, adult education, university and criminal justice facilities. Local authorities should use their development plans to address the needs and opportunities for infrastructure. They should identify what infrastructure is required and how it can be funded and brought forward. Contributions from developers play an important role in delivering the infrastructure that mitigates the impacts of new development and supports growth. The Government are committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide appropriate, affordable homes and infrastructure. We will set out further details on that matter in due course.
Before winding up, I want to touch on housing targets and national parks. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire knows I am well aware of the concerns about housing targets in his constituency and the particular challenges of setting those targets for East Hampshire, given the boundary overlaps with the South Downs national park. As part of our package of reforms in December 2024, we set out further guidance for local authorities on that very matter, and we provide flexibility in policy for those areas when calculating housing needs and setting targets.
The right hon. Member knows that this is primarily related to the availability of appropriate data for those areas. Officials in my Department regularly engage with officials from the Office for National Statistics and other stakeholders on a range of matters, including the data and statistics available to make decisions on housing needs. We will continue to do so as we drive forward our planning reforms. Although we expect all areas to contribute towards our housing ambitions, we recognise the unique role of national parks. That is why national policy is clear that within national parks, new housing should be focused on meeting affordable housing requirements and supporting local employment opportunities and key services.
We expect rural exception sites to come forward wherever possible. Policy helps local authorities meet the local housing needs of rural communities, enabling local people, those with a family connection or those with employment connections to live locally and help sustain thriving places. We want to go further in this regard to better support and increase rural affordable housing. We sought views on this issue specifically as part of the NPPF consultation last summer. We are committed to considering further measures to support affordable housing in rural communities as part of the work that is under way to produce a set of national policies for decision making next year.
I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire once again for giving the House an opportunity to discuss these matters and other hon. Members for taking part. If anyone has particular constituency concerns, I am more than happy to meet them, but I appreciate their putting their views on the record in this debate.
Growth Corridor Strategy
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I am today updating the House on the Government’s plans to supercharge growth in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and the high-potential sectors within it, as part of our ambitious plan for change.
The Oxford-Cambridge region is already home to world-leading universities and globally renowned science and technology firms. It has the potential to become one of the most innovative and economically dynamic areas in the world, but numerous constraints, from inadequate transport connections to a lack of affordable housing, prevent it from realising its true potential. This Government are determined to do what is necessary to drive sustainable economic growth in the region to the benefit of local communities and national prosperity.
The Chancellor has today announced the appointment of Lord Patrick Vallance as a champion for the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. His extensive experience across life sciences, academia and Government makes him ideally suited to identify and maximise growth opportunities in the region. He will work with me and other Ministers to ensure the corridor makes a significant contribution to kick-starting economic growth.
Working with local partners, Peter Freeman and the Cambridge Growth Company are progressing the development of an ambitious plan for delivering high-quality sustainable growth in Cambridge and its environs. Their work will continue in earnest.
In greater Cambridge, the benefits of decisive Government intervention are already evident. As a result of close working with local authorities and regulators, the Environment Agency has lifted objections to development in the area, paving the way for 4,500 additional homes, new schools and new office, retail and laboratory space to be built.
The Government welcome the University of Cambridge’s proposal for a new flagship innovation hub in the centre of the city, which will attract global investment and foster a community that catalyses innovation. The Chancellor has today also confirmed the prioritisation of a new Cambridge cancer research hospital as part of the new hospitals programme, bringing together Cambridge University Hospitals’ cancer services, with researchers from AstraZeneca and Cancer Research UK.
To ensure we can realise Oxford’s full potential, we intend to take forward a new growth commission to explore how we can best unlock and accelerate nationally significant growth for the city and the surrounding area. The commission builds on the Government’s commitment to making Culham in Oxfordshire the country’s first AI growth zone as part of the Government’s AI opportunities action plan. This is the Government’s modern industrial strategy in action.
Across the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, we are demonstrating our commitment to investing in the delivery of major transport infrastructure and public services to boost the region’s economic prosperity and contribute to national economic growth. The Government are:
delivering the acceleration of phase 2 of East West Rail, connecting Oxford to Bedford from 2030. The full new railway to Cambridge will support vibrant new and expanded communities. We have already received 18 submissions for large-scale new developments within the corridor, each of which will be considered by the new towns taskforce;
moving quicker at Tempsford to deliver an east coast main line station three to five years earlier than planned, which will link services directly to London in under an hour;
committed to upgrading 10 miles of the A428, improving journeys between Milton Keynes and Cambridge; and
unlocking £7.9 billion investment in the next five years for water companies, by agreeing their water resource management plans. This will improve our water infrastructure and provide a foundation for growth and includes nine new reservoirs, such as the new fens reservoir serving Cambridge and the Abingdon reservoir near Oxford.
We will continue to update Parliament on the work of the Government in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor.
[HCWS396]
National Infrastructure Planning
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Sustained economic growth is central to the Government’s plan for change. It is the only way to increase the prosperity of our country and improve the living standards of working people.
Building and upgrading the right economic infrastructure—whether that be electricity networks, public transport links, renewable energy projects, roads, or water supplies—is essential to achieving that growth and delivering the Government’s long-term missions. Yet when it comes to infrastructure delivery, Britain today performs poorly against comparator countries. That needs to change.
That is why the Government moved quickly last year to lift the ban on onshore wind and expand the scope of the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime, enabling laboratories, gigafactories and data centres to be directed into the process. Last week, the Prime Minister announced plans to speed up the conclusion of legal challenges against development consent orders, including committing to legislate to ensure that meritless claims are given only a single permission attempt to seek a judicial review.
Yesterday, the Government published two interlinked working papers: the first, from His Majesty’s Treasury, set out the Government’s plan for their 10-year infrastructure strategy, which will be published alongside the spending review in June; the second, from the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, detailed our legislative proposals to streamline the consenting of critical national infrastructure—proposals which, subject to further work and the views expressed in response to the working paper, will be taken forward through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Copies of these documents will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
The proposals in the latter paper are intended to help deliver the commitment that the Government made in their plan for change to determine applications for at least 150 major infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. This target is more than the total number of decisions made under the NSIP regime since it was introduced in 2011, and nearly triple the 57 decisions made during the previous Parliament. Delivering this ambitious commitment will require decisive action on several fronts.
We are not, however, starting from scratch. The NSIP reform action plan, published in 2023, laid the foundations for a better, faster, greener, fairer, and more resilient NSIP regime. The action plan was broadly welcomed by infrastructure developers and communities, and the implementation of many of its proposals is already under way. These include enabling public bodies to recover costs for their services, and the provision of new services on the part of the Planning Inspectorate to enhance its advice to applicants and fast-track examinations.
We now want to move further and faster—which is why our working paper outlines legislative proposals to deliver two key objectives: clearer and stronger national policy; and faster decisions under the NSIP regime. With respect to national policy statements, the working paper confirms that the Government will implement recommendations from the National Infrastructure Commission to require that each NPS is updated at least every five years. This is essential given that some NPSs, such as those for waste water and hazardous waste, have not been updated for over 10 years.
The working paper also proposes a faster process for amending NPSs to reflect legislative changes, changes to current Government policy or relevant court decisions that have taken place between five-yearly updates. Both measures will ensure that national policy better reflects the Government’s priorities and provides stronger guidance to decision makers determining applications in line with the current national interest.
When it comes to ensuring faster and more consistent decisions under the NSIP regime, the paper outlines four proposals. First, we want to protect the consultation process while making it less burdensome. The time taken for applications to complete the pre-application stage has grown from 14.5 months in 2013 to 27.9 months in 2021, in part as a result of increased consultation and re-consultation on project proposals. Prescriptive statutory requirements and uncertainty about meeting them make developers cautious, resulting in gold-plating, which delays projects and confuses communities.
Our proposals seek to rebalance and improve the quality of consultation, with the aim of closing down issues and reducing the examination burden for all parties by:
clarifying the requirements around consultation;
introducing a new duty on all parties to identify and, where possible, narrow down any areas of disagreement during the pre-application stage;
revising requirements around the contents of consultation reports to reduce their length and make them more accessible; and
removing the requirement to consult ‘Category 3’ persons during the pre-application stage.
This also responds to the concerns raised by the NIC and stakeholders, and brings the statutory consultation requirements in the NSIP regime closer in line with other parts of the planning system.
Secondly, we want to further support the building of infrastructure after a development consent order is granted. The paper seeks views on how to ensure the system returns to the ‘one-stop shop’ it was originally intended to be, with more consents, licences, and permits granted in parallel with a DCO. We know that seeking these permissions post consent can delay construction by six to 18 months. Our paper invites contributions on whether this can be tackled through stronger guidance, or if an alternative model of seeking a ‘deemed consent’, replicating the approach of deemed marine licences, would have merit. We also outline proposals to streamline the process applicants need to follow to make factual corrections, or more substantive amendments to a DCO.
Thirdly, we consider ways to make the NSIP regime more flexible, so that it can accommodate the complexity and volume of projects expected over the coming years. Building on feedback received from infrastructure stakeholders in response to our NPPF consultation, we propose to amend the Planning Act 2008 to allow the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), to consider on a case-by-case basis if a project would be better determined via an alternative consenting route. This will enable projects which would otherwise be unviable due to disproportionate planning requirements to be brought forward, while in turn ensuring that the capacity of the NSIP regime is reserved for those projects that truly merit it.
One of the original objectives behind the NSIP regime was to enable all major projects across different sectors to follow a uniform consenting process. This has broadly been achieved; providing greater certainty for applicants on what are often one-off, unique and once-in-a-generation schemes is why the regime is widely supported by industry.
However, given the volume and complexity of projects set to come forward over the course of this Parliament, our paper explores whether the NSIP regime is sufficiently flexible to deliver robust and swift decisions in all instances. The paper outlines three examples where rigidity of process may be holding back better consenting outcomes, and seeks views on how best to address these concerns. It invites views on whether the best means of introducing greater flexibility would be via a general ‘process modification power’ to be used on a discretionary case-by-case basis; or whether it would be more appropriate to make a series of specific changes to tackle known issues via amendments to the Planning Act 2008, changes to secondary legislation or improvements in guidance.
Fourthly, we outline plans to increase the reach of statutory guidance in the system, to enable greater clarity over expectations for those involved in the consenting process, and to support implementation of our changes, particularly those linked to consultation.
Finally, the working paper also sets out our proposals for amending and updating existing transport consenting regimes to support quicker delivery of transport projects that are consented via the Highways Act 1980 and the Transport and Works Act 1992.
We look forward to receiving views on the proposals set out in the working paper, and to working with all those with an interest in streamlining the delivery of major national infrastructure.
[HCWS390]