Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Kevin Hollinrake

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. Constituencies such as his and mine that include those protected landscapes do not seem to have that considered or catered for in the housing targets, particularly the new ones that we have before us. Again, I am very keen to discuss with the Minister how we might address that.

On planning, we are very concerned about the national scheme of delegation, which will remove councillors’ right to vote on individual planning applications. If the Secretary of State does not believe that that is the case, I suggest that she reads clause 46 of her own legislation. This is particularly extraordinary considering that when Labour was in opposition, the former shadow Housing Minister said in a debate in this House on 21 June 2021 that the previous Government should

“protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 620.]

Clearly, the current Housing Minister is not doing that— he is doing the exact opposite through these rules—and he should be clear with the public about that, because sooner or later, that fact will hit home.

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

indicated dissent.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very happy to have a debate with the Housing Minister—he is welcome to intervene on me. I suggest that he reads clause 46 as well. Of course, it is also a fact that 14 Cabinet Ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary, all campaigned to block housing developments in their own constituencies. What hypocrisy!

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is not the case, and there has been a huge amount of scaremongering when it comes to the provisions in the Bill that relate to planning committees. I will deal with that particular point in due course.

Among hon. Members who do support the main principles of the Bill, there were of course understandable differences of opinion. Some expressed their unequivocal support for each and every one of its provisions, others conveyed their broad support while arguing for specific changes to be made or further measures to be added, but all were in agreement that this legislation must progress if we are to streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, as the House as a whole ostensibly asserts that we must. Therein lies the crux of the issue and the reason, I must say candidly, for the cant at the heart of some of the speeches that we have heard.

We can all profess in principle our support for the ends—doing so is, after all, risk free—but what matters is whether we are prepared in practice to also will the means. When it came to housing and infrastructure, the previous Government were not willing to do so, hence the dissonance in their final years between their stated commitment to building more homes and their decision in practice to recklessly abolish mandatory housing targets and thereby torpedo housing supply in a forlorn attempt to appease a disgruntled group of their anti-housing Back Benchers. Thankfully, this Labour Government are prepared to do what it takes to deliver the homes and the infrastructure our country needs. The Bill is transformative. It will fundamentally change how we build things in this country. In so doing, it will help us to tackle the housing crisis, raise living standards in every part of the country and deliver on our plan for change.

During the five hours we have debated the Bill, an extremely wide range of issues has been raised. I have heard all of them and I will seek to respond to as many in the time available to me, but I will not be able to cover all of them. I will therefore deal with the main themes and issues that have been raised in the course of the debate. I will begin, if I may, with the various points made in relation to nationally significant infrastructure.

Members made a variety of points covering issues such as national policy statements and judicial review, but most of the contributions focused in on the changes the Bill will make to consultation requirements for nationally significant infrastructure projects. As the House will be aware, the NSIP planning regime was established through the Planning Act 2008 to provide more certainty on the need for nationally significant projects. In its early years, the system worked well. However, its performance has sharply deteriorated in recent years, at a time when the need for it has increased dramatically.

In 2021, it took, on average, 4.2 years for a project to secure development consent, compared with 2.6 years in 2012. The documentation, as has been referred to by a number of hon. Members, underpinning consents has been getting longer and in too many instances now runs to tens of thousands of pages. Alongside an increase in legal challenges, uncertainty about meeting statutory requirements has led to greater risk aversion and gold plating throughout the whole process. The costs of delays obviously increase the costs of projects, and those costs are ultimately passed on to taxpayers for public infrastructure and bill payers or customers for private infrastructure.

The measures in the Bill will provide for a faster and more certain consenting process, stripping away unnecessary consultation requirements that do nothing to improve applications or meaningfully engage communities. They will, to use the phrase used by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), ensure that the NSIP regime is firing on all cylinders. I want to make it clear that the measures in the Bill are not the limit of our ambitions on streamlining the NSIP regime. In particular, I noted the calls from several hon. Members to consider addressing the significant elongation of pre-application periods resulting from the way in which statutory procedures are now being applied. This is an issue to which the Deputy Prime Minister and I have already given a significant amount of thought, and I commit to giving further consideration to the case for using the Bill to address statutory requirements that would appear to be no longer driving good outcomes. I can assure those hon. Members that the Government will not hesitate to act boldly if there is a compelling case for reform in this area.

Many hon. Members touched on the nature restoration fund. We are fully committed to making sure development contributes to nature’s recovery, delivering a win-win for nature and the economy. We will be taking three steps to deliver on our new approach. First, responsibility for identifying actions to address environmental impacts will be moved away from multiple project-specific assessments in an area to a single strategic assessment and delivery plan. Secondly, more responsibility for planning and implementing strategic actions will be moved on to the state, delivered through organisations with the right expertise and the necessary flexibility to take actions that most effectively deliver positive outcomes for nature. Thirdly, we will allow impacts to be dealt with strategically in exchange for a financial payment, so development can proceed more quickly. Project-level assessments are then limited only to those harms not dealt with strategically.

To those hon. Members who raised concerns that the provisions will have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection of existing environmental law, I assure them that that is not the case, something attested to by the section 20 statement on the face of the Bill in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister. Our reforms are built around delivering overall positive outcomes for protected sites and species, and are the result of significant engagement across the development sector, environmental groups and nature service providers. That is why, at the Bill’s introduction, we saw a range of voices welcoming the new approach it brings to unlocking a win-win for development and nature.

The shadow Secretary of State raised concerns about how quickly we will be able to implement environmental delivery plans. We are confident we can get EDPs in place fast. That is why we have been clear that we want to see the first EDPs prepared alongside the Bill and operational for developers to use shortly after Royal Assent. We are also looking for opportunities to provide up-front funding so that we can kick off action in advance of need, with costs recovered as development comes forward, which will allow us to get shovels in the ground and unlock homes and infrastructure more quickly.

Lastly, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) raised concerns about the CPO powers given to Natural England. If we are going to be successful in delivering a win-win for nature and the economy through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, it is vital that Natural England has sufficient powers to deliver the conservation measures required. Compulsory purchase is just one tool, and we would expect Natural England to consider using such powers as a last resort, subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight, including ultimate authorisation by the Secretary of State.

More broadly, the nature restoration fund will provide opportunities for landowners to work with Natural England to drive nature recovery, improving our green spaces for generations to come. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a radical change. Many public bodies with statutory powers have compulsory purchase powers, including local authorities and—as he of all people should be aware—health service bodies, as well as some executive agencies, such as Homes England.

I want to touch on planning committees before concluding. Several hon. Members raised concerns over our plan to modernise them; indeed, some suggested that our reforms are tantamount to removing democratic control from local people. That is simply not the case. The shadow Secretary of State asserted that residents would lose the opportunity to object to a planning application, which is incorrect. People will still be able to object to individual applications in the way they can now.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

How is what the Minister is saying consistent with what he said on the Floor of the House on 9 December, when he said:

“the changes are designed to… focus the time of elected councillors on the most significant or controversial applications”—[Official Report, 9 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 673.]—

which he is going to dictate? Will he, at the very least, publish his draft regulations on what he intends through clause 46 alongside the passage of the Bill?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will address that specific point in due course. The proposals are entirely consistent; we do want to make changes to where planning committees can determine decisions, but local residents will be able to object to applications in every instance, as they can now.

Planning is principally a local activity, and this Government have made clear at every available opportunity that the plan-led approach is and must remain the cornerstone of the planning system. Local plans are the best ways for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their areas need.

Building Homes

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

Planning Committees: Reform

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

Planning Policy: Traveller Sites

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I formally congratulate you on your honour—I have not had the chance to do so yet.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing this important debate and thank him for the characteristic clarity with which he made his case. I also thank the hon. Members for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), and my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for Rugby (John Slinger) for their contributions. Lastly, I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), for his thoughtful remarks, and warmly welcome him to his place. I will certainly take away the specific points that he raised. More widely, I look forward to working with him, as he said, on a constructive basis wherever possible.

I must make it clear at the outset that, while I noted the specific case that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton raised—and indeed other cases that have been raised today—I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that I am unable to comment on individual plans or applications due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process and the potential decision-making role of the Deputy Prime Minister. I therefore propose to make some general comments about national planning policy as it relates to Traveller sites and specifically the role of local planning authorities, including in respect of enforcement, within that national framework, thereby addressing many of the points that have been raised today, while recognising that this is an incredibly complex area of policy and law, particularly as it relates to individual cases.

Turning first to national planning policy, the Government’s approach to Traveller site provision is set out in the planning policy for Traveller sites policy paper, which should be read in conjunction with the national planning policy framework and has the same policy status as it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam, and others, raised a number of wider issues outside the subject of this debate, but I reassure her that the Government’s overarching aim is to meet the housing and accommodation needs of all communities in our society, and that we are committed to ensuring fair and equal treatment for Travellers in a way that facilitates their traditional and nomadic way of life, while respecting the interests of the settled community.

The policy paper in question makes clear that local planning authorities should set pitch targets for Gypsies and Travellers to address the accommodation needs of Traveller communities within their area. Specifically on the points made around human rights law, that is often engaged when a proposed development is closely linked to a particular person’s interests. In the case of Gypsy and Traveller developments, the right to respect for private and family life under the European convention on human rights, and in relation to the rights of the child, under the Children Act 1989 and the UN convention on the rights of the child, are often engaged. However, such considerations can be addressed by planning adequately for Traveller pitches to meet needs, and that is ultimately through the local plan process.

I think that that touches on a wider issue. In respect of the community that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton represents, for example, the North Yorkshire emerging local plan is in its very early stages. We need to see local plans across the country come forward in short order. We want to achieve universal coverage, but we need to see those plans progress because they are the best way that local communities can shape developments in their areas.

I noted the points made by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton on funding, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby regarding the concern, which I do recognise, that local planning authorities do not face sufficient consequences for failing to adequately plan for those pitches. That is a concern raised in other areas, and, typically, as I am sure my hon. Friend will know, the penalty for not having a local plan in place—for not adequately providing for sites—is that a local authority will leave itself open to speculative development or retrospective applications. However, I appreciate that that does not address the specific challenges covered in this debate in the way that it does with more conventional planning applications.

The policy paper also states that local planning authorities should consider the existing level of and local need for sites, and the availability of alternative accommodation, among other relevant matters, when considering planning applications for Traveller sites.

I appreciate that the specific case that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton raised did not concern a green-belt site—as far as I understand it—but hon. Members may find it useful if I provide some detail on the proposals that we have set out in relation to Traveller sites as part of our proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework and other changes to the planning system.

As hon. Members are aware, we are consulting on a range of policy changes to ensure that our planning system is fit for purpose, supports the right development in the right places, and is able to deliver on the Government’s growth agenda. They include changes to green-belt policy to enable the targeted release of low-quality grey-belt land to meet unmet housing and other development needs. Those policy proposals will not compromise our environmental objectives or undermine the overall function and purpose of the green belt, but will support opportunities for development in areas of highest need and deliver tangible benefits to local communities and nature through our golden rules.

We intend that the proposals will address unmet need for Traveller sites and we are seeking views, through the consultation, on how the policy will operate. To be clear, that is a departure from the current policy position on the green belt set out in both the NPPF and the planning policy for Traveller sites policy paper, but we believe that it better supports the development needs of our communities and contributes to sustainable growth.

However, we will consider all these matters carefully and will finalise our position after considering the consultation responses and following targeted engagement with the key stakeholders, including specialist planning consultants, charities representing the interests of the Traveller community and professionals working in this space.

As part of wider changes to national planning policy, we will also consider how planning policy for Traveller sites should be set out in the future, including which aspects need to form part of the suite of proposals for national development management policies introduced in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.

I now turn to the role of local planning authorities. Although the Government are responsible for setting the legislative and policy framework within which the planning system operates, including the national planning policy framework and the planning policy document for Traveller sites, it is for local planning authorities, who know their communities best, to prepare local development plans and make decisions in accordance with such adopted plans unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

I hope hon. Members appreciate that when it comes to police enforcement of unauthorised encampments, that is a matter for the Home Office and not for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. However, I can certainly pass back some of the concerns and the comments made to my colleagues in the Home Office.

When it comes to enforcement more generally, local planning authorities have a wide range of powers, with strong penalties for non-compliance. As the hon. Member for Bromsgrove mentioned, these powers were strengthened by reforms introduced in the 2023 Act, which were implemented earlier this year. Those reforms included longer time limits for enforcement action, and action to address a loophole with retrospective development, so that there is only one opportunity to appeal.

On the basis of the available powers, it is for local authorities to decide what action, if any, to take, depending on the particular circumstances of each case. That would include intentional unauthorised development, which would be weighed by decision makers in the determination of planning applications and appeals, as I recall the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioning. Ultimately, however, it is for individual local planning authorities to determine what weight they should afford to a relevant consideration based on the circumstances of a particular case, rather than Government mandating them to follow a particular course of action.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I support potential revisions to enforcement powers to give perfect clarity about how enforcement can happen in these circumstances. However, I want to touch on the Minister’s last point about intentional unauthorised development. Currently, that is dealt with as part of planning law, through a ministerial statement, rather than being formally in the NPPF—nevertheless, that does apply. Is he happy to maintain that situation, or will he look at that again? It is very important that that does form part of planning policy. Otherwise, planning authorities would have even fewer levers at their disposal to make sure that this kind of development does not happen. The problem is not planning policy; it is people who subvert the policy through other devices.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Member for that point. To answer him directly, on national development management policies, which I mentioned, we stated in the NPPF consultation—which is still open and closes on 24 September—that we were committed to creating NDMPs to provide more certainty and consistency about decision making in a range of areas. As part of that, we will look at all existing national policies, including the policy in relation to unintentional authorised development, as set out in the 2015 written ministerial statement.

I hope that gives the hon. Member some reassurance that as part of bringing in those NDMPs, we are looking at that particular issue, which I do understand. Those NDMPs will have to consulted on, so hon. Members from all parties will have an opportunity to feed in their thoughts about whether we have got the policy right in any particular area.

I thank the hon. Member again for giving the House an opportunity to discuss these matters, and I thank other hon. Members for taking part in the debate. I genuinely welcome and look forward to further engagement on this issue with Members across the House. In the interim, I encourage all hon. Members with an interest in how national planning policy relates to Travellers to respond to the consultation on a revised NPPF before the deadline of 24 September.