Compulsory Purchase Reforms

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Written Statements

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

I am today publishing a consultation on reforms to the compulsory purchase process and compensation provisions in England and Wales.

The Government are determined to achieve our hugely ambitious plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major infrastructure by the end of this Parliament.

To support the delivery of a range of development, regeneration and infrastructure projects in the public interest, we need to make better use of underutilised land across the country. We know that many local authorities share this objective, but their plans are all too often frustrated by onerous barriers to land assembly, complex purchasing processes, and unrealistic compensation expectations on the part of landowners. The result is significant amounts of developable land that remains unused and overpriced.

In our 2024 general election manifesto, the Government committed to further reforming compulsory purchase compensation rules to improve land assembly, speed up site delivery, and deliver housing, infrastructure, amenity, and transport benefits in the public interest. We promised to take steps to ensure that for specific types of development schemes, landowners are awarded fair compensation rather than inflated prices based on the prospect of planning permission being granted on the land in the future—known as “hope value”.

The eight-week consultation that we are launching today is the next step in fulfilling this commitment. Building on the Government’s 9 September commencement of regulations that enact the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 power to remove “hope value” from the assessment of compensation in compulsory purchase cases by directions where justified in the public interest, the consultation proposes new reforms to the process for compulsorily acquiring land without hope value compensation through general directions on certain types of sites that deliver clear benefits in the public interest.

The objective is twofold. First, to make the compulsory purchase process faster and more efficient so that acquiring authorities are incentivised to make use of it where appropriate. Secondly, to enable more land value to be captured where justified in the public interest and then invested in schemes for public benefit.

The consultation also seeks views on broader reforms to ensure the balance of the assessment of compensation awarded to landowners is fair, both to speed up decisions on compulsory purchase orders and to reduce the administrative costs of undertaking compulsory purchase.

Through this consultation, we want to understand better how the proposed reforms would operate in practice and how successfully they would deliver on our objectives of streamlining the compulsory purchase process and bringing forward much needed development including for housing, regeneration and infrastructure.

Subject to feedback to this consultation, we intend to bring forward measures in the planning and infrastructure Bill to implement the changes.

I look forward to continuing to work with all those with an interest in improving the compulsory purchase process and compensation regimes to make sure our reforms are robust and deliverable.

[HCWS346]

Development and the Environment

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Written Statements

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

The Government are determined to rebuild Britain, delivering on our hugely ambitious “plan for change” milestones of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major infrastructure by the end of this Parliament. At the same time, we are committed to supporting nature recovery and delivering on the Environment Act 2021.

When it comes to development and the environment, we know we can do better than the status quo, which too often sees both sustainable house-building and nature recovery stall. Instead of environmental protections being seen as a barrier to growth, we want to unlock a win-win for the economy and for nature.

In the King’s Speech, we set out our intention to use development to fund nature recovery, delivering necessary changes through legislation where we can confirm to Parliament that the steps we are taking will deliver positive environmental outcomes.

With a view to progressing policy development in advance of the publication of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill next year, the Government have published a working paper inviting views on a proposed new approach to accelerate housing and infrastructure development while going beyond offsetting harm to drive forward nature recovery.

In developing this working paper, the Government have engaged constructively with representatives of the development industry, nature conservation organisations, nature service providers, and local government. The approach proposed has benefited considerably from the valuable feedback received, and we intend to continue to work closely with key stakeholders as we continue to refine our thinking in this area.

That the status quo is producing sub-optimal outcomes is not in dispute. There is widespread consensus that it is deterring planning applications and hindering the pace at which development can be delivered, while at the same time failing to maximise benefits for nature.

The challenges relating to nutrient neutrality are a case in point. An estimated 8% of new housing supply —equating to approximately 16,500 dwellings per year, based on recent housing output levels—has historically been delivered in sensitive river catchments subject to nutrient neutrality requirements flowing from the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. There is widespread evidence that such requirements are unnecessarily deterring planning applications and hindering the pace at which homes and infrastructure in these catchment areas can be delivered. The current arrangement requires costly site-by-site mitigation for each new development, and even where mitigation measures are available, obligations currently have to be assessed and secured on a project-by-project basis that often fails to secure optimal environmental outcomes.

Alongside taking robust regulatory and policy action to address pollution and environmental harm at source, the Government therefore want to take a more strategic approach to enable development to proceed where it is needed, while delivering more effectively for nature.

Such an approach would entail moving responsibility for identifying actions to address the environmental impacts of development away from multiple, project-specific assessments in an area and toward a single strategic assessment and delivery plan implemented at the right spatial scale. Without reducing the level of environmental protection provided for in existing law, we believe this approach, if taken forward, would provide a more efficient and effective way to deliver on the outcomes that the habitats regulations and other environmental obligations aspire to achieve.

In adopting this more strategic approach, which will enable the delivery of tens of thousands of new homes alongside new infrastructure, we are seeking to:

take a holistic view of nature recovery to secure better environmental outcomes, in line with our Environment Act targets;

go beyond offsetting environmental impacts and instead use development to drive nature recovery;

drive efficiency and reduce duplication of effort to ensure every pound spent is helping to deliver our environmental goals;

make it far easier for developers to discharge a range of environmental obligations, with the legal certainty necessary to underpin substantial capital investment;

give delivery partners the tools they need to generate positive outcomes for nature, empowering them to make the right choices to deliver nature recovery;

establish a robust and transparent framework to monitor delivery of environmental outcomes; and

create a lasting legacy of environmental improvement that will promote better public health through increased access to high quality green spaces.

We want to meet these objectives by taking three steps, for which the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would provide the necessary legislative underpinning:

Moving responsibility for identifying actions to address environmental impacts away from multiple project-specific assessments in an area to a single strategic assessment and delivery plan. This will allow action to address environmental impacts from development to be taken strategically, at an appropriate geographic scale, rather than at the level of an individual project—while recognising the importance of protecting local communities’ access to nature and green space.

Moving more responsibility for planning and implementing these strategic actions on to the state, delivered through organisations with the right expertise and with the necessary flexibility to take actions that most effectively deliver positive outcomes for nature.

In turn, allowing impacts to be dealt with strategically in exchange for a financial payment that helps fund strategic actions, so development can proceed more quickly. Project-level environmental assessments are then limited only to those harms not dealt with strategically.

In due course, our proposed approach would be supported by the new framework of environmental outcomes reports that will replace the current systems of environmental assessment with a more effective and outcome-focused tool for managing the effects of development on the natural environment.

As we seek to refine our new approach, we recognise the importance of continuing to deliver nutrient mitigation schemes, including via the local nutrient mitigation fund and Natural England’s nutrient mitigation scheme. In this vein, we also intend to continue to support the delivery of strategic measures such as district-level licensing and suitable alternative natural green spaces, as well providing ongoing support for local authorities through the Planning Advisory Service.

Shifting to a strategic and more outcomes-focused approach to impact assessment and nature recovery has the potential to support the environment, as well as helping us deliver the housing and infrastructure we need, unlocking a win-win for the economy and nature. We look forward to receiving views on the options set out in the working paper.

[HCWS317]

Building the Homes we Need

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Written Statements

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

This Government have inherited an acute and entrenched housing crisis. The average new home is out of reach for the average worker, housing costs consume a third of private renters’ income, and the number of children in temporary accommodation now stands at a historic high of nearly 160,000. Yet just 220,000 new homes were built last year and the number of homes granted planning permission has fallen to its lowest in a decade.

That is why the plan for change committed to rebuild Britain, with the hugely ambitious goal of delivering 1.5 million new homes this Parliament, and the vital infrastructure needed to grow our economy and support public services.

The Government have responded with the urgency this demands. We published a consultation on a revised national planning policy framework within a month of gaining office, proposing measures to reverse anti-supply changes introduced in December 2023 and in their place setting out pro-growth reforms. Since then, we have published proposals to prioritise and fast-track building on previously developed urban land through a brownfield passport and for speeding up decision making through modernisation of planning committees. Next year, we will introduce a planning and infrastructure Bill to speed up and streamline the planning process, to build more homes of all tenures and accelerate the delivery of major infrastructure projects. At the Budget on 30 October, we committed an additional £50 million to boost capacity to deliver this ambitious planning reform agenda, alongside providing an additional £500 million in grant for affordable housing, and further £3 billion of additional support to the private housing market, to translate permissions into build out.

Today’s publication marks the next step in delivering on our promise to radically reform the planning system. The measures set out below build on more than 10,000 consultation responses and extensive engagement with private house builders, affordable housing providers, local authorities and other organisations from the sector. Taken together, they reflect our commitment not to duck the hard choices that must be confronted in order to tackle the housing crisis—the alternative is a future in which a decent, safe, secure and affordable home is a privilege enjoyed only by some rather than being the right of all working people.

Restoring and raising housing targets

The plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our planning system. It is through local plans that communities shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their area needs. But we are clear that these decisions must be about how to meet those needs, not whether to do so at all. We are therefore restoring mandatory housing targets. This means that local authorities must use the standard method as the basis for determining housing requirements in their local plans.

As we set out in July, a mandatory method is insufficient if the method itself is not adequate to meet housing need. We consulted on an ambitious revision of the existing standard method, increasing the total annual national target from 300,000 to 370,000, ending the reliance on decade-old population projections, and removing the arbitrary 35% urban uplift that resulted in a skewed national distribution, disproportionately focused on London to the detriment of the rest of the country. Instead, the new method relies on a baseline set at a percentage of existing housing stock levels, to better reflect housing pressures right across the country, and uses a stronger affordability multiplier to focus additional growth on those places facing the biggest affordability challenge.

We heard through the consultation that our method could go even further in targeting growth at those places where house prices are most removed from local incomes, and so we have made an adjustment to the method to make it more responsive to demand pressures. The final method now incorporates an even stronger affordability adjustment—nearly four times as strong as the inherited formula. This will have the effect of altering the distribution, increasing numbers in those places facing the most acute affordability pressures while maintaining ambitious targets across the whole of the country.

Building in the right places

Meeting ambitious new targets relies on allocating sufficient land to do so. We have been clear that developers should first look to brownfield, or previously developed, land. That is essential to protect our most valuable countryside and agricultural land. And we have made changes to support that, making the default answer to proposals to build on brownfield “yes” and expanding the current definition of brownfield land to include hard standing, ahead of further reforms planned for next year on the back of our brownfield passport working paper. Together, these changes will ensure that we make full and efficient use of previously developed land.

But we know that there are simply not enough sites on brownfield land registers to deliver the volume of homes that the country needs each year, let alone enough that are viable and in the right location. And that is why we have grasped the nettle and proposed a modernised, strategic approach to green belt land designation and release, fit for the 21st century.

In the first instance, it requires local authorities to use the local plan process to adopt a “sequential approach”, considering brownfield, then grey belt, and only then higher performing land—all while ensuring that sustainability is a central consideration throughout. We expect authorities to conduct green-belt reviews, to identify the right land to bring forward in their areas. Where authorities fail to meet development needs, developers may bring forward proposals on low-performing grey-belt land outside of the plan process, but with higher-performing land protected from this form of release.

Through our consultation we found broad support for this strategic approach to green-belt release, and for the concept of grey belt, which recognises that there are significant parts of the green belt that contribute little by way of aesthetic, public access, or ecological value. However, we did see evidence that our proposed definition of grey belt was likely to leave too much room for subjectivity and debate. In response, we have set out a clearer description of how to assess whether land meets the definition, and we will be providing further guidance in the new year. We remain clear that existing protections for land covered by environmental and national landscape designations—for example national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest—will remain.

At the centre of our reformed green-belt policy lie our golden rules, which mean that housing can only be built on green-belt land if developers deliver high levels of affordable housing, appropriate local infrastructure, and accessible public green space. Our consultation proposed rules requiring that residential schemes across the country would deliver 50% affordable housing, while recognising that because land values vary, the limited use of viability assessments should be permitted within certain constraints. The objective of these rules was to make sure that the public would receive the fair share of the planning uplift driven by the new rules, and that returns to landowners would be fair but not excessive.

We received significant feedback from a wide range of stakeholders who welcomed the ambition of these rules and the commitment to maximising affordable housing delivery, but who shared strong evidence that fixing the affordable housing requirement at 50% nationally would not reflect regional variations in viability and would hinder delivery. This risked leaving authorities with a choice: allow flexibility and turn the amount of affordable housing into a negotiation; or hold firm and make sites unviable, delivering no homes, affordable or otherwise. Responding to this, our final policy introduces a 15 percentage point premium on top of existing affordable housing requirements, up to a maximum of 50%, and rules out any negotiation until we have strengthened national planning practice guidance on viability—in which we will consider the case for permitting viability negotiations on previously developed land and larger strategic sites, likely to carry greater infrastructure costs.

In a majority of authorities, this will result in an affordable housing requirement of 50%. Local authorities will be required to adopt their own ambitious golden rules through the local plan process, which will supersede these national requirements as new plans come into force. This revised approach delivers on our commitment to sharing the proceeds of land value uplift fairly, securing clear public benefits, while delivering more homes and more affordable homes than a flat 50% rate. It will increase the speed of housing provision by giving all actors greater certainty about what is required and what will achieve planning permission.

Supporting local planning

We have made clear our commitment to universal local plan coverage—local plans are the best way of engaging communities in decisions about the future of their area, of optimising use of land to deliver for the economy and for the environment, and for giving the certainty businesses need to invest in development. A plan-led system in which fewer than a third of places have up-to-date plans does not work. That is why we are taking a tough but pragmatic approach to imposing new housing numbers on local plans—one which sees new numbers feed through into local plans as quickly as possible, while allowing well-developed plans to be adopted.

We are making three changes to the proposals we consulted on, reflecting these twin objectives. First, we will give local authorities an extra two months to progress their plans under the existing framework. Those that reach examination will be assessed in line with existing housing targets, but where there is a significant shortfall, they will be required to begin work on a new plan as soon as the new plan-making system commences next summer. Similarly, those that reach the final stage of plan preparation will be allowed to progress only where there is no significant shortfall. Secondly, responding to feedback that we should measure significant shortfall in proportionate rather than absolute terms, we are replacing the 200-home threshold with a requirement that plans provide for at least 80% of the new standard method figure. Thirdly, we are introducing a new requirement that authorities with plans adopted under the old standard method must provide an extra year’s worth of homes in their five-year housing pipeline. This requirement will kick in from 1 July 2026 and drive authorities to take steps to close the gap between existing housing requirements and the new targets by bringing more land into the system.

We recognise that going back and increasing housing numbers will create additional work, which is why we will provide financial support to those authorities asked to do this. To ensure that local authorities are well equipped and supported to implement our policy changes, we will provide grant funding to support authorities with local plan delivery and green belt reviews. A total of £14.8 million is available across both funds to support local planning authorities with these costs. In the light of the revised national planning policy framework, I will be writing to all local planning authorities with more details, and asking them to provide an updated plan-making timetable within 12 weeks, in order to drive delivery and give transparency over progress.

I expect authorities to rise to this challenge—over the last five months we have seen an acceleration on plan making, which demonstrates what is possible with clear policy direction from national Government and the right political will at a local level. But we will use the full range of ministerial intervention powers at our disposal if that does not happen, including taking over an authority’s plan making directly. The revised local plan intervention criteria, published today, will boost our ability to act quickly where plan making stalls.

The pressure on planning departments goes beyond plan making, as we drive towards the unprecedented numbers of planning permissions needed to meet our 1.5 million homes and wider development objectives. That is why, responding to consultation feedback, we will set householder application fees at what we estimate is cost-recovery level, in order that applicants cover the costs of processing their planning applications. This will bring a boost of more than £50 million per year into local planning authorities from next year, enabling authorities to provide a quicker, better service. We will, through the planning and infrastructure Bill, go further in enabling local planning authorities to vary or set fees to cost recovery levels as appropriate for their area. This funding comes on top of the additional £50 million of planning capacity and capability funding announced at Budget. In combination with the dedicated support for updating local plans, this amounts to a package of over £100 million in the coming year.

Securing high-quality development and more affordable housing

Rapidly driving up planning consents in the context of a system with woefully inadequate local plan coverage will increase the number of permissions secured outside of local plan allocations in the short-term. This is necessary if we are to see the scale of delivery we need to meet our commitment to 1.5 million homes. Therefore, where it applies, the presumption in favour of sustainable development must have real teeth. The changes we make today ensure that the presumption carries real weight, acting as a significant adjustment to the decision-making balance in favour of approving development. We are however absolutely clear that this is not a green light for low-quality development. That is why we have amended the presumption to call out the existing safeguards that exist in national policy around the provision of affordable housing, design quality, and sustainability of location, in line with the proposals we consulted on. We simply do not accept there is an inherent trade-off between supply and quality.

We have taken wider steps to drive the reformed house-building industry we are committed to delivering—one that is more responsive to consumer needs, which places affordability at the heart of what it does, and which builds out faster. We are therefore making changes to set an expectation of mixed-tenure on large sites, support more small sites to come forward to support SME delivery, and make clear our support for social rent schemes. Reflecting the absolute priority we attach to delivering social rent homes, we are amending the definition of affordable housing to carve it out as a separate category, distinct from the broader category of affordable housing for rent.

As part of the Government’s plans to deliver much needed affordable homes, Homes England is today launching a new clearing service to help unblock the delivery of section 106 affordable housing. This follows reports in recent months of developers experiencing greater difficulty in selling section 106 affordable homes for which they have planning permission. This new service will help improve the functioning of the market for affordable housing, by supporting buyers and sellers to find each other more effectively—with developers able to share details of unsold section 106 affordable homes for registered providers and local authorities to search. The service aims to facilitate dialogue and partnerships that allow homes to be delivered in line with the originally agreed tenure mix set out in section 106 agreements. It will also provide new data and insight into the section 106 market. The Government are calling on all developers with uncontracted section 106 affordable homes, including small and medium builders, to proactively and pragmatically engage with the new clearing service, and on registered providers and local planning authorities to engage positively as providers and enablers of affordable housing. This is an important step in unlocking these homes and driving delivery.

As new land enters the system, we expect to see new permissions rapidly translated into build-out. In order that we have transparency and accountability, I will introduce secondary legislation next year to implement powers brought forward under the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 to require developers to commit to a build-out trajectory up front and report on delivery against it. Where that does not happen, authorities will be empowered to hold them to account, including through declining to determine applications from developers with a poor record of delivery. We will publish technical consultations to guide delivery of the necessary regulations in the new year.

Building infrastructure to grow the economy

Finally, in July we proposed changes to the planning system to drive greater commercial development in those sectors which will be the engine of the UK’s economy in the future. We will confirm the changes as detailed in the consultation and make it easier to build laboratories, gigafactories, data centres and digital infrastructure, and the facilities needed to support the wider supply chain. We will also specifically recognise the need to support proposals for new or upgraded facilities and infrastructure, setting the expectation that suitable sites for these types of modern economy uses are identified in local plans. As proposed in the summer, we will bring onshore wind back into the nationally significant infrastructure projects consenting regime, and raise the threshold of projects for both onshore wind and solar to 100 MW. We will follow through with prescribing data centres, gigafactories and laboratories as types of business or commercial development capable of being directed into the nationally significant infra- structure projects consenting regime, depending on the scale of the project.

Part of a bigger plan

These changes are necessary to unlock the land needed to deliver 1.5 million homes and the scale of new infrastructure we will need to support growth. But we are clear that they must form part of a wider plan to address wider blockers in the planning system and to drive rapid build-out. We will use the planning and infrastructure Bill to improve certainty in decision making, create a win-win for development and nature, and streamline processes for critical infrastructure. Since we know that we cannot meet housing need without planning for growth on a larger than local scale, we will empower local leaders to work cross-boundary to deliver strategic plans.

Only by delivering these reforms will we unlock investment and delivery. It is also vital that, alongside the appropriate infrastructure, these reforms also deliver substantial affordable housing. It is vital that local communities can see the benefits of development in terms of enhancements to public services and more affordable housing for local people. We recognise that to deliver on these reforms we will need to work in partnership with local leaders, house builders and infrastructure developers to deliver investment into these sectors, and we are grateful for the support for these proposals from across the sector.

These reforms are essential to transform the housing crisis, deliver growth, protect the environment, and provide hope to the many thousands of people locked into substandard and unaffordable housing.

[HCWS308]

Building Homes

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on our plan to build the homes our country so desperately needs.

This Labour Government were elected five months ago with a mandate to deliver national renewal. Standing on the steps of Downing Street on 5 July, the Prime Minister made it clear that work on that urgent task would begin immediately, and it did. Within our first month in office, we proposed a bold set of reforms to overhaul a planning system that is faltering on all fronts after a decade of piecemeal and inept tinkering by the Conservative party. Today I confirm to the House that we are delivering the change we promised by publishing an updated national planning policy framework, meeting our commitment to do so before the end of the year, and supporting our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament.

The case for grasping the nettle of planning reform in order significantly to boost housing supply and unleash economic growth is incontrovertible. England is in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis, and as you, Mr Speaker, and every Member of the House will know, its detrimental consequences are now all pervasive: a generation locked out of home ownership; 1.3 million people languishing on social housing waiting lists; millions of low-income households forced into insecure, unaffordable and far too often substandard private rented housing; and, to our shame as a nation, just shy of 160,000 homeless children living right now in temporary accommodation. Our economy and the public services that our constituents rely on are also suffering, because as well as blighting countless lives, the housing crisis is consuming ever larger amounts of public money in the form of a rapidly rising housing benefit bill. It is also hampering economic growth and productivity by reducing labour mobility and undermining the capacity of our great towns and cities to realise their full economic potential.

The Government are under no illusions about the scale of the task before us or the challenges that must be overcome and the pitfalls avoided if we are to succeed. But we are absolutely determined to tackle this crisis head on. The previous Government, of course, took a different view. Not only did they fail to meet, even once, the target of 300,000 homes a year that they set themselves, but in a forlorn attempt to appease their anti-house building Back Benchers, they consciously and deliberately chose to exacerbate the housing crisis by making changes to national planning policy that have contributed to plummeting housing supply. We know that the changes required to start putting things right will be uncomfortable for some. We know we will face resistance from vested interests. But this Labour Government will not duck the hard choices that must be confronted to tackle the housing crisis, because the alternative is a future in which a decent, safe, secure and affordable home is a privilege enjoyed only by some, rather than being the birthright of all working people.

Let me turn to the changes that we are making to the framework. We received more than 10,000 responses to our consultation, alongside which my officials and I have held extensive engagement with private house builders, affordable housing providers, local authorities and other organisations from the sector. The views shared with us have been invaluable in helping to refine our initial proposals so that we are able to introduce an effective package of reforms.

Before I set out a number of important areas in which we have made changes, let me touch briefly on some of the proposals that we intend to implement unamended. First, we have reversed the anti-supply changes introduced by the last Government almost exactly a year ago. From the abandonment of mandatory housing targets to the softening of land supply and delivery test provisions, the policies that gave local authorities the freedom to plan for less housing than their nominal targets implied are no more. Secondly, we have made explicit the importance of growth supporting development, from labs to data centres, to supply chains and logistics. In the same vein, we have made clear that the default position for renewable energy deployment should be yes. Thirdly, we strongly promoted mixed tenure development, reflecting robust evidence that attests to the fact that such developments build out faster and create diverse communities. Fourthly, we have made a series of changes to bolster affordable housing delivery and enable local authorities to determine the right mix of affordable housing for their communities. That will support our commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation.

There are four important areas where we have refined our proposals, and I will turn first to housing targets. As we made clear when launching the consultation in July, restoring a mandatory standard method for assessing housing needs is insufficient if the method itself is not up to the job. As the House will know, we proposed a bold change, increasing the total annual national target from 300,000 to 370,000, ending the reliance on decade-old population projections, and removing the arbitrary 35% urban uplift that resulted in a skewed national distribution that was disproportionately focused on London to the detriment of the rest of the country. We fully intend to maintain the level of ambition outlined in July, but we heard through the consultation a clear view that we should do more to target housing growth in those places where affordability pressures are most acute. We have therefore made the method more responsive to demand, redistributing housing targets towards those places where housing is least affordable, while maintaining the overall target envelope.

Next, let me turn to our reforms to the green belt. As the House knows, ours is a brownfield-first approach to development. As a result of a number of targeted changes we are making to the framework, and our proposals for a brownfield passport, we are prioritising and fast-tracking building on previously developed urban land wherever possible, but we know that there are simply not enough sites on brownfield land registers to deliver the volume of homes that the country needs each year, let alone enough that are viable and in the right location.

In the summer, we proposed that local authorities take a sequential approach to releasing land to meet their housing need: brownfield first, followed by low-quality land in the green belt and only then higher-performing land. To identify low-performing sites we proposed a definition of grey-belt land that reflected the fact that there are areas currently designated as green belt that contribute little by way of aesthetic, public access or ecological value. That approach received broad support through the consultation, but a strong desire was expressed to limit the room for subjectivity. We have therefore set out a clearer description of how to assess whether land meets the definition of grey belt, and we will be providing further guidance to local authorities in the new year to support them with green-belt reviews.

At the centre of our green-belt reforms lies our golden rules, which are designed to make sure that where green-belt land is released, the public derives real benefit from development on it, including more affordable housing to meet local need. In the consultation, we proposed a flat 50% affordable housing target, but we recognise that because land values vary across the country, the limited use of viability assessments should be permitted. Through the consultation, we have recognised that that approach risked uncertainty. If flexibility was needed in some parts of the country because land values were lower, the precise amount of affordable housing to be secured would become a protracted site-by-site negotiation. If a local authority did not allow flexibility, there would be a risk that sites were rendered unviable, with the result that no houses, affordable or otherwise, would get built.

Our final policy therefore takes a different approach to managing variation in land values. Rather than a single 50% target, we are introducing a 15 percentage point premium on top of targets set in local plans, up to a maximum of 50%. Because that means the target itself will be responsive to local circumstances, we will be restricting the ability for site-specific viability assessments until such time as we have amended viability guidance in the spring of next year. By prioritising pragmatism over purity, the golden rules we are putting in place today will give communities the confidence that they will be met and will maximise the number of affordable homes delivered across the country.

Another area where we have made changes is to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The presumption sits at the heart of the national planning policy framework and means that where a local authority has under-delivered or an up-to-date local plan is not in place, the balance of decision making is tilted in favour of approval. We are determined to ensure that where the presumption applies, it will have real teeth. At the same time, we are clear that development consented through it must be consistent with the clear requirements in national policy relating to sustainability, density, design and the provision of affordable homes. The changes we have made deliver on both those fronts.

Finally, in the consultation we sought views on how our changes apply to local authorities at an advanced stage of plan making. Our proposed transitional arrangements aim to strike a balance between maintaining the progress of plans at more advanced stages of preparation, while maximising proactive planning for the homes our communities need. The core of our proposal—that we only hold back a draft plan where there is a significant gap between the current proposed housing requirement and the new housing target—was well supported. However, we are making three changes.

First, we have taken on board concerns that the transitional period was too tight, so we will provide local planning authorities with an extra two months to progress their plans, extending the transitional period from one month to three. Secondly, and again responding to an ask we heard repeatedly from councils, the transitional arrangements will apply where the draft housing requirement in the plan meets at least 80% of local housing need, rather than the numerical 200 homes threshold we originally proposed. In those instances, the plan will not be held back. Thirdly, where plans are adopted under these arrangements, and where there are existing plans based on the old targets due to run for a number of years yet, we want to see the level of ambition raised sooner rather than later. As a result, from 1 July 2026, we will expect authorities with plans adopted under the old standard method to provide an extra year’s worth of homes in their housing pipeline, helping to accelerate the delivery of new homes.

We recognise that we are asking much from many local authorities, and we are determined to support local leaders trying in good faith to deliver homes for their communities. That is why across dedicated local plan funding, the planning capacity and capability support announced at the Budget and income from raised fees, we will be injecting more than £100 million into the system in the coming year.

We are confident that the revised framework that we are introducing today will support significantly higher rates of house building and sustained economic growth. We have listened carefully to the views expressed in the consultation and adjusted several areas of policy accordingly; now it is for others to do their part. Developers must turn supportive words into action, bringing forward new sites and building them out at pace. Local authorities must embrace the challenge of higher targets and push for more and better development in their areas.

We have moved fast. We have not held back. We have not shied away from controversial decisions, or wavered in the face of those who have sought to chip away at our resolve. With focus and determination, we have pushed on to ensure that we are putting in place a planning system geared toward meeting housing need in full and unleashing economic growth. Change will take time as homes are not built overnight and our dire inheritance means that the climb out of the trough we are in will be a steep one, but by implementing this revised framework today, we have taken another decisive step toward a future in which everyone will enjoy a decent, safe, secure and affordable home in which to live.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. First, I welcome the ambitious target of 1.5 million homes in this Parliament. I think he may have unintentionally misled the House regarding the “dire inheritance” that he claims. Conservative Members are rightly proud of our record on housing delivery. [Interruption.] Really. Between 2013 and 2023, we saw a record level of new housing formations, greater than any other period since the 1960s. We delivered 550,000 affordable homes since 2010, including 63,000 in 2022-23 alone.

What we do not welcome is the war on rural England that the Minister is pursuing. Following on from the family farm tax and the withdrawal of the rural services delivery grant, we now see a massive shift to mass house building in rural areas and on green belt. We do not welcome the bulldozing of democratic accountability. We do not welcome the lowering of housing targets for urban areas, including a 20% reduction in London, which is already missing its targets by 50%. We also do not welcome an average doubling—a 100% increase—for predominantly rural areas.

The reality for local residents in areas such as Westmorland, Cumberland, North Yorkshire and the home counties is that they will one day wake up to realise that they will face targets of up to 600% increases. They will call their local councillor to ask them to oppose a specific application and be shocked at the response, which will be, “I am sorry; we no longer have the right to vote against an individual application.” They will be even more shocked if they become aware of what Labour said in opposition. Its Opposition motion on 21 June 2021 called on the previous Government to

“protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications.”

The Minister is now taking that away.

Local residents will be more shocked again when they become aware that the Minister himself used that right in 2021 to object to an application for 1,500 homes on a brownfield site in his constituency. Indeed, the Secretary of State also used that right to object to a development in her constituency in 2017. Same old Labour: do as I say, not as I do.

The reality is that the Government will fail to deliver on their target. Members need not listen to me; they should listen to the chief executive officer of Homes England, who admitted in a leaked email that it is a two-Parliament objective rather than deliverable in this Parliament. The Centre for Cities and the Office for Budget Responsibility have both said that only 1.1 million homes will be delivered in England in this Parliament, and indeed there will be only 1.3 million homes across the UK, which is lower than we delivered in the last Parliament—another broken promise from Labour. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we will be there for the Minister and the Secretary of State when they fail to deliver on that promise.

This planning framework pushes development to rural areas, concreting over green belt, green fields and over our green and pleasant land, rather than focusing and supporting building in urban areas where we need to build the most. And to what end? Due to the loosening of restrictions on visa requirements such as the salary threshold, and the scrapping of the Rwanda deterrent, the majority of the homes that the Government deliver will be required for people coming into this country rather than for British citizens.

Labour has also consistently failed on affordable homes. Under the London Labour Mayor, new affordable housing in London is down by 88%, yet across England, the Conservative Government delivered more than half a million homes. They have already weakened their requirement for 50% affordable homes on the green belt by allowing the use of viability assessments. That change will mean fewer affordable homes.

The Labour Government have already failed first-time buyers. The Conservative Government doubled the number of those buying every year compared with 2010, by means of the stamp duty discounts, Help to Buy, right to buy and our affordable homes programmes—some of which helped the Secretary of State herself get on the housing ladder. Those have been axed by this socialist Government pulling up the housing ladder. They will build over rural areas while claiming it is grey belt land, but we delivered over 1 million homes in the last Parliament alone. It is vital more than ever that we build in the right places with the right infrastructure, but the Prime Minister has already admitted that he will bulldoze through the concerns of local communities. If the Government really want homes to be built where they are needed, they must think again.

Finally, how many of the Minister’s 1.5 million homes will be affordable? What does he expect will be the split for social rent, affordable rent and affordable homes to purchase, particularly given the use of viability assessments? On planning capacity, will he set out why his resourcing of planning authorities, which we broadly welcome, has risen from £20 million in his manifesto, to £46 million in the Budget, to £100 million today? How is that consistent with the Budget? Why is he deliberately making it more difficult for first-time buyers to buy a home? What percentage of the 1.5 million target does he expect will be needed for immigrant households?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for some of his responses, and for those questions. I am glad that he broadly supports the Government’s target of 1.5 million homes. As he will know, the previous Government did not achieve their target—300,000 homes a year when disaggregated—once in 14 years.

There were so many inaccuracies and misleading statements in that response, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the framework that we have planned, that I am not sure where to start. The assertion that we are waging war on rural England or that we have distributed housing targets predominantly towards rural areas is simply wrong. We are focusing—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman might wish to listen to the response and focus on the detail of the framework that we have published. We are focusing growth across our city regions. Housing need across mayoral combined authority areas will increase by over 20% compared with the current standard method. Similarly, on the green belt, it is not the case that we are allowing viability assessments—I was very clear in my statement. We are restricting the use of site-level viability assessments on green belt release until we have refreshed viability planning policy guidance in the new year, at which point we will consider exemptions for previously developed land and large sites.

We prioritise the importance of up-to-date local plans. We inherited a system from the previous Government of less than a third up-to-date local plan coverage. That is unsustainable. We want communities more involved at an early stage, shaping their local plans. That is the best way that they can shape development. The hon. Gentleman mischaracterises our working paper proposals on planning committees; as we discussed at length in the urgent question earlier in the week, we are simply talking about streamlining the planning system to ensure that trained, professional planning officers take the appropriate decisions, and elected members get to focus on the largest and most controversial applications.

I am not going to respond to the taunt about sites in my constituency.

[Hon. Members]

Why not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Because I have outlined my position many, many times before. I objected to a 1,500-home scheme that I thought was poor quality—I thought we could do better. It is very interesting, I note to Opposition Members, that consent for that was given many years ago, but not a spade has been put in the ground. That is the type of speculative development we need to see less of. We need more planned development through the planning system.

I will briefly answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions. We cannot put a precise number on the proportion of homes under the 1.5 million target that will be affordable for the following reasons. We expect to see many more social and affordable homes come through developer contributions. Our golden rules, which apply to the release of land through the green belt, will ensure that the proportion rises—that 15% premium on local affordable housing rates. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, affordable provision is partly related to grant funding from Government. We will set out details of future investment in next year’s multi-year spending review, along with what the successor to the affordable homes programme looks like and the precise split between social rented homes and other forms of tenure. We have been very clear that we want to maximise the delivery of social value homes.

Details on planning capacity will be set out in the response to the consultation. The £100 million figure I cited is the amount of support in the round going into local plan support, planning capacity and capability support and other things.

On migration, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the majority of homes that developers sell in this country are to British nationals; that most parts of the country have local allocation rules and residency requirements that mean that non-British nationals cannot access housing; and that only those who are eligible for no recourse to public funds can do so. He knows those rules. It is scaremongering; it is beneath him. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not really believe that, and that the House does not believe that either.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the greater detail on the changes to the NPPF that the Minister has outlined this morning. He is right: we have to be bold. As he has outlined, the social housing sector is in crisis. At the Select Committee’s recent evidence session, he mentioned a figure of around 160,000 children in temporary accommodation. Those children will be spending this Christmas away from their friends and families. For the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), the shadow Secretary of State to reduce this issue to migration is wrong. He should think about the many children who will be sleeping rough this Christmas. This is about how we improve housing and ensure that we build the right housing to help those children.

We need more social housing to get people off our waiting lists. Our councils are at breaking point, with some developers using the viability clause as a way of not delivering on the much-needed affordable homes that they have promised. Communities must be able to trust the planning process. Will the Minister assure the House that local councils will see a significant increase in the affordable homes programme next year to allow them to meet the Government’s housing targets?

Secondly, I want to touch briefly on the land classification outlined in the strategy, which could affect the way in which communities are able to shape local developments. Too often we see a disproportionate impact on high-end developments, which does nothing to help people to get on the housing ladder. Is the Minister confident that the update to the NPPF will ensure that new homes will be based in improved developments with amenities such as schools, GP surgeries and other accessible things, so that local residents can see tangible benefits in the developments coming forward in their area?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for those questions and for her broad support for the framework we have announced today. On social rented housing in particular, she is absolutely right. The previous Conservative Government’s record on social rented homes is absolutely dire. The figures speak for themselves. Not only did they fail to deliver new social affordable homes beyond anything more than 10,000 units a year, but they engineered the decline of social housing and ran down our stock through various interventions, including the slashing of affordable homes programme funding and increased generosity in the right- to-buy discounts, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister did not benefit from. We have returned the discount to the rate at which she accessed housing. The Conservatives’ record on social rented housing speaks for itself.

On future investment in affordable housing and social rented homes, as I have said, we will set out details in the multi-year spending review next year. We want to prioritise the delivery of social rented homes given the important role they play in addressing the housing crisis, and in resolving the particularly acute end of that crisis in the form of temporary accommodation.

On the NPPF more widely, I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. The targeted changes to the framework we have made today will support the delivery of infra- structure. As I have already said, when it comes to the release of green-belt land, our golden rules will ensure that we get a higher proportion of affordable housing, and also infrastructure and amenities and access to green space through that additional public benefit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The Liberal Democrats support the provision of new homes. Somerset West and Taunton district council in my constituency, under Liberal Democrat control since 2019, has approved thousands of new homes to the extent that the town is now one of the fastest-growing in the UK, with 9% population growth to 2021, partly because it is such a wonderful place to live. Somerset is now pioneering the first new council houses in a generation in parts of the county, many of them zero carbon. We welcome the policy change on renewable energy and the extension in the transitional arrangements, although I urge the Minister to consider, in exceptional circumstances, a six-month transition rather than three months. I know that Members on several Benches wish to see that on behalf of their authorities.

Trust in the planning system, like trust in politics, is not where it should be. As with bypassing planning committees, imposing housing numbers on councils takes decision out of the hands of elected councillors and local people, which is undemocratic. We would reverse that. Trust in planning demands that people know that our most precious green spaces are fully protected. Every authority should have the same level of green belt protection, plus precious green wedges and green spaces in their areas. Rather than Whitehall diktat, plans for new homes should be led by communities and our councils, and those homes should be genuinely affordable to local people. Councils such as Eastleigh have shown that where those new homes come with jobs, schools and public transport, community consent follows. We will not solve the crisis in care, for example, unless we have the homes for older and vulnerable people, supported by the GP surgeries and care services they require.

If any target is to be mandatory, therefore, it should be our country’s need for 150,000 new social homes per year and for low-cost home ownership through options such as rent to buy to give people a real foot on the ladder. That should be funded from capital borrowing, just as Labour Governments and, historically, Liberal Governments funded our stock of council houses in the past, including the use of compulsory purchase, before Conservative Governments sold them off hand over fist until soon there will be almost none left.

Top-down planning diktats risk a surge in speculative greenfield permissions of the kind that the Minister is concerned about, for homes that are out of people’s reach. Instead, let us fund, incentivise and focus on the social and affordable homes that we need: zero-carbon homes that tread lightly on the land, restoring nature and in doing so restoring trust in local people and the councillors whom they elect to take the decisions that most affect them and their communities.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not sure I detected a question there, but there were several points. I will endeavour to respond to at least a few of them. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s broad support for the framework and, in particular, for renewable energy deployment.

On the charge that we are bypassing local democracy and local communities, I refute that entirely. We are encouraging, in the way that the previous Government did, the adoption of up-to-date local plans that are the best means of shaping development in any particular part of the country. That is where local people and communities can get involved to determine what development looks like and where it goes, but it must be a conversation about what development looks like and where it goes, rather than whether it happens at all. Under the current system, as a result of the NPPF changes in December 2023 and the fact that we have less than a third up-to-date plan coverage, there is too much speculative development outside of plans, which communities are rightly taking issue with.

On social rented homes, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman previously, until he comes up with a less vague way of funding 150,000 social rented homes, we simply cannot take the point seriously. The Liberal Democrats got away with having no housing spending totals in their election manifesto. I applaud the ambition, but we take a more realistic path to boosting social and affordable homes, putting forward only what we know we can deliver within the spending constraints that we face.

Lastly, I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to reform how CPO works. We are taking forward the discretionary power to disapply hope value that the previous Government took through—I commend them for doing that in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. We need that power tested, but we need to go further and we intend to do so in the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

Following 14 years of neglect, indifference and, at times, downright obstruction by the Conservatives, housing in Newcastle is the No. 1 issue that constituents bring to me, and my inbox is full of heartrending stories of families unable to put a roof over their children’s heads. I therefore welcome the statement, and look forward to working with Newcastle city council to build the homes that my constituents need so much.

Will the Minister explain in a bit more detail how he will ensure that these homes are of the quality that my constituents deserve, and that the necessary infrastructure, particularly schools, will be built alongside them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right. The Conservatives can try to scrub the record all they like, but it speaks for itself. The so-called planning concern group in the last Parliament persuaded the previous Government to make changes to the national planning policy that allowed local areas to plan for fewer homes than their target required. That has led to a rush of plans coming in “under number”, some of which we will have to undo through changes in the framework.

As I have said, we are making targeted changes to the framework to support the delivery of infrastructure provision. The Government also support essential infrastructure, especially in the areas that are most unaffordable, through a range of spending programmes. On infrastructure-led development and quality, supported by our framework changes in the presumption for saleable development, we are determined that there is not a rush to 1.5 million regardless of what the units look like. They must be well designed, quality units, with the infrastructure, amenities and services that communities need in order to thrive.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Gagan Mohindra, a member of the Select Committee.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

As the Minister will know, Three Rivers district council, which has been controlled by the Liberal Democrats for many years, does not have an up-to-date local plan, and there is already a presumption for development. What would the Minister say to councils that either choose not to have a local plan or are unable to meet the housing targets?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made. We are determined to drive up the coverage of up-to-date local plans. We want universal coverage: that is the way to secure sustainable development in which communities can have confidence because they have been able to shape it.

When areas refuse to engage, we will take appropriate action. Today we are setting a 12-week deadline for local authorities to give us a timetable detailing how they intend to put local plans in place, through various measures relating to the transitional arrangements, and how the new six-year housing land supply will bite. We think we can incentivise authorities to come forward and put those plans in place. Where they do not do so, however, we will not hesitate to use the full range of ministerial intervention powers at our disposal. The last Government introduced deadlines and let them slip repeatedly, but we will not make the same mistakes. We will ensure that up-to-date local plans are put in place so that we end the speculative out-of-plan development that, as I said, communities across the country are rightly taking issue with.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Joe Powell, another Select Committee member.

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

I welcome the statement and especially welcome what the Minister said about affordable homes, given the dismal numbers that were provided under the Conservatives. Those 1.3 million people on the waiting list deserve a voice in our planning system too, and I only wish the Opposition would recognise that.

What approach will the Minister take when there are multiple local plans, for example the London plan and the London borough plans? How will the targets be worked out between those different plans?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As my hon. Friend may know, the new method produces a figure for London of nearly 88,000. That is more than double recent delivery, and it constitutes the biggest proposed percentage increase against delivery in any region in the country by a significant margin. We expect London to step up and improve its housing delivery record. As for my hon. Friend’s specific question, it will be for London and the Mayor to consider how the aggregate local housing numbers are distributed across the whole of London. Because there is a spatial plan in the form of the London plan, the targets for individual London boroughs need to be viewed in that context. The same cannot be said for other parts of the country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call another member of the Select Committee.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Nothing in this statement outlines the new powers for councils to build development infrastructure—including roads, schools and GP surgeries—before new housing. What powers will my local councils of Broxbourne and East Hertfordshire get to build development infrastructure before these massive housing targets are forced upon them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Local authorities are already required to put in place plans for infrastructure delivery, and to set out how that infrastructure is funded and should come forward. We have made a number of targeted changes to the framework today, to support the delivery of infrastructure. That will not be not the last word on our reforms to the housing and planning system, and we are considering what more we can do to ensure that we get infrastructure for developments up front, in the way that communities want.

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

One in four Barking households is privately renting, which is higher than the national average, and 40% of residents are homeowners, which is 20% below the national average. The number of people in temporary accommodation is through the roof because of the housing crisis. My constituents will welcome the Government’s steps to address the housing crisis. Viability and land value considerations often hold up shovel-ready development schemes, which then cannot be built. The six infrastructure commitments that the Government have made since the general election are critical. Can the Minister give assurances that the Government will deliver infrastructure to ensure that land values increase, viability is met, and homes can be built?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Viability is stalling development in lots of areas in the country. We need to look at what support can be put in place for particular schemes—our new homes accelerator, for example, is providing planning capacity support and other forms of support—and at why some schemes, particularly consented or near-consented large schemes, are being held up. As I have said before in the House, we are giving further thought to how we examine these issues, and to what more we can do to ensure that consented schemes are built out in good time.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

This centrally driven intervention drives a coach and horses through green belt areas such as Aldridge-Brownhills and through local democracy. How will the Minister ensure that local communities are respected and have a voice, so that we build the right homes in the right places?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I return to a point that I have made several times during this statement. The onus is on local communities and elected leaders to put in place up-to-date local plans that shape where development is to take place. I know from previous conversations with the right hon. Lady that she wants brownfield-first developments—so do we. We have put in the framework published today a number of targeted changes to support the delivery of brownfield sites. We have also consulted, through a working paper soft consultation, on proposals for a brownfield passport to further accelerate and fast-track brownfield development. Local areas can look to bring forward and densify brownfield sites. However, in response to the point that there are not enough such sites, or that communities cannot work across boundaries with neighbouring authorities, we are saying, “Please look at the release of low-quality land within the green belt.”

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I salute my hon. Friend’s energy for and commitment to these targets. It is great to see that they are supported by the Prime Minister. The Environmental Audit Committee is looking at the new planning framework and its environmental consequences. I am pleased that, since the original consultation, there have been changes to strengthen environmental protections. Can my hon. Friend say a little more about how he will ensure that nature is not the victim of his passionate commitment? Brownfield sites are often very biodiverse, and trying to achieve the biodiversity net gain alongside all the other commitments simply means that they are not profitable. How will he ensure that those sites can be brought forward viably by both the private and public sectors?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. He is right: we have made a number of changes to the framework to further strengthen references to climate mitigation and adaptation. We have made a number of other changes relating to flood risk and sustainable drainage systems, and how we can support those through the planning system. On BNG specifically, I am more than happy to have a detailed conversation about our thinking on how to successfully roll out BNG across the country and ensure that it works not just on large sites, but on small sites in particular.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

In his statement, the Minister referred to the undermining of the capacity of our great towns and cities to realise their economic potential. Does he not realise that by effectively absolving the Mayor of London of his housing responsibilities, he is exacerbating the problem of inner-London boroughs, such as Lewisham and, dare I say, Greenwich and Woolwich, using the green fields of Kent as a dumping ground for their housing problems? We are fighting a rearguard action to protect our farmland from development, in the interests of our countryside and, more importantly perhaps, of sustainability. He refers to brownfield sites. What he has announced today is the undermining of the Secretary of State’s right to rule finally on planning issues after they have been to the Planning Inspectorate. She will now have no credibility at all.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that sort of hyperbole is beneath him, if I may say so. We are not absolving the Mayor of London of his responsibilities. The previous Government put in place a system whereby the arbitrary 35% urban uplift applied not merely to the core of a city region—as it does in every other part of the country—but to every London borough. That produced a fantastical figure that was completely divorced from reality. We have abolished that urban uplift and reset the standard method. That still leaves London with an incredibly stretching target of 88,000 homes per year, which is more than double recent delivery. We want to work in partnership with the Mayor of London, but we will be pushing him to increase his ambition for what can be achieved in London, and his delivery.

We place great importance on agricultural land and food production. The national planning policy framework remains clear that where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land should be preferred to those of higher quality. Those protections remain in the framework.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

On the Wirral, our housing shortage leaves thousands on waiting lists. The issue goes further, with children and grandchildren having to leave the area to get on the housing ladder. We want to build quality, affordable houses in the right places. We share the Government’s approach to building on brownfield first, so what steps can the Department take to support Wirral council in achieving that?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I refer my hon. Friend to my previous answers on our targeted changes to the framework to strengthen expectations around brownfield development. We are in the early stages of a consultation, through the working paper, on proposals for a brownfield passport, and we are exploring how we can go further to prioritise and fast-track the development of that land. We absolutely want to work with local areas to look at where brownfield sites might be densified and at how we can get the majority of development through that route, where possible.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Mid Sussex district council has a local plan, and it is well advanced in making its next local plan, which, significantly, has cross-party support from Conservative, Green and Labour councillors. We also have a design guide, and are delivering 1,000 houses a year, including 300 social and affordable homes last year. We are an example of what good planning looks like. We are even purchasing our own temporary accommodation. I invite the Minister to come to Mid Sussex and see for himself what good planning looks like.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I think a yes or no will suffice, Minister.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid that I cannot give either, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will add the invitation to the list of requests for visits that I receive from Members across the House. However, I commend the hon. Lady’s local authority for its focus on quality and good design. We want to see more of that across the country.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I welcome the commitment to overall house building targets—we cannot hit a national target with clear local targets. I welcome in particular the commitment to social housing. Will the Minister confirm that that means social housing, not the affordable housing that the shadow Minister mentioned? There is a big difference there. The viability of brownfield sites is lower and section 106 contributions will be lower, so if we are to concentrate on brownfield sites, will the Minister make the point to the Chancellor that to deliver social housing in the numbers needed, she might have to reconsider the amount of social housing grant that she provides?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend has real expertise in this area. We are making a distinction between social rented homes—the most affordable type of affordable housing—and others, and we have sought to express that through a change to the glossary in the framework that separates social rented housing from other forms of housing. He is right that brownfield delivery involves additional challenges. We are very cognisant of those, and we are exploring how the variety of Government funds that support the delivery of brownfield sites might be improved as we go forward.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Minister has alluded to one of the challenges with planning permissions—namely that, on any one day, there are something like 1 million unbuilt permissions for new housing. Developers ration the supply in order to keep the price high, so will he consider, as I think he did in opposition, the principle of “use it or lose it”? At the moment a developer will get a permission, which is repeatedly sold on until viability means the site cannot be developed. If the planning permissions were either brought forward or lost if they were not used in time, we could get the houses and homes that people want.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman, like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), has great expertise in this area. He will know that local authorities already have powers to issue a completion notice to require a developer to complete a stalled development. To bring greater transparency and accountability to this area, we seek to go further by taking the necessary steps to implement build-out reporting. I assure him that I am giving a lot of attention to what more we might do on build-out, because developers have made commitments to increase the pace of build-out across the country. We need to make sure they follow through with that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With an example of a short question, I call Barry Gardiner.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his statement and, in particular, on the importance he places on the presumption in favour of sustainability and getting the design of developments right.

My hon. Friend is a champion for the natural world, and I am aware that he is sympathetic to the need to include biodiversity measures in all new builds, such as swift bricks, which are an essential nesting habitat for the survival and recovery of cavity-nesting birds. Will he provide this much-needed boost for a declining population that has sadly been placed on the critically endangered red list? Will he ensure that these simple requirements are not only in the NPPF but are translated into the national development management policies to ensure they have statutory weight?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we have added text to the NPPF to encourage the incorporation of features to protect threatened species, including swifts, but also bats and hedgehogs. We will consult on the NDMPs in the spring of next year.

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

The town of Wimborne in my Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency has doubled in size, with new homes built on three sides right up to the Stour. These homes are pretty much out of reach for local people, and they come with no infrastructure. Shops were supposed to be included in one development, but the developer claimed it could not get them filled, so now we have another care home. Meanwhile, Aldi has made a planning application for a green-belt site to which everyone will need to drive. What can the Minister do to force developers to deliver the infrastructure they promise, so that developers cannot play the system?

[Matthew Pennycook]

There are measures in the framework that will help to achieve the objectives that we both seek. The Government are also committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions, so that we hold applicants to the promises they make as part of section 106 agreements, while arming councils to better negotiate with them in the first place.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council submitted its draft local plan for examination in July but, under the new targets, it has planned for only 53% of its housing need. Can my hon. Friend elaborate on the steps the Government will take to work with local authority areas at this stage to make sure they fill that significant gap?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In the formal Government response to the consultation, which will be published at the end of this statement, we set out very clearly how we are dealing with local authorities at an advanced stage of plan preparation—both those that will meet the regulation 19 stage requirement and those that will not —and how we will help those with up-to-date plans to top up their housing supply so that they come closer to the new standard method. I share my hon. Friend’s wish that her local authority takes steps to close the gap.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will the Minister reaffirm the principle of “infrastructure first” in order to get homes built? In Tendring and Colchester, we are planning to build a 9,000-home borders community project, but it can go ahead only if the A1331 is completed, and it has to be funded.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I support that objective, but I gently say that the previous Government had 14 years to address concerns in this area. I remember repeated calls from Conservative Members at the time that the previous Government should get serious about this. We will. There are measures in the framework that support infrastructure delivery, but there is more work to do.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Last week, I met my constituent Mr Anwar Hussain, who lives with his wife and five children in a two-bedroom house. Doctors have told him that his eight-year-old autistic daughter needs her own bedroom. Mr Hussain tells me that he has been on emergency banding for a larger house with more bedrooms for two years, and he is still waiting. Does my hon. Friend agree that we desperately need to improve our social housing, and can he please confirm that the Government’s plans will help people such as Mr Hussain?

[Matthew Pennycook]

That question sits slightly outside the framework, although, as I said, there are targeted changes to support the delivery of new affordable homes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to do more about the decency of the existing social housing stock. We will be consulting on a new decent homes standard in the new year, as well as introducing Awaab’s law to clamp down on the most severe hazards.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

Labour’s new housing target for Harborough is a 40% increase, and the target for Oadby and Wigston has doubled. Yet we can see that the overcrowding problem is worse in urban areas, and the gap between population growth and housing growth is worse in those areas, too. We can see the environmental arguments, too.

However, the Minister has announced today that the new target for London is about 11% lower than the old one. In the original round of numbers, Nottingham was down 21%, Birmingham and Leicester were down 31%, and Coventry was down 50%. Can he tell me what the numbers are now for those midlands cities? Are they all still going down, even as the targets for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston are going up?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think the hon. Gentleman slightly misunderstands the situation for urban authorities. The housing targets are going up across metro areas.

[Neil O’Brien]

What about the cities?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have been very clear about this. We have dropped the arbitrary 35% uplift introduced by the previous Government, which bore no relation to housing need. Metro area targets are going up. The hon. Gentleman will find out from the specific targets, which have been produced by our redistribution of the formula within that envelope, what the new numbers are for his two local authorities.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I listened to the Minister on the radio this morning and I listened to his statement, and I welcome his comprehensive steps to tackle the housing crisis. While I work with colleagues across the House—Opposition Members know that—I thought the shadow Minister’s speech was beneath him. It is the kind of gutter politics we should not be engaging in.

As we seek to tackle the crisis, we must do things with people, not to them. I gently say to the Minister that communication and engagement will be vital to getting this right. I invite him to confirm from the Dispatch Box, for constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, that productive agricultural land will not be the default in his brownfield-first approach to development.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I made clear in my response to the shadow Minister, our approach to agricultural land remains the same. Ours is a brownfield-first approach. We want to maximise delivery on brownfield first, wherever possible. Only when that type of delivery cannot come forward—where brownfield sites cannot be densified, or where cross-boundary strategic co-operation of the kind we intend to introduce is not possible—will we ask local authorities to review their green belt, with a view to identifying and releasing the lowest-quality, most poorly performing land within it.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is a thoughtful and diligent Minister who shares my disdain for the identikit, soulless, ubiquitous housing estates that have been built during his lifetime and mine. I welcome the NPPF’s commitment to design codes that provide

“a local framework for creating beautiful and distinctive places”.

Will he write to every local authority to make it clear that design is a key planning determinant, and is absolutely salient? Will he also write to the Planning Inspectorate to ensure that, when local authorities turn down an application on the basis of poor design, the inspectorate will back them up?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Well-designed places remain at the heart of planning policy; as the right hon. Gentleman will know, an entire chapter of the NPPF remains devoted to well-designed places. The changes we are making to the presumption today will ensure that when it comes to national policy on design, those expectations need to hold in the balance of decisions that the Planning Inspectorate makes. There is much more we can do outside of policy. In the new year, my Department will bring forward updates to the national design guide and national model design code. As part of those changes, we will make clear our expectations about what local authorities can do to improve the quality of design.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Chris Curtis, who I should have called earlier as a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—my apologies.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

That is okay. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Thanks to the failure of the Conservative party, over 150,000 children will be waking up on Christmas day in temporary accommodation. If that is a record to be proud about, I have absolutely no idea what would make Opposition Members feel any shame. May I get two reassurances from the Minister? First, business needs certainty, so will he assure me that we will not see the chopping and changing we saw from the Conservative party and that we will stick by the policies? Secondly, the issue is not just about the planning rules but about capacity in our local councils, so what will he do to speed up the process of getting more planners into our local councils to add capacity to the system?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We need consistency in national policy. We had too many changes to the national planning policy framework under previous Governments. We intend this to be the big change in terms of substantial policy development. There will come a point next year when we will look to consult on NDMPs, and we will have to make changes to the framework to account for the evolution of those. As I said, today’s statement sets out the big changes we intend to make, and we want them to hold and to be delivered through this Parliament.

On local planning capacity and capability, I made reference in my statement to the £100 million of funding that is being injected into the system, in particular as part of the transitional arrangements to help local authorities that will fall foul of the requirements set out in the new framework today.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

As a former house builder, I know some of the challenges about viability. I welcome the Minister and the Government’s focus on affordable housing targets and viability assessments, but there is a basic mathematical calculation about affordable housing: 20% of something is better and more than 50% of nothing.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman makes a somewhat cryptic statement. Perhaps the point he is driving at is related to golden rules. One of the changes we have made that puts pragmatism above purity is dropping the straight 50% requirement across the country, and looking at how we can get more locally sensitive rates by putting in place a 15 percentage point premium on local affordable housing targets. In the round, we think that will provide more certainty and maximise the delivery of homes coming through that route.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Cherwell district council’s housing waiting list quadrupled over the past decade under the Conservatives, which is why I committed to my constituents in Banbury during the general election campaign that I would make addressing the housing crisis a priority. We all recognise that planning reform, which the Conservative party ducked during its time in office, is crucial to fixing the housing crisis, but does the Minister agree that it is also crucial to helping us get the growth that we want in our economy, because it is good for businesses, whether they are sandwich shops or high-tech engineering firms, across the country?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right that the situation we are in, with an acute and entrenched housing crisis and an ailing planning system, is not just blighting lives but holding back our economy and the way our great towns and cities can maximise their potential. This is a growth-focused national planning policy framework, and we are very proud of it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Unless questions are kept short, colleagues will not be able to get in, so think about everybody in the Chamber.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I know that the Minister is a man of considerable integrity, so can he be honest with my constituents about the fact that the combination of mandatory targets, a massive increase in those mandatory targets and the fig leaf of the grey belt policy means that in a constituency like mine, which is almost entirely green belt, apart from that which is developed on, there will be massive new development, an expansion of London sprawl and a change in the character of the area forever?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his compliment at the outset of his comments. I do not agree with him for the following reasons. We are not abolishing the green belt but preserving it. We think it has played a hugely important role over recent decades, not least in checking unregulated urban sprawl. On his constituency, I say to him gently that I do not know how he can know the definition of grey belt when we have just published it. He does not know how much grey-belt land there is in his constituency, but in parts of the country like his, the answer lies in cross-boundary strategic planning, so that we can sensibly plan for housing growth, rather than every local area having to account for those numbers on its own.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

As has already been mentioned, there are 1.3 million people on the social housing waiting list and there will be 150,000 kids in temporary accommodation this Christmas, but the number of under 30s who own their own home is half what it was in the last generation. Does the Minister agree that it will take serious and sustained action over the course of this Parliament and beyond to turn that around?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Contrary to the crowing by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) about the Opposition’s record on home ownership, the rates are stagnant and they are particularly bad for the younger generation. We have a generation locked out of home ownership. We are taking action in that area, not least through our plans to take forward a comprehensive and permanent mortgage guarantee scheme. One of the largest contributory factors, although not the only one, at the heart of why housing is unaffordable, is our failure over many decades to build enough homes of all tenures. Going forward, the framework will support our target of 1.5 million new homes.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

The Government have announced that housing targets for Reigate and Banstead will increase significantly. We will move from an advisory target of 644 houses per year to a mandatory and completely unrealistic target of 1,264—a 96% increase. A large proportion of my constituency is green belt. If all areas must play their part in building the homes we need, why is the Minister reducing housing targets for London and other urban areas, while increasing them in rural areas like mine?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have made clear the point on urban areas and how the 20% increase across the board means we are asking more of all parts of the country. I say gently to the hon. Lady that she speaks as if there are no housing pressures in her constituency. People want homes in her constituency to rent or to buy as much as in any other part of the country. Yes, the targets are stretching but they are achievable, either through brownfield development from the release of low-quality grey-belt land within the green belt, or through cross-boundary strategic planning.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

Representing a large and rural constituency, I am constantly contacted by families who are concerned that members of their youngest generation are having to leave Northumberland to find the homes they need. That is just one example of the Conservative party’s war on the countryside. Will the Minister confirm that the new framework is the only way that we can get the homes that are needed, and ones that are appropriate, into our rural communities so that a generation is not forced out of rural Britain?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To be clear, the reforms to the planning system that we are making today are not the only part of the answer; delivery of homes is an entirely different challenge from bringing forward planning permissions. We need to over-supply planning permissions into the system to get the number of homes we need in his constituency, and across the rest of the country.

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

I wrote to the Secretary of State in November concerned about the impact on local authorities, such as South Gloucestershire, that are at an advanced stage of bringing forward plans to deliver much-needed homes. I welcome the extension of the transitional period, but I remain concerned that areas whose figures have increased will be vulnerable to planning by appeal, while they get the new consents lined up. Will the Minister explain how authorities that are doing the right thing will be protected from their strategy being wrecked by speculative applications, while their plan goes through the process for adoption?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I gently say to the hon. Lady that the expectation of having an up-to-date local plan in place is nothing new. Authorities have known for some time that they should be doing that. It was a failure of the previous Government that they did not use the powers at their disposal to ensure there was more up-to-date local plan coverage. Those areas that do not have up-to-date local plans in place will be vulnerable to development taking place outside the plan process, but we are committed to supporting those who share our ambition and are working in good faith to get a plan in place to be able to do so.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

Can the Minister set out how today’s announcement will help our small and medium-sized enterprise house builder market and bring forward more sites suitable for SMEs to develop?

[Matthew Pennycook]

There is more to be done in this area, and SMEs and small sites can make a huge contribution to the 1.5 million home target. There are changes that have been published today in the framework that will help SME builders, not least the focus on mixed- tenure sites that we know build out faster and where SMEs can play a big role going forward.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The Minister intends to impose thousands more houses on my constituency, when there are already not enough school places, not enough doctors and congested roads. Will he at least look at ways in which financial arrangements can be established that would mean that developers can be made to fund necessary infrastructure ahead of house building and sale, rather than waiting for months and possibly years after completion?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have said, we are giving a considerable amount of thought to what more we can do, in addition to the changes being made today, to ensure that the right infrastructure comes forward. I am happy to give the right hon. Gentleman’s point serious consideration.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

The Minister knows, because we have discussed this before, that my constituency of Dartford is already getting on with the challenge of building new homes. Ebbsfleet garden city, the first garden city in a hundred years, aims to build 10,000 new homes over the next decade, with 50 new parks and open spaces, as well as a network of green corridors. I am delighted that the Minister has confirmed he will be visiting shortly. What more can we do to up the levels of affordable and social housing in new developments like Ebbsfleet so that everyone has the chance to live in them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I look forward to my visit to Ebbsfleet, which is now building out at a faster rate than it was. We welcome its contribution. I have already referenced the changes we intend to make to strengthen the existing developer contribution system to get more out of section 106 agreements. There is more we can do in that area and, of course, through Government investment in affordable housing. We will bring forward more details in the spending review next year.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

My constituency of Cheltenham is already built up to its boundaries and is working with its neighbours on the joint local plans referenced by the Minister, in part to deal with a housing waiting list of more than 2,500 bequeathed to us by the last Government. We also have a big, sprawling town centre and plenty of empty space. What is the Minister’s message to councils that have that combination of challenges?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman’s area is working in co-operation with its neighbours. As he knows, we have in place a duty to co-operate; it has not been particularly effective and we think we need to go further on strategic cross-boundary planning. To those parts of the country that wish to densify their town centres, we fully support that and are open to any conversation in particular areas about what more they think needs to come forward to allow them to bring forward plans to rejuvenate town centres and bring more residential development back into them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

He is always slightly out of my eyesight, but I call Martin Vickers.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

In reply to an earlier question, the Minister spoke of streamlining the planning system. In my 26 years as a councillor and 14 years in this House, I have heard successive Governments talk about streamlining the planning system, by which they mean taking more central control. It results in frustration among ward councillors, frustration among their constituents who feel that they are not able to participate properly and frustration for Government because, in effect, they fail to meet their targets, as I am sure this Government will. Does the Minister accept that one way of involving local communities, other than in the local plan, is to allow local councillors to work closer with their communities and have some influence over individual major developments? In that case, we would have better quality and the Government would meet their targets a lot quicker.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Where appropriate, local councillors, with advice from trained planning officers, should of course have a say on major outline applications. Some of the proposals we are asking for views on—we are asking for nothing more than views at an early stage, on a working paper—are about ensuring we get planning officers taking the right decisions using their expertise, with members focused on the largest and most controversial developments. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman has ever sat on a planning committee, but can he say, hand on heart, that every reserved matters application, as technical as some of them can be, should come to full planning committee? We think there are ways to streamline the system that do not involve the removal of local control and that adhere to the plan-led system philosophy that we are taking forward and value very much.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. Across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we clearly have an ageing population. I believe there is a desperate need for dedicated apartments for those in the over-55 age group, which would free up homes, as well as social housing, back into the market. Will the Minister consider having discussions with colleagues in the Cabinet and, I suggest, the Northern Ireland Assembly to secure funding for the over-55s complexes that are needed not only in towns but in rural areas?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The previous Government, as the hon. Gentleman may know—again, I commend them for it—appointed an older people’s housing taskforce

“to look at options for the provision of greater choice, quality and security of housing for older people.”

That taskforce recently published its report, with a series of recommendations that we are engaging with. However, we need to give serious consideration as to how the planning system evolves to take into account demographic changes that we know we need to adapt to.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

May I suggest to the Government that this subject really warrants a full-day debate and not just a statement with questions and answers? For now, however, may I ask about one straightforward matter? Will the Minister look carefully at the relatively small number of places, including East Hampshire, with a planning area that is part-in, part-out of a national park and at the case that housing targets should be set separately for those two parts of the planning area?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. There are local authorities around the country where the boundaries are such that they stray into areas where environmental protections are in place, such as national parks and other things. Local areas will need to engage with the mandatory higher housing targets that we are bringing forward when coming up with local plans. Those local plans will be tested by the Planning Inspectorate to see whether there are hard constraints of the type he speaks to and therefore whether a plan is sound on that basis. Hard constraints will still be taken into account in the development and examination of local plans.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

In an earlier answer, the Minister confirmed that the Government support an infrastructure-first approach. Will he work with colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Transport to ensure approval of A10 West Winch housing access road funding, which is essential to unlock thousands of homes that are in the local plan on the edge of King’s Lynn?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman’s request has been put on the record and I will make sure that my ministerial colleagues are made aware of it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the ever-patient Ben Obese-Jecty.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister today launched the NPPF in my constituency of Huntingdon, at Alconbury Weald. However, that development was planned and built under the previous Government and phases 2 and 3 will see a further 4,000 homes and significant brownfield development at scale, but it has nothing to do with the revised NPPF. It is a shame the Deputy Prime Minister did not travel the extra couple of miles down to the Envar medical waste incinerator approved by the Minister on her behalf, against local wishes, a couple of months ago.

The Minister talks about guaranteeing infrastructure. When I asked the Government about a new east coast main line station to support the 6,500 homes at Alconbury Weald, they fobbed me off with talk of an internal review. How will the NPPF unlock the infrastructure that large developments desperately need?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answers on that point.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The Minister has been in the Chamber for well over an hour. He will no doubt recognise the strength of feeling towards this subject, because it has taken so long to talk about building homes. I will give Members on the Front Bench a short moment to swap over very quickly for the next statement.

Planning Committees: Reform

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on plans for the reform of planning committees.

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

As the House will be aware, in our first King’s Speech in July the Government announced their intention to introduce a planning and infrastructure Bill, designed to streamline the delivery of essential housing and infrastructure across the country and support sustained economic growth. We made clear at the time that an important component of that Bill would be measures to modernise the operation of planning committees.

Planning committees play a vital role in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. However, if we are to undo the damage that the previous Government did to housing supply in this country and deliver homes in the places that our communities need, we must ensure that they are operating as effectively as possible. As we look to develop Government policy in this area, we are determined to avoid the mistakes of previous Conservative Administrations, who were rightly criticised for bringing forward planning legislation without sufficient engagement or consultation.

We also want to ensure that the changes to the operation of planning committees that we ultimately take forward are as robust as possible, drawing on feedback from those who navigate England’s planning system on a daily basis. That is why today we have published a working paper that sets out our initial thinking for modernising planning committees. This is just the latest in a series of working papers on planning reform, and it is explicitly designed to kick-start engagement before we launch a formal Government consultation on a more detailed proposition. As such, I assure Members across the House that there will be plenty of opportunity to engage with and debate these matters in the months ahead.

The working paper seeks views on three potential changes: first, a national scheme of delegation, setting out which types of planning applications should be determined at committee and which by expert planning officers. We believe that that would bring clarity and consistency to both applicants and communities about how applications are determined. Secondly, the introduction of dedicated committees for strategic development would allow members of those committees to dedicate energy to the most significant projects. Thirdly, the introduction of mandatory planning training for committee members would enable applicants to be confident in the knowledge of those making these decisions. Taken together, the changes are designed to help streamline local planning decision making, maximise the use of professional skills and judgment of trained planners, and focus the time of elected councillors on the most significant or controversial applications.

As I said a moment ago, the working paper published today is merely the start of our engagement with the sector on this important issue. It is not a firm set of confirmed proposals, and we will use discussions in the new year to refine our approach. We will then prepare final policy proposals, on which we will launch a consultation in the usual way.

Let me finish by making it clear that the proposals that we are testing through the publication of this working paper are merely one part of a much wider set of reforms to the ailing planning system that we inherited from the previous Government. I look forward to updating hon. Members as we proceed to deliver on other aspects of the Government’s ambitious housing and planning agenda.

[David Simmonds]

Many of us were surprised to hear the Secretary of State tell us over the weekend that there are enough homes in this country. The planning system is an area of interest to all Members and to our constituents; I know it is to you in particular, Mr Speaker, and to your constituency. Planning matters, because it impacts the look and feel of our communities. It has been the subject of numerous parliamentary questions, both at the Dispatch Box and in writing. In response to all those questions, we have been told to await the national planning policy framework. It therefore seems a discourtesy to us to hear so much about the proposed reforms to the planning system in a series of media interviews over the weekend.

Some questions emerge from this. It is clear from the Department’s figures that 96% of planning applications are decided on by officers using delegated powers. That is up from 75% in 2000. It is that 4% to which the local democratic voice is so relevant. On the planning reform working paper, first, what assessment has been made of the impact on local democracy—for example, on the ability of ward councillors to call in a controversial application, or on cases in which reserved matters are approved, but then there is a breach by the developer, so the application needs to come back before a committee for further consideration and enforcement?

Given that 89% of major applications are decided within either 13 weeks or the agreed deadlines, will the full council still be able to call in major strategic applications that will have a significant impact on their area? Already, 87% of applications are granted by local authorities; will neighbourhood plans retain the legal status that enables the communities that write them to have a say on what goes on in their area? Given that 83% of minor applications are already agreed within timescale, who in the local authority will decide whether a matter is to be referred to a committee? Given the huge increase in housing planning permissions granted under the previous Government, when do the Government intend to start work on getting developers developing and builders building, rather than tinkering with a democratic system that has already delivered more than 1 million homes with consent in England?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have to say, it is quite rich hearing the hon. Gentleman crow about planning permissions in the system. We are experiencing the lowest number of planning permissions and completions for a decade, as a result of the Conservatives’ changes to the national planning policy framework, made in December 2023, which torpedoed supply and hit growth across this country.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the NPPF. We fully intend to bring forward a revised NPPF before the end of the year. These changes do not relate to the NPPF, as I made clear in my initial response. We are consulting, in an initial sense, on the changes before bringing forward formal proposals for consultation alongside the planning and infrastructure Bill—another part of the Government’s reform agenda.

The hon. Gentleman rightly made it clear that 96% of decisions are already made by planning officers. The other 4% of decisions, though, are incredibly important; they represent a substantial portion of total units in the planning process, because many major applications go to a planning committee for consideration. While we know that there is good practice out there, the number and type of applications that committees consider still varies widely between local planning authorities. Some committee decisions are not made in accordance with material planning considerations, and some committees repeatedly revisit or relitigate developments that have already been considered by elected members through the local plan process. We need to streamline the local planning system in order to provide the homes and places that we need, and to empower trained planning professionals to get the best use out of the system.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about neighbourhood plans. I have been very clear on several occasions in the House that the protections for neighbourhood plans in the NPPF will remain. As well as firm proposals on this proposition around modernising planning committees, we will bring forward further details about changes to the national planning policy framework in due course.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will know that I am passionately committed to local councils and local democracy, but does he understand the frustration that many of us feel when a planning authority democratically approves a local plan after consulting the community, but then, when an application is made to build homes, the same councillors turn down the application, despite it being consistent with the local plan? Is the Minister’s main objective to try to remove that sort of decision making, which holds up the whole process, and to ensure, in consultation with the Local Government Association and others in local government, that we can find a better way forward, so that we can get the permissions to build the homes that the country badly needs?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He has huge expertise in this area from his time as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and he is absolutely right. We have been clear that the best way for local communities to shape the decisions about what to build, where, is through local plans. It is appalling that we have inherited a situation in which less than a third of places are covered by up-to-date local plans. We need to boost that, and—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) will allow me, what we are looking at, in the changes that we are consulting on, in a soft form, through the working paper, is how we can ensure that planning committees make decisions on the most significant and controversial applications, including those that are not in line with local plans, rather than spending their time poring over decisions that have been made in an allocation framework through the local plan process. Hon. Members will see in the working paper that one of our proposals, for a national scheme for delegation, would require all applications that are in accordance with the development plan to be determined by officers. That will free up committees to focus on controversial development that is out of step with the local plan that elected members and officers put forward after consultation with their communities.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

As there are 8.5 million people in England with unmet housing need, the Liberal Democrats welcome the plans for further house building. For us, the priority has to be the delivery of social homes. We need 150,000 annually, and we need housing that local people can genuinely afford. On the topic of social housing, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Let us be clear: when Whitehall takes planning decisions out of the hands of local councillors, it is taking decisions out of the hands of local people. That is undemocratic, and we would reverse that. Instead, Government should unblock the thousands of permitted homes that are not being built—for example, through “use it or lose it” permissions, by having more than just one extra planning officer per local authority, and by allowing councils to set their fees and to ringfence that income for planning departments. Will the Minister allow councils to set their application fees, and ensure that that funding is ringfenced for planning departments?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that set of questions, and I am glad that he personally welcomes housing. When it comes to his party, on this issue, as on so many others, the view you get depends on what part of the country you are in. We are absolutely committed to increasing the delivery of social and affordable homes. We have taken decisive early steps to bring that forward, including by securing an additional £500 million in the Budget for the affordable homes programme.

Until the Liberal Democrats set out how they will pay for 150,000 social rented homes a year, I find the hon. Gentleman’s ambition in that area a little lacking in credibility. We are taking steps to get serious on build out—that is part of our planning agenda—but on these changes, we think it is right that planning committees should operate as effectively as possible in exercising democratic oversight, not revisit or relitigate the same decisions, and focus on applications that require planning committee member input. He is absolutely right that we need more planning capacity in the system. That is why we are making changes through the NPPF to support that, and why at the Budget the Chancellor announced a £46 million package of investment to support capacity and capability in local planning authorities.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

When I was leader of Manchester city council, I spent a large percentage of my time trying to right the wrongs of Labour and Conservative Governments in the ’60s and ’70s who had made a similar dash to build many, many houses. I spent my time finding ways to fund the demolition of deck-access housing. As a result, I became convinced that the solution to every problem is not more power to the centre. The people in Chorley know what is best for Chorley, Mr Speaker, just as the people in Manchester know what is best for Manchester. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will look at the mistakes that were made in the ’60s and ’70s in the dash for building, and ensure that we do not have really bad decisions made from the centre, or the exclusion of local councils?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right about some of the bad decisions that were made in the past. I am a keen student of history and am well aware of some of them, and we definitely take them into account when making our own decisions. On what he said about seizing power from the centre, this is absolutely nothing of the sort. We are proposing a national scheme of delegation to provide consistency in how councils make these important decisions. That involves a national scheme of delegation, which balances vital local democratic oversight with ensuring that planning committees operate as effectively as possible. In instances where local councillors are not making the decisions and applications can be dealt with by trained local planning officers—not by me, or by officials in Whitehall—we think that is the right thing to do, in order to streamline the delivery of essential housing in parts of the country that are crying out for those homes.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

There is nothing more controversial than Governments seeking to bypass local democracy. I saw that with the desire of the last Government to bypass local democracy by imposing a special development order on RAF Scampton, and I see it now with the many applications to build solar farms that are ostensibly national infrastructure projects. The present planning system was largely created by the Labour Government, and has stood the test of time. Can the Minister assure me that whatever he decides finally, we will not degrade local democracy? It is essential that people join a council, and join a planning committee, knowing that they have real powers and are not under the cosh of Government, or plans imposed by Government.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. We have to take steps to fix the ailing planning system that we have inherited. It is failing on a number of fronts, and trust and confidence in it is at a record low. As for the assertion that we have heard, for all the hyperbole from Conservative Members, we are not seizing power from the centre. We are saying to local communities, “Put an up-to-date local plan in place, and when sites are allocated through that local plan, you can be confident that they will be built out in the manner that you have specified. It is through local plans that you get your control.” However, when it comes to the decisions on specific sites, let us ensure, if we can, that elected members are directed towards the most significant and controversial applications, as opposed to some of the minor applications that involve technical reserved matters questions. I have sat on a planning committee; I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has. In the case of those applications, the initial decision can be re-litigated and revisited, rather than the technical issues being put to us. Let us ensure that those decisions sit in the hands of trained planning professionals, and get planning committee member time focused on the applications that deserve it.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

It is good to see the Government’s recommitment to the importance of local plans. In July this year, Milton Keynes city council went through the important process of developing a local plan. During the election campaign, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), visited my home town and described the development of a local plan as “reckless”. Will the Minister reassure us that this Government do not believe that local plans are reckless, but consider them necessary for the sustainable delivery of the homes that the country needs?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I absolutely agree with him. We have a local-plan-led planning system, in which fewer than a third of areas have an up-to-date local plan, and that is unsustainable. We are absolutely determined to drive towards universal local plan coverage. The measures on which we are consulting—and I emphasise that this is a working paper; we are seeking views, and hon. Members are more than welcome to submit theirs as we refine our proposals—will reinforce and support the plan-led system by ensuring that officer and member time is focused on the applications where that is most needed. Communities can have confidence that once they have an up-to-date local plan, it can be decided what to build, and where, in accordance with the wishes of local communities and the wider national planning policy framework.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

As the Housing and Planning Minister will be aware, both Dacorum borough council and Three Rivers district council in my constituency are Lib Dem-controlled; Three Rivers has been for over 20 years. Both councils do not have an up-to-date local plan. Can the Minister advise the House about what would happen if the Government imposed a local plan on an authority? Would those decisions be delegated to officers? If so, the process would have no democratic mandate at all.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have not outlined any proposals in the working paper that relate to call-ins or the takeover of local plans from the centre. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, though, that Ministers already have powers to take over a local plan in extremis; they have not been used before. We are more than willing to use all the powers at our disposal to ensure that we have up-to-date local plan coverage. If there are local authorities out there—I say this very candidly and openly to the House—that resist the changes that we are trying to make and take no steps towards putting an up-to-date local plan in place, we will consider using all the powers at our disposal. It is through local plans that we will drive sustainable housing supply in the years to come.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

I welcome the mandatory training. As a former chair of a planning committee, I know that training was part of the process that we implemented, so it is good to see that it will be delivered across the board. We approved some developments multiple times on the same site, such as a maternity block in my constituency, which was then flipped and sold on to another developer. Could the Minister please tell us what steps are being taken to account for land banking or flipping sites via developers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are good examples of training across the country. Hon. Members seemed to indicate earlier that they thought that mandatory training for councillors was in place. It is not in place. We know there are good examples out there, but provision is inconsistent, and we think that we need to take forward mandatory training to ensure that all councillors have the necessary knowledge to make the best decisions on individual applications.

On my hon. Friend’s point about trading of land, she is absolutely right. There is far too much speculative development in this country. We have a dysfunctional land market. Again, I come back to the importance of up-to-date local plans. It is through up-to-date local plans that communities have the ability to shape development in their area in the best possible way in accordance with their wishes. On build-out more generally, we are considering what options might be available to us to ensure that the build-out of consented sites goes forward, alongside our new homes accelerator, which was announced a few months back.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Until September this year, I was a proud elected member of Stockport council. I made decisions on planning, because in Stockport we decide at ward level what is appropriate for each ward. If I understand the Government’s suggestions correctly, the power to decide for ourselves has been taken away from Stockport council. Could the Minister confirm my understanding?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid to say that the hon. Lady’s understanding is not correct. I encourage her to read the working paper. It is a working paper, and we are seeking initial views on a national scheme of delegation. There are three options in the working paper. I look forward to her submitting her views in full, and I will happily consider them.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s new ambition on homes and note that the stated aim is to ensure that

“skilled planning officers in local authorities are given the appropriate amount of trust and empowerment.”

Unfortunately, that is not the case in Middlesbrough, because the last Tory Government handed over power to the unwanted Middlesbrough Development Corporation, which totally undermined the council’s planning department and instead used a private planning consultancy, at a significantly higher cost to the public purse and with a considerable loss of democratic authority. What assurances can the Minister give me that Middlesbrough will get the trust, the empowerment and, indeed, the affordable housing that it needs, and that local democratic legitimacy will be restored?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of local empowerment and of local communities shaping development in their areas—most importantly, as I have made clear in answer to several questions, through up-to-date local plans.

My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not comment on the specifics of the development corporation in his area, but on planning officers more generally, the Government want to make sure—this is what we are testing through the proposals in the working paper—that skilled planning officers in local authorities have the right level of trust and empowerment to resolve select applications more quickly in the service of residents and business. We also want to ensure that planning professionals are fully supported in their roles, and that their experience and skills are put to best use, which will allow members to focus on the most significant and most controversial applications, including those out of line with up-to-date local plans.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

There are a remarkable number of contradictions. The Minister says that he wants more democratic oversight while removing the democratic local voice of councillors. He said he is being decisive while also saying he has existing powers that he has not used and that this is not a firm set of proposals. He is not proposing anything around tech and improvements, while the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is giving a big speech this week on exactly that, as the centrepiece of Government change. Why does the Minister think that the way to bring clarity to the transport system and local plan is to tell people to engage with the local plan, then at the same time tell them that if they do so, the people most engaged with that, the democratically elected councillors, will be ignored if they then follow that local plan?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that, for a start, he has clearly not read the working paper. His question was a mess of contradictions. What we are clearly saying to local communities is, “Get an up-to-date local plan in place; you can then have confidence that that local plan will be delivered; you can have confidence that applications in line with that local plan will be delivered; and you can have confidence that elected planning members will be focused on the most significant and the most controversial applications, and that local planning officers in those authorities can ensure that other applications that need not go before members are determined in accordance with the local plan as well as the national planning policy framework.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

We have had trouble with house building because the speed with which houses are built has been dictated by developers. What we need to see, when planning permission is granted, is that the developer must either use it or lose it. We cannot allow those companies to continue to land bank and use their land only when they are confident that house prices are continuing to rise. Does my hon. Friend intend to deal with those aspects of the housing market?

[Matthew Pennycook]

On many sites across the country there are genuine reasons, including those of viability, why sites are not built out. It is not as simple as saying that every consented site that is not being built out is being sat on deliberately by developers, but we know that land is traded speculatively. I want to reassure my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour that, as I have made clear in answer to previous questions, there are existing powers that we can consider bringing into force, and there are measures that we took forward in the consultation on the national planning policy framework that we think will help build-out, particularly on proposals around mixed-use sites, but there is potentially more that we can do in this area and we are keeping the matter under close review.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

Speaking as—until recently—the leader of a district council and a long-term member of our planning committee, I do not recognise the issues that the Minister is citing. A lot of the things he says relate to the absence of a local plan. I fully agree with that. My council has just put in place a new local plan, which is hopefully being approved right now. A better way to get more affordable housing would be to look at the way local authorities can finance the building of those houses and fix that. It would be better to allow local authorities to charge appropriate amounts to cover the costs of the planning, so that they can get the necessary planning officers, and far better to look at how many councils already do mandatory training. I hear from Liberal Democrat colleagues that they all had to do mandatory training, as I did in my council, so that is in place. I would like to see a list of how many councils do not do that. We also need to make water companies statutory consultees so that we do not hit flooding problems. Those changes will help. The problem is not in the planning process. More than 1 million applications have been allowed but not built—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we could have built a whole estate by now.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Indeed, Mr Speaker, and I get a strong sense that an Adjournment debate application will be coming your way on several of those issues. Let me address a number of them. The hon. Gentleman says that training is in place in most parts of the country, in which case local authorities should have no problem with mandatory training being requested by the centre, and only a small number of authorities—if it is a small number—would have to put such training in place.

The hon. Gentleman makes points on capacity and planning fees. I hope he will have seen in the recent consultation on proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework that the Government set out proposed changes to planning application fees and also sought views on the localisation of such fees.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I would encourage him to read the working paper. Most planning committees make well considered and fair decisions most of the time, but we know that there is practice out there of planning committees making decisions that are not in accordance with material planning considerations, repeatedly revisiting and re-litigating the planning answers. We have to look at how we can streamline that process, and I encourage him to engage with that work.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

So much of the success of a local plan seems to hinge on co-production with local communities. Will the Minister describe effective models of that?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the problems we have in our planning system is that not enough people engage with applications or, in particular, with the local plan process. We need to ensure that more people are engaged upstream in the production of local plans because, as I said, they are the best way to shape development in a particular local community. There are a number of things we can do, not least through some of the innovations coming forward as a result of the previous Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which has a huge amount of potential in terms of digital planning and how it can allow communities to see spatially the type of development that might come forward in their area.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

This working paper smacks of having been thought up after a request for options to streamline the planning process. What is the evidence that what planning committees decide is the fundamental obstacle in the planning system? There is no evidence to suggest that these decisions are the problem. The problems are far wider.

The reason why the Government will not succeed in building 1.5 million homes in England and Wales between now and the general election is a far bigger problem. Will the Government produce a comprehensive assessment of all the things that delay house building in this country? We would then see how significant, or insignificant, this figure is.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman gives the impression that I stood up today and said, “This is our solution to all the flaws of the planning system in England.” This is one small part of a much wider planning reform agenda. He will know that, in our first month in office, we brought forward very significant changes to the national planning policy framework. We are committed to introducing a planning and infrastructure Bill early next year. This working paper is one small part of a larger agenda, but it is an important part, because we know that planning applications are taking far too long in particular. We need to streamline the process to ensure that we get the homes and places coming forward that our communities need.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

Unlike other colleagues, I have never been on a planning committee. However, I know the effects of the current system and its failings. I know that only 19% of major decisions are made within the 13-week statutory framework, and I know that we have an absolute housing crisis in this country. I know the impact of the delay, prevarication and rampant nimbyism we saw over the past 14 years. Does the Minister agree that it is finally time to grasp these issues head-on?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In a word, yes. In some ways, I feel quite envious of my hon. Friend having not sat on a planning committee. It is an experience that I think everyone in the House should undergo at one point in their career. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These proposals are to test some of the measures that we are considering bringing forward in the planning and infrastructure Bill, the objective of which is to encourage better quality development that is aligned with local development plans, to facilitate the speedy delivery of the quality homes and places that our communities need, and to give applicants the certainty they need that their applications will be determined in a timely manner.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

In advance of these proposals, has the Minister made any assessment of the number of senior local authority planning officers who move on to work directly for, or as private planning consultants to, large developers? Will he consider something I would like to see done anyway, which is registers of interests, gifts and hospitality, and bringing senior planners under the wing of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, or a similar independent body, so that we can have the transparency we really need?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Lady for her suggestion. Proposals in that area are not considered as part of this working paper, but she is more than welcome to submit her views in detail on that point.

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

Crewe FC, a fantastic community football club in my constituency, has plans for over £1 million of investment in grassroots football facilities, but that is at risk because of delays in the Cheshire East planning department. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s drive to reform planning should ensure speedier decision making, in order to deliver the crucial facilities that our communities need?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I said in response to a previous question, part of the objective of the proposals set out in the working paper is to test whether they will facilitate the speedy delivery of homes and places that our communities need. My hon. Friend is right that speed is part of the challenge, but there is also a big challenge around the capacity and capability of local planning departments. We consulted on changes to application fees and localisation of such fees in the recent consultation on the NPPF. The Department has a dedicated planning capacity and capability programme that directs support at local authorities, but we hope the £46 million package of investment secured in the Budget will go some way to supporting local planning authorities with the help they need on capacity and capability. That is a hugely important part of the system, and we need to support those who want to do the right thing.

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

In an exchange a few moments ago, the Minister seemed to agree that this measure is designed to fight nimbyism. I understand what nimbyism means when it relates to an individual objector or a group of objectors, but when it relates to the members of a planning committee, that suggests that the Minister regards an elected body of specialist councillors as people who are saying “not in my back yard”, when in fact they are considering the welfare of their communities. Would he like to think about that point again?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In general terms, I find the yimby versus nimby debate incredibly reductive; it does not get to heart of some of the challenges that we face with our planning system. We are not accusing elected councillors across the country of acting in a knee-jerk, nimby way. We are saying to them that there is a way to streamline the process, where we can focus their time and energy on those applications that are significant or controversial, and allow trained planning officers to make decisions in other areas, in accordance with up-to-date local plans, which are the best ways that communities have to shape development in their area.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

We are in a housing crisis. Last year, the number of planning permissions granted was the lowest in a decade. What work is the Minister undertaking to turn the page on the failure of the last Government, so that we can build the social housing that is desperately needed in places such as Portsmouth, where viability and cost pose difficulties and barriers? Will he meet me to discuss the Portsmouth local plan?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The evidence speaks for itself. Partly as a result of the change that the previous Government made to the national planning policy framework in December 2023, housing supply in this country has nose-dived. Permissions and completions are at their lowest in a decade—

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

That is not true.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is true. The Office for Budget Responsibility is projecting that supply will dip below 200,000 homes this year, and the affordable homes programme is on course to deliver between 110,000 and 130,000 affordable homes, not the original 180,000 that were allotted to it. We are taking steps to increase the supply of social and affordable homes, including using the £500 million in additional funding secured for the affordable homes programme in the recent Budget.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Labour-led Basildon borough council’s new draft plan is at the regulation 18 stage, but it proposes a completely unsustainable 27,000 new properties across the borough, including 4,300 in Wickford, in my constituency, which is completely unsustainable and would involve concreting over whole swathes of our local green belt. As well as reimposing mandatory housing targets, which are an insult to local democracy, why is Labour now trying to neuter local planning committees of democratically elected councillors, taking away the say of local people, when it is desperately difficult to persuade people to vote in local elections as it is?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Mr Speaker, you will forgive me if I do not comment on the specifics of the local planning question, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the role of the Secretary of State in planning applications. We set out transitional arrangements in the NPPF consultation in July for how local plans at regulation 18 and 19 stage will proceed through the system, to ensure that we get up-to-date local plans through where appropriate and meet housing need in terms of the revised standard method that we have put forward.

We are determined to get these homes built. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) says that those levels of housing are unsustainable. It will be for the Planning Inspectorate to decide whether the local plan is sound, but I do not take issue in any way with the ambition that the local authority is showing. We have an acute and entrenched housing crisis in this country. Every week in my advice surgery—I am sure that his is the same—people come to me who are desperately in need of houses. The 1 million homes that the previous Government built in the last Parliament are not enough. We will build 1.5 million homes over the next five years.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Two weekends ago, while knocking on doors, I met a mother who lives with her two adult children. Both those children have professional jobs and earn decent salaries, yet cannot afford their own home, so they are stuck living back in the family home while they save up the money that they need. The housing crisis that the Government inherited has ended the dream of home ownership for too many young people. Will the Minister set out what more we can do to ensure that the dream of home ownership is open to everyone in my constituency?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I say, we inherited an acute and entrenched housing crisis, with 1.3 million people languishing on social housing waiting lists and a generation locked out of home ownership. To their shame, the Conservative Government passed on a situation where 150,000 homeless children are in temporary accommodation as we speak. We have to build the homes that our people need, and we are determined to do so.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities, and the MP for a constituency that suffers from surface water flooding as well as river flooding, I am concerned that the proposals will divert decision making away from those with the greatest local knowledge. When a flooding area is drained, the water has to go somewhere else, and where it goes is critical to the people living in the surrounding area. Can the Minister reassure me that the proposals will not dilute the importance of local knowledge in making critical decisions about draining and flooding when we build?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I can reassure the hon. Lady on that point. The proposals will operate within the context of a national planning policy framework that has very clear requirements in relation to flooding. We are in no way removing local expertise and knowledge from the system; either experienced and trained local planning officers or locally elected authority members should make the decisions, but we have to ensure that they are making the right ones, and that their energy is focused in the right way, to streamline the decisions that we need. We heard the statistics on how planning applications are not progressing through the system at a timely pace. We need to turn things around.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the comments of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), on ensuring that the planning authority for Middlesbrough sits within Middlesbrough. Young families in Teesside are desperate to get on the housing ladder, yet last year the number of new homes given planning permission fell to a 10-year low. Can the Minister reassure the House of the steps that he will take to ensure that homes are built and that we get Britain building again?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: permissions have fallen sharply, in part because of changes that the previous Government made to the national planning policy framework, which gave local authorities myriad excuses to bring forward plans that were below their nominal target, although it remained in place. We have got to oversupply permissions into the system, which is precisely why the proposed changes in our consultation on the NPPF would make 370,000 the standard method total envelope. That is how we will build 1.5 million homes over the next five years.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The Deputy Prime Minister said that this country has plenty of houses. If that is true, can the Minister explain why the Government are imposing an 82% increase in the housing target for Bromsgrove district?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we consulted on a revised standard method that we think meets the scale of the ambition required to build the homes that our people need across the country. We realise that it will put pressure on those areas that need to increase their targets. We have put forward proposals on how support will be put in place, but that is the level of ambition that we need to meet an acute and entrenched housing crisis, the consequences of which I have set out.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister was at pains to say this weekend that nature recovery could happen hand in hand with the ambitious planning target she set. The Environmental Audit Committee is looking at the matter. Our opening inquiry is into the environmental impact of the plans being set out by the Minister. Will the training of planning committee members cover matters such as renewable energy, floodplains and renewable transport to ensure that new planning applications do not negatively impact the environment?

[Matthew Pennycook]

On mandatory training, we are considering a wide range of implementation options. We are keen to work with all stakeholders. I encourage my hon. Friend in his capacity as Committee Chair to put his views into the consultation—we want to determine the best way forward. On nature more generally, we are clear that there is a win-win to be had. The status quo is not working. Nature recovery is not proceeding in the strategic way that is possible. Development is not coming forward; it is being held up and deterred. If there is a win-win that does not involve a reduction in environmental protections, we want to bring it forward, and that is what we are looking to do in the planning and infrastructure Bill next year.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The reform represents a loss of control when local communities such as mine in the lakes and the dales are desperate for more control. With over 90% of the homes in some of our villages being second homes, we are crying out for the Minister to bring in a change of use for planning for second homes so that we can limit the numbers in those communities. Will he look at doing that in the coming days?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I refute entirely the hon. Gentleman’s claim that the changes represent a loss of control. I encourage him to read the paper, which is about ensuring that decisions are taken by the right local, experienced—professional or elected—members as is appropriate. He and I have had this conversation about second homes many times before. He knows that we are looking and are interested in what additional powers we can give local communities to bear down on the negative impacts of excessive concentrations of short-term lets and second homes. We want to give local communities more power to tackle some of those problems, not less. The proposals in the working paper are in line with that general sentiment.

[Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his work on this and other areas to boost growth across the country for families in my constituency and elsewhere. I note that this weekend the Leader of the Opposition met her Canadian Conservative counterpart —a Conservative who has embraced planning reform and pro-growth measures and who is gaining rapidly in the polls, as far as I can see. Does he agree that it is interesting to see Conservative Members taking an entirely different approach, opposing sensible changes that would support growth in this country and sticking with chaos in the planning system, rather than stability, which is the foundation for economic growth?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right. These are sensible, proportionate changes to streamline the delivery of housing across the country—housing that we desperately need. If the Conservatives want to put their heads in the sand and resist reform in this area, all they will be doing is digging their long-term electoral grave. The people of this country want good homes and good neighbourhoods to live in. That is what we are determined to bring forward.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

The Minister speaks of mandatory training for councillors, but it has been tried before. It sounds like an effort by central Government to make councillors think more like planning officers, rather than be representatives of their local community. Those of us who have served on local authorities know full well that there are frequently recommendations from officers to approve major schemes, which, in the wider context—infrastructure, schools, GPs and so on—planning committees have refused. Can the Minister assure us that they would still have discretion to turn down applications, even if the recommendation from officers was to approve them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I encourage the hon. Gentleman to engage with the proposals set out in the working paper. Nothing is definite, nothing is finite; these are our initial views, which we want to test, and I welcome his contribution to that. We are saying in particular that, yes, elected members should be taking decisions on the most significant and controversial applications, but for minor reserved matters and technical issues on which skilled local planning officers can come forward and make decisions, that is helpful and appropriate to streamline the planning system locally.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

Residents in towns and villages across my constituency want an efficient and accountable planning system. Could the Minister set out in more detail how he sees these plans interacting with processes around master planning and the negotiation of planning conditions?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I encourage my hon. Friend to read the working paper. He is welcome to submit his views on the potential interaction of these proposals with master planning and planning conditions. We have not set out specific proposals for those areas in the working paper, but I am more than happy to take his views into account.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I was never brave enough to serve on a planning committee during my 10 years as a local councillor—there are just not enough hours in the day. There are a range of views on this. I have some sympathy with the notion that we need to speed up the delivery of new homes—we have a housing crisis, and it is important that we do that—but does the Minister accept that, with the streamlining he is talking about, one new planning authority simply will not cut it?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The 300 planning officers that we are working to bring through the system with apprenticeships and training are just one part of the solution to address the real capacity and capability constraints that local planning departments face. I have already outlined, as I hope the hon. Gentleman heard, the £46 million of investment allocated in the Budget to help local authorities with planning capacity and capability. As I said, we have also consulted on proposals for the potential localisation of fees. The 300 planners are one element of how we want to support local planning authorities to get capacity in the system, so that they can make decisions at pace and in a timely manner.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the Government are consulting on the creation of smaller targeted planning committees specifically for strategic development. Ebbsfleet Garden City in my constituency shows the value of strategic development. The new settlement is expected to grow from 5,000 to 15,000 homes over the next decade. Notwithstanding key challenges—including the need for better access to decent bus services and, in my view, for the Elizabeth line to be extended to Ebbsfleet—the way that the community is being developed shows the importance of planning for place rather than for individual developments. Will the Minister consider joining me on a visit to see how the Government could, for their plans for a generation of new towns, learn from Ebbsfleet’s lessons?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think I am owed a visit to Ebbsfleet at some point, so I will happily take that up with my hon. Friend outside the Chamber. I am glad that he mentions strategic planning committees—one of the changes that we have put forward in the working paper and would like views on. We think that they should cover, in theory, large-scale allocated regeneration or industrial sites, including urban extensions or opportunity areas—large sites in local communities that could benefit from a more streamlined process. A smaller group of elected councillors with the expertise and knowledge about a specific site could make decisions about it, rather than all such proposals being taken to wider planning committees.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Is it not the case that the Government have realised that the mandatory top-down targets they came up with are now unachievable, and that, in their panic, they have come up with a policy that will undermine local democratic voices and take people away from, not closer to, the democratic process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman’s definition of “panic” is, but these are proposals that we set out in the King’s Speech and said we would bring forward—that was in July. I am not sure how that constitutes panic, but he might give me a lesson in that.

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

Some 47% of all the casework my office processed last week was regarding housing, or lack thereof. We absolutely must build 1.5 million new homes in this country if we are to solve the housing crisis and restore the dream of home ownership. I have certainly known councillors to oppose housing developments because they worry that the necessary infrastructure—the schools, roads, GP appointments and so on—will not come with it. What reassurances can my hon. Friend give that, either as part of these smaller reforms around committees or as part of the broader reforms we are bringing in, we will absolutely make sure that we build the necessary infrastructure alongside the necessary houses?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. To return to an earlier question, there are a small number of people out there who are out-and-out nimbys—as we might put it—who will resist development of any kind in their area. There is a much wider group of people in our communities across the country who want to see better, infrastructure-led development. That is something we are taking forward, not least through changes consulted on in the NPPF, but we know there is more work to do in this area. I would be more than happy to speak to my hon. Friend about what more we can do.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is not local planning authorities that stop house building, but land supplies and land banking, as we have already heard this afternoon. In Bath and north-east Somerset alone, something like 2,000 homes have received planning permission but have not been built yet. Should the Government not concentrate on land banking rather than threatening to destroy a vital part of local democracy, and why is land banking not part of the Minister’s consultation paper?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is not either/or. We have to have more permissions going into the system and more timely planning decisions made in accordance with material planning considerations and in a consistent way, not relitigating or revisiting decisions that have been made in outline. However, we also absolutely have to take action on land supply and build-out, and I have made clear in answer to previous questions that we are giving the matter further thought.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituents often complain about the amount of time it takes for a plan to go from paper to the end product. In fact, it is a conversation I often have with my best hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). [Hon. Members: “Aww!”] I need some brownie points back.

Can you tell me—[Interruption.] Can the Minister tell me how these plans can speed up that process for my constituents in Harlow?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is progress, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We do need to speed up the process of local plan development. In a way that the previous Government never did, we are going to adhere to the timelines we are setting for local plan development—for new-style local plans to come forward—and we need to ensure that individual planning applications are made in a timely manner, within the set timelines, to give certainty to the sector that what they bring forward can be built out if they put an application in.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

May I say gently to the Minister that he has been passed a bit of a dud here? I think that experienced Labour Members know that, which is why not a single long-standing Member on the Minister’s Benches has stood up to defend this specific policy this afternoon. Is that because Labour Members, like most MPs, know that the local planning committees they have been involved in and seen make important decisions on a regular basis? They cannot be replaced by planning officers, because those officers are not embedded in local communities. Does the Minister really think that planning officers can replace local councillors on important matters such as this?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that 96% of planning application decisions are already made by planning officers. What we are saying is that there is a way to streamline the system that we want to test views on, which will ensure that the most significant and controversial applications still come to elected members, but that we get the full use out of trained planning officers, who are embedded in their local communities and are cognisant of what a local plan requires.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

I, too, am happy to speak with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) concerning my planning issues, but I am hoping that the Minister can answer the question too. Tory-led Tonbridge and Malling borough council has allowed predatory development in Burham, Eccles and Wouldham, precisely because it has not delivered a local plan over many years. Does the Minister agree that we need firm timetables for the delivery of local plans that are robust and listen to local concerns, but also that training should be put in place for appeals so that taxpayers in those local areas are not burdened with fines?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. At the moment, the system incentivises allowing speculative development to come forward and go to the Planning Inspectorate on appeal, because then the local authority or local council members are not responsible for the decision. We have to ensure that we have better, up-to-date local plan coverage, which is the best way to shape development in the area. Less speculative development on unallocated sites will therefore come forward, with more allocated and planned development through the local plans system, but with streamlined and timely decisions. That is what we are aiming for, and this working paper is but a small aspect of that wider agenda we are taking forward.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Some 57% of East Devon is made up of national landscapes, previously known as areas of outstanding natural beauty. I welcome the fact that these areas are protected from housing and industrial development, but for planning committees that have to meet the Minister’s targets, national landscapes compress the area that remains, which can be devastating for flood-prone villages such as Feniton. How are these reforms going to help people who are seeing housing targets concentrated on their village because they live near a national landscape?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope the hon. Gentleman is aware that in those areas—he highlights very real problems about the unavailability of data to shape local targets across areas where there are such protected places—the Planning Inspectorate will test whether a local plan is sound, and will make a judgment about whether such hard constraints make a difference to the allocations the local area needs to bring forward. I am more than happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman about the specifics of development in his area if he would find that helpful.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his answers. He has put forward some very positive ideas to advance housing development, and that must not be ignored by anybody in this House. Has he had the opportunity to have any discussions with the devolved Administrations, bearing in mind the UK-wide need for reform of planning, no matter where it is, to allow for affordable housing, business premises, expansion and, vitally, the need to increase and attract manufacturing production capabilities for our economic growth and community standards, and to restore confidence for home ownership?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Can I say that I always welcome a question from the hon. Member, not least because it signals the end of an urgent question?

I would say to the hon. Member that my ministerial colleagues in the Department and I regularly meet our counterparts from the devolved authorities to learn lessons about what is different, but also about what is similar and about some of the challenges we face in a shared way across this United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

9. What changes her Department is making to the national planning policy framework.

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

As hon. Members will be aware, we consulted on proposed changes to the national planning policy framework and other changes to the planning system between 30 July and 24 September. My officials and I have been analysing the over 10,000 responses received, with a view to publishing a Government response before the end of the year. We also intend to bring forward the planning and infrastructure Bill, announced in the King’s Speech, early next year.

[Louise Jones]

Many young families would love to live in my beautiful constituency of North East Derbyshire, but unfortunately we just do not have the housing for them. Could the Minister assure me that our planning reforms will enable us to get the right housing in the right places with the right amenities, to complement the beautiful constituency?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The Government are determined to increase rates of house building in order to address the housing crisis and boost economic growth, but we are equally committed to improving the quality and sustainability of the homes and neighbourhoods that are built during our period in office. In the aforementioned NPPF consultation, we proposed a series of changes to realise that ambition, including golden rules to ensure that development in the green belt is in the public interest, and a vision-led approach to transport planning.

[Mr Mohindra]

The dangerous proposed reforms to the NPPF are among the many things that the Labour Government have rushed through in the past five months. How will those reforms ensure that villages such as Kings Langley, and South West Hertfordshire, retain their individual character and identity, and do not have their green spaces re-banded as grey belt, concreted over and absorbed into an ever-increasing Greater London?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are not going to concrete over the green belt. The Government are committed to preserving the green belt, which has served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, but we have to move away from the previous Government’s approach to it, which was to allow land in it to regularly be released in a haphazard matter, often for speculative development that did not meet local housing need. This Government are committed to taking a smarter, more strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release, so that we can build more homes in the right places and secure additional public benefit through the operation of our golden rules.

[Josh MacAlister]

My constituency is fortunate enough to have a number of potential projects that are ripe for investment, including the Port of Workington and energy projects for new nuclear and other kinds of clean energy. They are essential projects for economic growth, but to get them going we need major planning reform, not just for housing but for infrastructure projects. Does the Minister agree on the urgent need for planning reform for infrastructure, and that any legislation that we bring forward must be comprehensive, so that we can remove all the obstacles that stand between us and getting building?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I wholeheartedly agree. The delivery of critical national infrastructure is essential for economic growth, accelerating the UK’s efforts towards clean power by 2030, and energy independence. The Bill in question will include old measures to streamline the delivery of infrastructure and new homes. Furthermore, our forthcoming 10-year infrastructure strategy will provide a strategic road map for how we plan for future needs and support our commitment by making timely decisions on national infrastructure.

[Dr Evans]

Under the housing targets, Hinckley and Bosworth will see a 59% increase in housing. North West Leicestershire will see it go up by 74%, but Leicester city, where there is brownfield and infrastructure, will see it fall by 31%. That is compounded by the fact that the Liberal Democrat-run borough council in Hinckley and Bosworth does not have an up-to-date local plan. Given that there is speculative development in Hinckley and Bosworth, will the Minister consider strengthening neighbourhood plans? We know that they deliver more housing, provide protections for people locally and have buy-in from communities, yet the council suffers without an up-to-date one.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we are leaving in place the protections on neighbourhood planning. He is mistaken if he is suggesting that we are skewing development towards rural areas. The proposed standard method, which we consulted on, significantly boosts expectations across city regions. Indeed, across mayoral combined authority areas, it would see targets grow by more than 30%. Local plans are the best way for communities to control development in their areas. I am sure that he will agree that Hinckley and Bosworth borough council needs an up-to-date local plan in place. Perhaps he can work with me to ensure that that is the case.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Ministers briefed the media over a week ago about plans for local government reorganisation and devolution. When do the Government plan to set them before the House, so that Members representing areas across the country can take a view?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not sure how that relates to planning reform, which is the subject of the question, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government will set out in due course how our plans for devolution will be taken forward.

[David Simmonds]

Apologies if there is confusion; I was expecting to come in on question 4. [Interruption.] I am glad to hear it.

Many areas of the country stand to lose millions of pounds from the scrapping of the rural services grant—one of many local government funding streams that are expected to change. When will our councils, and this House, know the full impact of the financial changes, so that any reorganisation, devolution, or changes to local plans and other council strategies can be delivered with full knowledge of the impact that the changes will have on councils’ on the ability to lead locally?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Full details of the provisional settlement will be set out in the coming weeks.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

4. What discussions she has had with local government representatives on potential future devolution agreements in Somerset.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)]

11. What steps she plans to take to reform the leasehold system.

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

For far too many leaseholders, the reality of home ownership has fallen woefully short of the dream. Over the course of this Parliament, the Government are determined to honour the commitments made in our manifesto and to do what is necessary to finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end. On 21 November, I made a written ministerial statement to update the House on the steps that the Government intend to take to implement the reforms to the leasehold system that are already in statue, and to progress the wider set of reforms that are necessary to end the system for good.

[Damien Egan]

I recently met people living on the redeveloped Blackberry Hill hospital site in Fishponds, and they told me about the excessive and unfair leasehold charges that they face from their property management company, FirstPort. What assurances can the Minister provide that this Government will, once and for all, free people from the leaseholder system and end the rip-off fees?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Government are acutely aware that far too many leaseholders across the country are routinely subject to unjustified permissions and administration fees, unreasonable or extortionate charges, and onerous conditions that are imposed with little or no consultation. That is not what home ownership should entail, and it is why we must bring the system to an end in this Parliament. As I set out in the written ministerial statement to which I referred earlier, the Government will act to protect leaseholders from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents, such as the ones my hon. Friend mentioned, by strengthening regulation in this area.

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

May I thank the Minister for the answers that he has given me in this Chamber, and in a written answer at the end of October, on the plight of leaseholders who have extra apartment levels grafted on above the blocks in which they live? I appreciate that he does not want to alter the planning presumption in favour of granting permission to build add-on extra levels, but will he at least consider outlawing any attempt by freeholders to pass on the cost of botched extensions to the poor old leaseholders, who have suffered enough by having such extensions built over their heads in the first place?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He will recognise—I know he does—that those types of developments are the result of the expansion of permitted development rights that was taken forward after 2013. There are issues with the quality of some of the works that have come through that stream. On the specific issue he raises, perhaps it might be a good idea if we sat down together. I will happily discuss with him how we can protect leaseholders from those types of variable service charge increases.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

Battersea is home to a large number of leaseholders, many of whom have had to face astronomically high service charges from what we all know are unscrupulous management agents. I am very pleased that this Government will protect leaseholders, given that the last Government failed to do so, but is the Minister willing to meet me and some of my leaseholders so that he can share Labour’s plans to protect them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I am more than happy to sit down with her, or to join a call or meeting with leaseholders in her constituency, in order to discuss the Government’s plans to end the system in this Parliament. We fully appreciate the wish of leaseholders across the country for us to act with speed. As the ministerial statement sets out, we also have got to balance that with the need to get these reforms right. The serious and specific flaws that were left to us by the previous Government in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 are a warning about what happens when reform in this area is not done properly.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to continue our work to address issues with the current leasehold system. However, where we are building new towns, such as Sherford in my constituency, residents, like others in new builds, face council tax and service charges, with no likelihood of that changing. What plans does the Minister have to address the impact of service charges in new towns as part of leasehold reform?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think the hon. Lady is referring to the pressures placed on residential freeholders as a result of some of the management estate charges that come through that route. There are provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act to provide residential freeholders with additional protections, and we need to bring those measures into force. We also then need to look more widely at how we reduce the prevalence of private and mixed-tenure housing estates, which are the fundamental root of the problem.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

12. What steps she is taking to further devolve powers to local communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

15. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of service charges on residents in social housing.

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

The Government recognise the considerable financial strain that rising service charges are placing on leaseholders, including those whose landlord is a social housing provider. As the hon. Gentleman will know, variable service charges must, by law, be reasonable. Their reasonableness can already be challenged at the appropriate tribunal and the housing ombudsman can investigate complaints about the fairness of service charges made by shared owners, as well as tenants of social housing landlords, but the Government are exploring what more can be done to give leaseholders the protection that they need from unaffordable service charge increases.

[Mr Kohler]

Many leaseholders in my constituency live in properties where Clarion housing association is the freeholder. This year’s service charge is on average almost 50% higher than the original estimate and for some on the High Path estate it is over £1,000 more. Does the Minister agree that leaseholders deserve transparency, not shock bills? What more can be done to give the housing ombudsman the power to demand compensation payments?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that supplementary question and assure him that I share his deep concern about the pressure on the household budgets of shared owners in his constituency, and others across the country, as a result of rising variable service charges. In addition to the routes to redress I have just set out, I draw his and the House’s attention to the measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 that are designed to drive up the transparency of service charges to make them more easily challengeable if leaseholders consider them unreasonable. Further detail about our plan to bring those and other provisions in the Act into force can be found in the written ministerial statement made on 21 November.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

As the Minister will know, social housing providers and councils operate within a regulated service charge regime that does not allow them to make a profit, and the Housing Ombudsman Service is there for any complaints. Will the Minister consider bringing in a similar regime for the private sector?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have set out the routes to redress that are already available and our intention to switch on the measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act, but I am more than happy to sit down and have a conversation with my hon. Friend about what more protection leaseholders in this space require.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

17. What steps her Department is taking to allocate local growth funding according to need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

T5. Given that the Government are already doing another relaunch, would the Secretary of State reconsider the fairness of housing targets, whereby poor delivery by Labour in London is awarded with lower targets to the detriment of areas such as South West Hertfordshire?

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

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear my previous response. The proposed new standard method, which we consulted on, significantly boosts expectations across our city regions. In mayoral combined authority areas, it would see targets grow by more than 30%, matching the ambition of our local leaders.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

T4. The Government are consulting on the future of pan-regional partnerships such as our own Great South-West, which covers Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Dorset. Businesses I speak to value the ability of our regions to speak with one voice on economic issues to Government and to investors, which are important for our region. Would the Minister meet me and businesses to discuss the future of PRPs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

T6. The overheated housing market in York is being fuelled by the 2,193 short-term holiday lets in the city. I have a private Member’s Bill on the subject, so will the Minister work with me as I co-produce the Bill to address this problem in York?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend and I have discussed this matter many times. She is well aware of the Government’s approach to tackling excessive concentrations of short-term lets and second homes. I am of course more than happy to discuss the issue with her again in the future.

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

Most parties in this House, representing a collective total of 500 MPs, agree that first past the post is damaging trust in politics, and 64% of the public would like to see change. Does the Secretary of State agree that a national commission for electoral reform could address that, as recommended by the all-party parliamentary group?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Councils up and down the land, but particularly in the south-east of England, are frustrated by the high levels of undeveloped consents. It is perfectly possible that the Secretary of State will find that, come the next election, her target has been consented but is nowhere near built. Will she consider allowing councils to have a 10-year housing supply number that includes undeveloped consents, so that when the number is reached, developers have no choice but to build?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We took steps, in the proposed reforms to the consultation on the national planning policy framework, to encourage build-out—not least through encouraging mixed-use development. However, we are reflecting on what more can be done to encourage that and to ensure that sites are built out in a timely manner.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

T9. I have a constituent—a young, pregnant woman —who was recently released from hospital and housed in a local hotel that was contracted to house the homeless. She was petrified from the first night. She slept badly because men were banging on her door all night, and she was surrounded by drug use. She felt safer sleeping rough on the second night. Too many of my vulnerable constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South are being housed in accommodation that does not cater to their complex needs. Will the Minister update the House on his work to end the practice of shifting homeless constituents from one area to another to be housed in totally inappropriate—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s commitments, in response to my written parliamentary questions, to a consultation on ending fleecehold. However, my constituents in Markhams Close and across Basildon and Billericay just want to know when that will take place.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I set out in response to a previous question, we will consult on how to end the prevalence of new fleecehold estates, and we will, in the short term, ensure that residents on existing estates have the protections they need against unfair management charges.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I am delighted that the Government’s Mayoral Council is handing back powers to local communities. We are already seeing the impact of that. Claire Ward, the Mayor of the east midlands, attended the first meeting in October. She is leading the way: the east midlands is one of the youth trailblazer regions granted £5 million of Government funding to help young people into work or training. What work are Ministers doing to give those who contribute to our country a say in how it is governed?

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

There is growing concern among constituents that planning decisions are being swept aside because of the Government’s new planning reforms. What assurance can the Minister give that there will be meaningful engagement between constituents and their local planning authority, and that decisions will be respected?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have said, the best way to shape development in any given area is to have an up-to-date local plan in place. Where such plans are not in place, local authorities leave themselves open to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and to development via appeal, so I encourage the hon. Gentleman to ensure that his local authority has an up-to-date plan in place. That is the best way for residents to have control. We want more resident engagement upstream in those local plans.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

In five years, the cost of West Sussex county council’s Oracle upgrade has risen from £2.6 million to £28 million. Is that the kind of contract mismanagement that the Office for Local Government can look into?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Labour’s housing targets desperately need reform to take into account land availability around protected landscapes. The Government have said that the answer is the costly planning appeals system. Does the Minister think that is a good use of taxpayers’ money?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Local plans have to go through examination for a determination of whether they are sound. Hard constraints, such as the type that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, will be taken into account when those plans are tested, even under the new framework.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

The Government’s commitment to build more affordable homes is both welcome and urgent. However, we also need to ensure that registered providers are willing and able to take on section 106 affordable homes when they are built. In recent years, a combination of factors has meant that too many homes stand empty. Will my hon. Friend say what steps can be taken to tackle the section 106 standing stock scandal?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We recognise that this is a growing problem across the country that is having a severe impact on affordable housing supply. My hon. Friend will not have to wait long to find out what the Government propose to do to bear down on this problem.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

The proposed planning reforms mean that towns such as Tring will see up to 40% more housing built on the green belt. What assurances can the Minister give that sacrificing that countryside will not have a negative impact on the community, and that we will have infrastructure before the occupation of homes and truly affordable homes for people in the local community?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We want to put in place a planning system that is geared towards meeting housing need in full. That is a clear difference between us and the Conservative party. In bringing forward its local plan and looking at development, every local area should look first at densification—that is, what it can do on brownfield land. It should only have to review green-belt land if it cannot meet the needs in that way or via cross-boundary strategic planning.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

Last week, my local council announced the proposed closure of the much-loved Prince of Wales theatre in Cannock. Despite the council’s financial pressures, local people do not want that theatre to become collateral damage. Will the Minister meet me to see what could be done to explore community ownership and give our theatre the bright future that thousands of my constituents want to see?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I represent Tunbridge Wells, and just over the boundary in Wealden district, a large housing development is proposed. Wealden will get the houses, but the infrastructure burden will fall particularly on my constituents who live in Tunbridge Wells. Will the Secretary of State update me on the reforms to the NPPF? What is being done about this problem of cross-boundary infrastructure?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In the NPPF, we set out the clear direction of travel towards the universal coverage of strategic planning across the whole of England. We had an Adjournment debate on that just last week. We are determined to put in place the mechanisms that will allow effective cross-boundary co-operation to ensure that the right infrastructure and housing growth takes place.

Cross-Boundary Housing Developments

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Having not had the chance to do so personally, may I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) to his place?

I think it is fair to say that the important issue of cross-boundary planning co-operation has received far too little attention in this place over recent years, and I therefore very much welcome the hon. Gentleman giving the House an opportunity to consider it in some detail. I also appreciate the clarity with which he set out his position on the matter. He will know that the eight Leicestershire authorities are at different stages of plan preparation, having delayed due to further work addressing Leicester city’s unmet need.

Owing to the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial role in the planning system, I am unable to comment on the details of specific local plans or specific local applications, but the points that the hon. Gentleman has made are on the record and I would expect him to make written representations to the Department in the appropriate way on some of the specific concerns that he has raised.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the nine local authorities in Leicester and Leicestershire voluntarily came together to collaborate on the publication of a non-statutory strategic growth plan in 2018. That plan provides a high-level vision for the sub-region up to 2050, setting out its housing and economic development needs, and focusing growth on key strategic areas.

Key to securing cross-party political support for voluntary collaboration along those lines has been the commendable desire to address the negative impacts of ad hoc, speculative development and to stimulate infrastructure investment to support growth. But equally vital has been a shared understanding of the obvious functional geography of a sub-region with a city at its heart, strong pre-existing relationships at member and officer level, and clear governance structures that are independent of any one authority.

While the partnership arrangements in Leicestershire took a not insignificant amount of time to establish, and to the best of my understanding nearly collapsed several times, they aptly demonstrate that local planning authorities can, and already do, work together informally to deal with cross-boundary and cumulative matters. Notwithstanding the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised, Leicestershire is a rare example of relatively successful cross-boundary co-operation in a planning system whose incentive structure is not geared towards facilitating it. The Government have inherited a planning system in which, outside London, some metro mayors have spatial planning powers while others have only the power to prepare non-statutory plans. A lack of effective levers, whether that be governance arrangements that require unanimity or an inability to set the strategic direction for where new affordable housing should be delivered, prevents mayors who do have spatial planning powers from realising the full potential of those powers.

In the rest of the country there is a duty to co-operate, as the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) mentioned. The requirement provides a minimum standard for cross-border strategic planning, but by common consensus has not proved to an effective mechanism for fostering the kind of deep strategic co-operation that enables areas to meet their cross-border challenges and unmet local need to be shared with adjacent authorities. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 includes provisions that enable local authorities to come together to produce joint spatial development strategies, but as that is entirely discretionary and the current incentives are weak, there is no evidence that scores of areas eagerly await the opportunity to take that particular approach.

The result is a planning system that currently lacks any effective mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning. That has not always been the case. Indeed, planning for housing growth and infrastructure at a larger than local scale has been integral to the functioning of England’s planning system for most of the past half-century, whether through county structure plans, regional planning guidance or the comprehensive system of regional strategic planning introduced by the last Labour Government, including regional spatial strategies. The period since that architecture was abolished by the coalition Government in 2011 has been something of an aberration, with the duty to co-operate ostensibly facilitating necessary strategic cross-boundary planning, but in practice failing to do so in any meaningful way.

The result has been large parts of England where no strategic planning activity takes place, a number of notable local plan failures, increased delays in local plan production, growing public antagonism towards the planning system, and a yawning gap between the amount of development that the country needs and what is actually being built. The Government are committed to bringing that sub-optimal situation to an end by first, in the short term, strengthening the existing national planning policy framework requirements on effective co-operation, and then introducing effective new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning through legislation, with a view to implementing a universal system of strategic planning in this Parliament.

Let me make it clear that we do not intend to return to the pre-2011 regional planning regime; rather, we will look at how we can ensure that effective cross-boundary co-operation—the kind that I take it the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire wants to see in his constituency—is taking place at a sub-regional level. While it is still too early to be definitive about the precise model, the Government are attracted to the spatial development strategy, which is well established in London, with the London plan having been produced and continually reviewed over a 20-year period by successive London Mayors. Whatever model is ultimately selected, it is important to note that strategic plans are not big local plans. Nor should the forthcoming introduction of statutory strategic planning arrangements be taken by local planning authorities as a reason not to progress the development of their local plans.

Local plans are the best way for communities to shape future development in their areas. The Government are determined to progress toward our ambition of universal local plan coverage, and we intend to drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible. In all areas, strategic sub-regional plans will guide development for the local planning authorities in the area, and local plans will need to be in general conformity with them. We will expect local plans to be updated or developed alongside the strategic planning process, and we envisage that that process is where those larger than local level questions and negotiations about large-scale housing growth will be determined.

Given that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency spans three local authorities, I know he will take an active interest in the Government’s plans. Local authorities in Leicester and Leicestershire have shown what can be achieved through the voluntary production of a non-statutory strategic growth plan. I note that they have been working effectively on their local plans, including various local authorities meeting unmet needs from Leicester city.

However, the experience of the partnership arrangements being in place in the county also highlights the risks and limitations of voluntarism. I hope the intention to require statutory strategic planning arrangements to be put in place across England will be welcomed by the authorities that lie within the boundaries of Mid Leicestershire as a means of more quickly and effectively resolving cross-boundary and cumulative issues of the kind the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to. On that note, I look forward to further discussions with him and other hon. Members as the Government take forward their plans in this area.

Question put and agreed to.

Veterans’ Access to Social Housing

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Written Statements

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

As we set out in our manifesto and the Prime Minister reiterated in his conference speech on 24 September, this Government are committed to supporting our armed forces communities and ensuring veterans have access to the housing support they need.

To honour that commitment and facilitate access to social housing for veterans, I am today laying regulations to exempt all former members of the regular armed forces from any local connection tests for social housing applied by local councils in England.

Having a connection to an area should not be a barrier to housing for those who put their lives on the line for our country.

The regulations laid today will ensure that no veteran of the regular armed forces will need to meet a local connection test for social housing regardless of when they last served.

The Deputy Prime Minister has already written to local councils to remind them of the guidance and flexibilities to facilitate access of veterans to social housing.

Statutory guidance will be updated to reflect these changes. This includes specific guidance on improving access to social housing for members of the armed forces with examples of ways in which councils can ensure that service personnel and their families are given appropriate priority for social housing. We know that councils use the flexibilities available to them, but we must ensure that no veteran is unfairly penalised.

In addition to these measures, the Government have committed a further £3.5 million to the reducing veteran homelessness programme. This includes Op FORTITUDE, the single referral pathway for veterans at risk of, or experiencing, homelessness.

We will continue to work with the sector to deliver affordable homes to meet the needs of veterans as part of our broader commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, and in the development of our long-term housing strategy.

Veterans represent the very best of our country. The Government are committed to honouring their sacrifices and ensuring homes will be there for heroes across the UK.

[HCWS255]

Older People's Housing Taskforce

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Written Statements

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

The Government have today published the report of the older people’s housing taskforce. Copies will also be deposited in the House Library.

Concluding in May 2024, the older people’s housing taskforce undertook an assessment of public and private specialised and supported older people’s housing, with a particular focus on the private market for those on middle incomes, and explored options for the provision of greater choice, quality and security of housing for older people. There is rightly significant national interest in the taskforce’s findings.

I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the chair of the taskforce, Professor Julienne Meyer, and all its members for producing such a comprehensive, detailed and well-researched report. I would also like to express my gratitude to the many stakeholders who contributed to the work of the taskforce.

The Government recognise the importance of increased supply and improving the housing options for older people in later life, and we will give careful consideration to the many recommendations set out in the report.

Providing a range of safe, suitable housing for older people in later life helps them live independently, safely and well, for longer. It can enhance the wellbeing of our senior citizens and reduce demand on adult social care services and the national health service. The Government have committed to building 1.5 million new homes over the next five years, including those to meet the needs of older people, and we will consider this issue further as we develop our long-term housing strategy.

We are determined to create a more diverse housing market; one that delivers homes quickly and responds to the needs of a range of communities. Through the recent consultation on proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework, we tested proposals to promote the delivery of mixed-use sites, including housing designed for specific groups such as older people. We have also indicated our intention to consider further planning policy changes in the future as we move to produce a more streamlined and accessible suite of policies, and we will ensure that considerations around older people’s housing inform our approach.

We are also working with the Planning Advisory Service to meet the recommendation of the taskforce for guidance to provide more clarity on how planning use classes apply to specialist older people’s housing.

As the report also makes clear, older people’s housing has not been immune to the challenges faced by other residential leaseholders across the country. The Government remain fully committed to providing homeowners with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes by quickly implementing the provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.

We will also take further steps over the Parliament to bring the feudal leasehold system to an end, including reinvigorating commonhold by modernising the legal framework as well as restricting the sale of new leasehold flats. We will consult on the best way to achieve this, and consider the needs of all parts of the housing market as we do this, including older people’s housing.

The Government are committed to helping older people to live comfortably and independently at home for as long as possible. The Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), and I thank the taskforce for their important contribution to this agenda.

[HCWS249]

Leasehold and Commonhold Reform

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Written Statements

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

Millions of homeowners across the country will remember with fondness the sense of satisfaction, pride and security they felt when completing the purchase of their first home. Given a free choice, an overwhelming majority of families would prefer to own their own home, and home ownership remains indelibly associated in the minds of many with security, control, freedom and hope.

Yet, for far too many leaseholders, the reality of home ownership has fallen woefully short of the dream—their lives marked by an intermittent, if not constant, struggle with punitive and escalating ground rents; unjustified permissions and administration fees; unreasonable or extortionate charges; and onerous conditions imposed with little or no consultation. This is not what home ownership should entail.

Over the course of this Parliament, the Government are determined to honour the commitments made in our manifesto and do what is necessary to finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end. Given that millions of leaseholders and residential freeholders are currently suffering as a result of unfair and unreasonable practices, we appreciate fully the need to act urgently to provide them with relief. However, we are also cognisant of the significant complexity of the task and the importance of taking the necessary time to ensure that reforms are watertight.

With both of these imperatives in mind, I am today updating the House on the steps the Government intend to take to implement those reforms to the leasehold system already in statute and to progress the wider set of reforms necessary to end the feudal leasehold system for good.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024

The previous Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 was passed in the wash-up period prior to the Dissolution of the last Parliament. In enacting only a select number of Law Commission recommendations relating to enfranchisement and the right to manage, the Act has rendered the process of holistic and coherent leasehold and commonhold reform more challenging.

However, while limited in nature, the Act did introduce a necessary set of reforms that will provide immediate relief to those leaseholders and residential freeholders subject to unfair and unreasonable practices. As set out in the King’s Speech, it is therefore the Government’s intention to act as quickly as possible to provide homeowners with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes by implementing its various provisions.

However, we must balance speed with care if we are to ensure that the measures brought into force are to the lasting benefit of leaseholders and residential freeholders. The risk of acting with undue haste is not merely a hypothetical one. On assuming office in July, the Deputy Prime Minister and I were informed that the 2024 Act contains a small number of specific but serious flaws which would prevent certain provisions from operating as intended and that need to be rectified via primary legislation.

These serious flaws include a loophole which means that the Act goes far beyond the intended reforms to valuation and that undermines the integrity of the amended scheme. In addition we must correct an omission that would deny tens of thousands of shared ownership leaseholders the right to extend their lease with their direct landlord, given that the providers in question do not have sufficiently long leases to grant 990-year extensions.

This Government will not make the same mistakes as the last when it comes to reforming what is, without question, an incredibly complicated area of property law. While we intend to continue to work at pace, we will take the time necessary to ensure the reforms we pass are fit for purpose.

That is not to say that progress has not already been made. A number of the Act’s provisions came into force on 24 July relating variously to legal costs associated with the remediation of unsafe buildings, the work of professional insolvency practitioners, and removing the remedy where homeowners risk losing their home entirely because of failure to pay an income-supporting rent charge after 40 days.

On 31 October, the Government activated further building safety measures. These help clarify that remediation contribution orders and remediation orders—which require developers and other relevant persons to pay for or fix defects—can be made in respect of interim measures, known as “relevant steps”, such as waking watches and simultaneous evacuation alarms. They also clarify that costs of alternative accommodation, when leaseholders have been displaced from their homes on building safety grounds, and expert reports, can be recovered through remediation contribution orders.

Commencing the remaining provisions in the Act will require an extensive programme of detailed secondary legislation. While we appreciate fully the scepticism that leaseholders feel about yet more consultations, in some cases they will be necessary to determine precisely how certain measures are to be implemented effectively. To our frustration, we will not be able to bring other important measures into force, including the new valuation process, until we have fixed the small number of specific but serious flaws in the 2024 Act through primary legislation. Switching on the Act in full will therefore take time, but it is important that we get it right if we are to avoid the mistakes made by the previous Government.

A good example of why appropriate secondary legislation must be prepared and scrutinised before even seemingly simple measures in the Act are commenced is section 49. This section provides for an increase in the non-residential floorspace limit for right to manage claims from 25% to 50%. This will broaden access to this right for a significant number of leaseholders by allowing those in mixed-use buildings where up to 50% of the floorspace is non-residential to make right to manage claims.

However, the way existing right to manage company voting rights operate means that in some buildings with higher percentages of non-residential floorspace, freeholders not leaseholders will be able to control the right to manage company with more votes. For this reason we must amend right to manage company voting rights via secondary legislation in parallel with commencing section 49. If we do not do so, and simply activate section 49, new claims for the right to manage could result in these companies being set up only for the building’s existing freeholders to have total control over them. This would be contrary to the intention behind the Act. While we appreciate that leaseholders will be frustrated at having to wait for secondary legislation, this Government will not commence the Act in a half-baked or incoherent way that could risk detriment to leaseholders.

With a view to effectively implementing the Act as quickly as possible, the Government’s intended sequencing for bringing the provisions of the 2024 Act into force is as follows.

We intend to commence the Act’s provision to remove the two-year rule in January next year. This will mean that leaseholders will no longer have to wait two years after purchasing their property before exercising rights to extend their lease or buy their freehold, giving more leaseholders control over their properties from the outset.

We will bring the Act’s right to manage provisions —expanding access and reforming its costs and voting rights—into force as a coherent package at the same time, in spring 2025, meaning more leaseholders in mixed-use buildings can take over management from their freeholders, and leaseholders making claims will, in most cases, no longer have to pay their freeholder’s costs.

We understand that for many leaseholders the cost of living will be their primary immediate worry. For too long, leaseholders have borne the brunt of opaque and excessive costs being passed on to them. We will go out to consultation very shortly on the detail of the Act’s ban on buildings insurance remuneration such as commissions for landlords, property managing agents and freeholders being charged through the service charge and their replacement with transparent and fair fees.

Next year, we will look to consult on the Act’s provisions on service charges and on legal costs, bringing these measures into force as quickly as possible thereafter. Once implemented, leaseholders will be able to more easily challenge service charges they consider unreasonable and landlords will be required to apply to the relevant court or tribunal for approval before they can pass legal costs from such challenges back to leaseholders.

The Act includes measures that will make it cheaper for leaseholders to enfranchise—buy their freehold or extend their lease—giving them security over their property in the long term. Next summer we will consult on the valuation rates used to calculate the cost of enfranchisement premiums. Parliament will then need to approve the secondary legislation that sets out the detail, as well as fixing the Act’s serious flaws in further primary legislation, before implementing the package.

The Government remain committed to protecting residential freeholders on private and mixed-tenure housing estates from unfair charges. Next year we will consult on implementing the Act’s new consumer protection provisions for the up to 1.75 million homes that are subject to these charges, and bring these measures into force as quickly as possible thereafter. These include ensuring that homeowners who pay an estate management charge have better access to information they need to understand what they are paying for, the right to challenge the reasonableness at the first-tier tribunal (in England), and to go to the tribunal to appoint a substitute manager.

It is important that landlords, agents and other key actors in the sector are aware of their responsibilities. As such, we will continue to work closely with delivery partners and stakeholders as we implement the Act, and look to future reform. We also look forward to working closely with the Welsh Government to bring about these much-needed reforms across England and Wales.

It is also vital that as many residential leaseholders and freeholders understand and take advantage of the reforms as they are implemented. The Leasehold Advisory Service will have a crucial role to play in that regard and we will set out further detail in due course about how we believe it can most effectively do so.

Further reform of the leasehold system

While we must fix the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act and implement its provisions as soon as possible, we have always been clear that the Act does not go far enough. It overlooked a number of Law Commission recommendations relating to leasehold enfranchisement, enacted only eight relating to the right to manage and contained none relating to commonhold.

Moreover, it left untouched serious problems such as unregulated and unaffordable ground rents; the poor quality of service provided by some managing agents; the threat of forfeiture as a means of ensuring compliance with a lease agreement; and the prevalence of “fleecehold” private and mixed-tenure housing estates.

As part of our commitment to finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end in this Parliament, the Government are determined to take action to address Law Commission recommendations omitted from the 2024 Act, to resolve a range of problems that legislation failed to grapple with, and to enact key pledges in our manifesto that it did not even engage with, such as making commonhold the default tenure.

In the King’s Speech, the Government made clear we would publish an ambitious new draft Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill in this parliamentary Session that would be subject to broad consultation and additional parliamentary scrutiny. Our intention is that it will be published in the second half of next year.

A central focus of the Bill will be reinvigorating commonhold through the introduction of a comprehensive new legal framework. To set out our thinking in advance of the Bill and invite consultation and discussion about how we finally transition away from leasehold, we will publish a White Paper on reforms to commonhold early next year.

Alongside setting out our plans for a comprehensive new legal framework for commonhold, we will take decisive first steps to making commonhold the default tenure by the end of the Parliament. To that end, we will consult next year on the best approach to banning new leasehold flats so this can work effectively alongside a robust ban on leasehold houses. We will seek input from industry and consumers on other fundamental points such as potential exemptions for legitimate use and how to minimise disruption to housing supply. We will also engage on the conversion of existing flats to commonhold.

The draft Bill will also consider a number of vital reforms to the existing leasehold system. The Government remain firmly committed to its manifesto commitment to tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rents, and we will deliver this in legislation. We will remove the disproportionate and draconian threat of forfeiture as a means of ensuring compliance with a lease agreement. And we will consult on new reforms to the section 20 “major works” procedure that leaseholders must go through when they face large bills for such works.

We also intend to act to protect leaseholders from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents. The previous Government committed to regulate the property agent sector in 2018, even asking a working group chaired by the esteemed Lord Best to advise them how to do it. Yet, over multiple years they failed to take any action.

Managing agents play a key role in the maintenance of multi-occupancy buildings and freehold estates, and their importance will only increase as we transition toward a commonhold future, and so we are looking again at Lord Best’s 2019 report on regulating the property agent sector, particularly in light of the recommendations in the final Grenfell inquiry report. As part of our response to that report, I can confirm that we will strengthen regulation of managing agents to drive up the standard of their service. As a minimum, this should include mandatory professional qualifications which set a new basic standard that managing agents will be required to meet. We will consult on this matter next year.

Finally, we are determined to end the injustice of “fleecehold” entirely and we will consult next year on legislative and policy options to reduce the prevalence of private estate management arrangements, which are the root cause of the problems experienced by many residential freeholders.

[HCWS244]