Planning Reform

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Clive Efford

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, the draft framework we have published today continues to provide the protections for agricultural land that are in place in the NPPF as revised last December, including a preference that development be directed towards areas of poorer-quality agricultural land. On consented sites, he is absolutely right. We want to see more consented sites built out, and that is the whole purpose of our new homes accelerator, which we established to take forward those sites. We published a working paper on build-out transparency, but I am afraid that it remains the case that we have to oversupply consents into the system to drive up the number of houses delivered.

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

I agree with my hon. Friend that the housing crisis has become an emergency, but can I ask for detail on an issue that I have raised with him in the House before? He said that it is a default yes for suitable proposals for the development of land around rail stations. He knows that I have a number of sports grounds close to railway stations that might attract the attention of developers as a result of what he has said today. Those grounds are not just a green lung for south-east London, but provide vital access to sports for people from central London, Kent and East Sussex. Can we have an assurance from him that these sites will not be put under threat, and that owners will not put these grounds under lock and key, say that there is no demand for them, and start planning to build houses on them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right that the new framework proposes a default yes to suitable proposals around train stations, particularly targeting well-connected train stations across the country, as I mentioned. He will know that in the revisions we made to the NPPF last December, we strengthened protections for playing fields. As I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), although there is a new permanent presumption within settlements as part of this framework, development still has to comply with the wider policies in the NPPF, and individual decisions on applications still have to be taken. I am more than happy to sit down with my hon. Friend and discuss his particular concerns about playing fields.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Clive Efford

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will come to why we cannot accept Lords amendment 39. I respectfully disagree with the CPRE on this matter—and on a number of others, as it happens. There is not enough land on brownfield registers—certainly not enough that is in the right location or viable to meet housing need across England. That is why we have a brownfield-first, not brownfield-only, approach to development.

Brownfield land is diverse and may not always be suitable. That is why consideration of brownfield land is more appropriately dealt with at the local level, through policy, where a balance of considerations can be weighed up. A legislative requirement for increasing densities does not allow for the consideration of local issues or circumstances, and would risk opening up the possibility of legal challenges to any or every spatial development strategy, which I am sure was not their noble Lords’ intent. On that basis, I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 39.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. He is talking about local pressures for housing delivery and the brownfield-first approach. As he will know, a number of sports grounds in my constituency are increasingly subject to interest from would-be developers. Can he confirm that these proposals will include protections for much-needed sports grounds so that they are not open to that sort of speculative development?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that question—it is an apt and fair one. Such protections are already in place in the national planning policy framework. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him about the matter he refers to, but nothing in the Bill specifically targets the release of sports fields for development and the protections in national policy still apply.

Finally, Lords amendment 40 seeks to restrict the environmental impacts that could be addressed through an environmental delivery plan. Before I explain why the Government cannot accept the amendment, let me remind the House of why part 3 of the Bill is so important. The current approach to discharging environmental obligations too often delays and deters development, and places unnecessary burdens on house builders and local authorities. It requires house builders to pay for localised and often costly mitigation measures, only to maintain the environmental status quo. By not taking a holistic view across larger geographies, mitigation measures often fail to secure the best outcomes for the environment. In short, as we have consistently argued, when it comes to development and the environment, the status quo too often sees sustainable house building, and nature recovery and restoration, stall.

The nature restoration fund will end that sub-optimal arrangement. By facilitating a more strategic approach to the discharge of environmental obligations, and enabling the use of funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in driving the recovery of protected sites and species, it will streamline the delivery of new homes and infrastructure, and result in the more efficient delivery of improved environmental outcomes.

Planning Committees: Reform

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Clive Efford

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.