Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is an honour to speak in this important debate. I will address three amendments that stand in my name: amendments 88 and 89, which go together and relate to hope value, and new clause 107, which relates to the disposal of public land.

Amendments 88 and 89 are linked and represent a simple yet important change to the Bill. They would extend the circumstances in which hope value may be disregarded in the event of a compulsory purchase order to include playing fields and recreational facilities. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues warmly welcome the important changes in the Bill. Ministers have brought forward measures to reform the CPO process for the purpose of building more affordable homes, so that hope value no longer over-inflates land prices for acquiring authorities. However, I believe that a prime opportunity has been missed. As such, my amendments seek to include recreational facilities such as playing fields in these provisions when an acquiring authority—for instance, a local authority—is using a compulsory purchase order to acquire land for use as a sports or recreational facility. They would ensure that hope value would not be applied, thus making the cost more affordable and helping to boost grassroots sports provision in communities up and down the country.

We in Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons, St Margarets and Whitton are incredibly fortunate to have a thriving grassroots sports scene, from football to cricket, rugby, hockey, tennis and much more. Girls’ and women’s football is just one example of the continued growth in grassroots sports in my constituency; my own daughter plays with the growing number of girls’ teams at Whitton Wanderers, and Twickenham Cygnets now boasts over 300 girls and has 40 women—Twickenham Swans—on its books. However, they are at the point of turning more away because they simply cannot get the pitch space to train and play matches. This problem affects many clubs across the country, and certainly right across the London borough of Richmond upon Thames. At the same time, we have the absolute scandal of Udney Park playing fields in Teddington lying derelict for more than a decade, with successive developers paying over the odds for the site, only to be rightly prevented from developing it; that precious site has numerous protections attached to it.

The brilliant Udney Park Community Fields Foundation —a community group in my constituency led by Jonathan Dunn, who has been a tireless campaigner for grassroots sports—has repeatedly bid for the site to bring the playing fields back into community use. The current owner has given notice that he wants to sell the playing fields, but has not engaged with the foundation at a realistic playing fields valuation. Trying to recoup a high purchase price for this precious and well-protected site does not look feasible. Extending the Bill’s provisions to playing fields to allow hope value to be disregarded for a compulsory purchase order could allow such sites to be acquired by the local authority or another public body.

Richmond council, like many other local authorities, is hardly awash with cash, but simply having that provision in law would provide leverage for community groups when they have to negotiate with developers, as we have seen in the case of Udney Park. I am certain that Udney Park is not the only example where this is happening. I was therefore extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response to these amendments in Committee, which, with all due respect, was contradictory. He rejected them on the following basis:

“Affordable housing, education and health are types of public sector-led development where the public benefits facilitated through the non-payment of hope value can be directly demonstrable to local communities. The Government have concerns that the provisions would be less compelling for sporting and recreational facilities.”––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2025; c. 489.]

I say that sport and physical activity are critical to physical and mental health, and he said that health is an important public benefit for the purposes of disregarding hope value.

Just yesterday, Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport stated that the Government

“are committed to supporting the growth of grassroots sports across the UK.”

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport made a brilliant speech last night at an event attended by many Members in this place to launch the inspirational Lionesses’ campaign to defend their European crown. She was passionate about the importance of grassroots sports and extending opportunity to every community. She has announced £100 million of investment in grassroots sports facilities, which is extremely welcome.

The change proposed through my amendments would help Ministers to achieve the important objective of expanding sports and recreation grounds without costing them a penny. It would not encroach on the principle that the use of CPO powers must be proportionate and justified in the public interest, given that Ministers have so strongly and correctly championed the growth of grassroots sport across the UK as being in the public interest. The amendments would apply solely to land that is already sports field or recreational land, where there is local need for that sports and recreational facility and it is at risk of loss to speculative development.

It is entirely proportionate and justified in the public interest that CPO powers and the removal of hope value should apply in such circumstances, so it defies all logic that Ministers have not embraced this change and that they continue to oppose it. I look forward to hearing an explanation from the Minister. I hope he will at least commit to engaging further on this issue as the Bill moves to the other place. Perhaps he will meet me to discuss it, rather than dismissing it completely.

Let me turn to new clause 107, which is also in my name. There is cross-party consensus on the dire need for more housing across our country. The Liberal Democrats have a strong commitment to delivering desperately needed social housing, so it was disappointing to see Labour Members vote against our amendment 15 last night to write a social housing target into law. One important way to secure sites for social and affordable housing is when public bodies dispose of land and buildings. In constituencies such as mine, with its royal park, a river and other important protected parks and spaces, sites are few and far between, yet week in, week out I see cases in my inbox and at my constituency surgeries of families on the social housing waiting list for years, with little hope of getting out of desperately overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation.

I am incredibly proud that Liberal Democrat-run Richmond council has consistently sought to repurpose, and sell below market value, sites that it owns but no longer needs to provide for more social homes from which families in my constituency can benefit. The council has done this despite the immense pressures on local government funding, but sadly other public bodies do not feel able to do the same, whether they are national Government Departments such as the Ministry of Defence, key public services such as the Metropolitan police, or arm’s length bodies such as NHS England. They all want to achieve as high a price as they can when selling assets that they no longer need in order to be able to invest in frontline public services. That is a laudable and important aim, but it prices social housing providers, and other public service providers, out of the market, while losing assets from the public sector balance sheet at the same time.

New clause 107 would fill the gaps in the existing patchwork of legislation and regulation that is somewhat piecemeal in the public bodies included and is not properly used to allow all public sector bodies to sell assets below market value for public benefit, whether that is for social housing or for much-needed community infrastructure like health facilities or a community centre. Not only would it extend that provision to all public bodies; it would go further still by imposing a duty on all public bodies to at least consider disposing of assets for public good.

This wide-ranging new clause builds on my successful campaign in the last Parliament, when I worked with a succession of Conservative Housing Ministers to secure a change in the then Bill, which became the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, that included police authorities under existing provisions to sell public assets below market value for public good. My campaign was born of frustration about the fact that the disused Teddington police station lies derelict in my constituency. A local housing association and the Park Road GP surgery are desperate to obtain the site to expand and provide state-of-the-art GP facilities on the ground floor, as well as much-needed social housing on the floors above. This Government think that all members of the public are blockers, but I can tell the Minister that the Teddington community are right behind my campaign, and we will fight tooth and nail to ensure that when the Met puts the site on the market we can obtain the GP surgery and housing that our community desperately need at a reasonable price, which will almost certainly not be as high as private developers can offer.

I secured the legislative basis to achieve that ambition in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, but in many other cases the provision is not there or is not used. Furthermore, the amount below market value for which some public sector bodies can dispose of their assets has not been updated since 2003. New clause 107 seeks to address that anomaly, although I note that the Conservative Government made a commitment to consulting on and reviewing the amount—something that did not happen before they left office, and something that the present Government have not implemented since they took power last year.

The Chancellor herself has previously said that surplus Government land is a

“huge untapped resource that could create opportunities for the next generation of homeowners.”

I warmly welcomed the news in March that Network Rail would set up a property company to use surplus land for house building. There is so much more than just Network Rail land, but we need both the legislative basis for public sector disposals below market value and the incentives to achieve those sales. I do not blame the Metropolitan Police Commissioner for wanting to get top dollar for Teddington police station, especially when I read about the cuts that he is having to make to frontline policing and the intransigence of the Treasury when it comes to proper funding for the community policing that the Government have promised.

I say to Ministers that this is robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need a duty on all public bodies, and financial incentives from the Treasury for them to repurpose or sell their assets for community good. We can achieve the homes and public services that our country desperately needs, not by ripping up our green belt and precious open spaces but by thinking creatively about how we repurpose existing sites, including those already owned by the taxpayer. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Robbie Moore]

I rise to speak about new clause 127 and amendment 153, both of which are in my name.

Compulsory purchase is a highly emotive and highly controversial subject. Indeed, much of yesterday’s debate was taken up by discussion of precisely the new CPO powers that the Bill will grant to Natural England and local authorities. The fact that under the Bill a farmer in Keighley can be told how to use his land, on pain of a CPO, as a result of a development in Kent is complete and utter madness, but that is exactly the intention of the Bill. No matter where someone owns land, they may be put at detriment by a scheme that is taking place elsewhere. That is exactly what the Government intend to do through the additional CPO powers: to give Natural England—an organisation with which I have huge frustration and which, dare I say it, is not accountable robustly to a Minister—more power to use compulsory purchase orders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Liberal Democrat spokesman tempts me to stray beyond the specific measures in the Bill and how that power can be used. We are clear and have recently issued guidance about how that power can be used.

That leads me helpfully to amendments 68, 88 and 89, which would expand the LURA power in question. Sympathetic as I am to the more frequent removal of hope value from the assessment of compensation, the use of the relevant power must be proportionate and justified in the public interest so that it does not fall foul of article 1 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights. Seeking to expand the use of the power beyond that test and apply it much more widely is problematic for that reason. I cannot accept the amendments on that basis.

However, I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) that use of the direction power can be sought on mixed use schemes that include sports or recreational uses, but within those schemes there must be education provision, health provision or affordable housing provision to justify the use of the power in the public interest. On that specific point, and to respond to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I confirm that clause 104 does not extend the LURA power to other uses or social objectives; it merely enables parish and town councils to make use of the existing power.

[Munira Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not give away any more. I want to bring our remarks to a close because, as hon. Members are aware, there is a statement to follow our proceedings on the Bill.

I turn to new clause 85, which would change the lost payments regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973. To be clear, lost payments are an amount of compensation paid to eligible claimants to reflect and recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused by CPOs. They are an additional payment to compensation claimable under the Land Compensation Act 1961 for the market value of land or property taken by compulsory purchase. The new clause would allow claimants to claim compensation for the market value of their interests twice, and result in over-compensation being paid. That would be disproportionate. It would also run counter to the established, overriding principle of equivalence in compensation law where a person subject to compulsory purchase should be left no better or worse off in financial terms after an acquisition than they were before. On that basis, we cannot accept the new clause.

I will touch briefly on new clause 42 in the name of the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), regarding loss payments. It would introduce a change to the loss payment compensation regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973, increasing the amount that occupiers of buildings or land subject to a CPO would be entitled to and placing them on an equal footing with owners. As we discussed at some length in Committee, the Bill already achieves in part what the hon. Gentleman is seeking in the new clause as it increases the loss payment compensation due to occupiers of buildings and land.

The purpose of loss payments is to reflect the inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase. It is occupiers, rather than investor-owners, who bear the greater burden in that respect: they are the ones who will need to close or relocate their businesses. Loss payments are a separate head of claim from compensation paid for land taken under compulsory purchase. The Bill rebalances loss payment compensation to allow occupiers to claim a higher amount and landowners to claim a lower amount. We believe that the rebalancing of loss payment compensation in favour of occupiers is the right approach and will benefit, for example, groups such as tenant farmers, for which Opposition Members have made a case in this afternoon’s debate. On that basis, I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment and I request that the hon. Member does not press it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

Homeless veterans in Banbury will be able to benefit from extra support thanks to a £371,927 increase in funding for homelessness services in Cherwell and West Oxfordshire in 2025-26. Veterans in Banbury can also access housing support through Op Fortitude. This nationwide system provides housing guidance and assistance to veterans who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

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

[Matthew Pennycook]

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

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (changed to Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers) Bill)

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I, too, begin by putting on record my thanks to the noble Lords in the other place for all their work on the Bill, in particular those on the Liberal Democrat Benches: Baroness Pinnock, Lord Shipley and Lord Fox.

Business rates reform is long overdue and, while we welcome the proposal to permanently reduce business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure, in the meantime many businesses across my constituency, and indeed the country, are reeling as they see the impact of the reduction in rates relief in bills landing on their doormats. I have heard from a number of businesses just in the past few days. I am really concerned about pubs, restaurants and cafés in my constituency who are wondering how, with the national insurance rise and the reduction in rates relief, they will continue.

The Liberal Democrats would like to see a fundamental overhaul of the business rates system, not just the sticking-plaster solutions proposed in the Bill that tinker around the edges. As I said, lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure are a step in the right direction, but there are countless small businesses outside those sectors that need their tax burden reduced too, for example manufacturing businesses. We tabled amendments on Report to improve the Bill and to ensure it gave consideration to whether there should be provision for manufacturing facilities, which can be big and built on expensive land but sometimes produce relatively low-value goods. Lords amendment 4 sought to do the same, whereby manufacturing premises would also pay new lower business rates under the Bill. Without that, light engineering and printers, among other businesses in our town centres’ mixed economies, could be priced out.

A recent report by Barclays bank concluded that the words “made in Britain” were worth an additional £3.5 billion to UK exporters, so it is important that something is done to support the manufacturing sector. We have learnt the hard way in recent years, with the pandemic and wars, that we need to be much more self-sufficient as a country, yet there has been a big drop in confidence in the sector since autumn, with an increase in manufacturers’ costs and orders in general reported to be smaller in size. That comes on top of the additional Brexit red tape that those businesses have to contend with to export. Therefore, we support retaining this amendment in the Bill.

As I have said, we want fundamental reform of business rates so we can boost small businesses and our high streets. We tabled an amendment on Report to require a review of the impact of the Bill on businesses, high streets and economic growth, so we support retaining Lords amendment 13, which would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of the Bill on businesses whose rateable value is close to £500,000 and so will be caught by the new higher business rates.

Turning to our NHS, yet again we see the Government giving with one hand and taking with the other. As with national insurance contributions, so with the business rates changes: there are unintended but significant consequences for our health service. Lords amendment 1 sought to exclude hospitals and other healthcare settings from paying new higher business rates for properties with a rateable of £500,000 or more. Without the amendment, 290 local hospitals will be caught by the rates, an unacceptable new burden when the NHS is already struggling. As my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock pointed out in the other place, without the amendment the likes of Great Ormond Street hospital for children will have an additional burden of £600,000 per year on business rates alone, the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford has a potential business rates increase from £3.4 million to £4.1 million, and the Hull Royal Infirmary could see its bill rising from £1.8 million to £2.1 million. Those are typical figures for hospitals across the country. I do not believe it is the Government’s intention to reduce hospitals’ abilities to drive down their waiting lists, yet that is exactly what the impact of these changes and the consequent higher charges will be, so we support the amendment.

The Bill also levies a tax on education by removing the business rates exemption for private schools that are charities, a measure that will be compounded by the Government’s move to levy VAT on private school fees and the increase to employers’ national insurance contributions. As I have said many times since the general election—and indeed before—the Liberal Democrats are opposed, in principle, to the taxation of education, as it is a public good. We strongly support and champion parents’ right to choose, on which both those tax measures are an assault.

[Mark Sewards]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that this Government won an election on the basis of a promise that we would introduce VAT on private school fees, so it is incumbent on us to deliver that manifesto pledge?

[Munira Wilson]

I am very grateful for that intervention, because I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that his party won the election with less than 34% of the vote. I cannot remember what the turnout was, but—

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

60%.

[Munira Wilson]

My hon. Friend tells me it was 60%. I cannot do the maths quickly enough—clearly, I need to do maths to 18—

[Luke Taylor]

One in five voters—one in seven adults.

[Munira Wilson]

There we go—basically, not many voters voted for Labour’s manifesto. I will happily let the hon. Gentleman continue to plough that furrow, because I have had that argument made to me before—for instance, in the petitions debate on VAT on private school fees just last week.

[Mark Sewards]

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again. The simple fact is that we have the electoral system we have, and it is incumbent on whomever wins a majority to deliver their manifesto pledges to govern the country. She may take issue with the electoral system, but it is the one that we have, and we must deliver our manifesto pledges.

[Munira Wilson]

I respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman that a rise in employers’ national insurance contributions was not in his party’s manifesto, nor was a cut to the winter fuel allowance, nor was the farmers tax, yet these are all things Labour is implementing.

[Mark Sewards]

rose—

[Munira Wilson]

Unless the hon. Gentleman wants to make a different point from his party’s manifesto, which was not voted for by many people, I will not give way, although I will pick up on another point he made earlier.

Clause 5, which implements the removal of charitable rate relief for private schools, undermines the principle that I referred to: we should not be taxing education, and we should respect parents’ right to choose. The clause will undermine the ability of independent schools to undertake the brilliant partnership work that they do in our communities and with state schools. I have talked many times in this place of Lady Eleanor Holles and Hampton schools in my constituency, which have done amazing work with underprivileged communities in the Feltham area, such as with Reach academy, and helped to transform the life chances and outcomes for young people in that community. The measure will also limit those schools’ abilities to extend bursaries to children from more disadvantaged backgrounds.

[Suella Braverman]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right in what she is saying on private schools, and I agree with everything she has said on that point. Does she agree that as well as the damaging effects on children who go to private schools, this will affect children in state schools? In Hampshire, thousands of young pupils attend independent schools, but the state schools are running at nearly 100% capacity. This measure is going to push hundreds, if not thousands, of children into state schools, which are already full, thereby harming and undermining the education of all children. Is that not unforgivable?

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. I am aware, from talking to colleagues, that there are real pressures on school places in different parts of the country. Clearly, that is where we will see a negative impact. In my own constituency and, indeed, across London, we are struggling with secondary school places, although rolls are falling in primary schools, which will feed into the secondary sector. These pressures of children leaving the private sector to go into the state sector are different in different parts of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Sewards]

The hon. Member has been very generous with her time. On the points that she made about funds for state schools and about the other difficult decisions that this Government have had to make, does she not accept that when we came to power, we found an economy that had been absolutely ruined by the Conservative party? We found every Department in reserves and a £22 billion black hole that had to be filled, because we are the party of economic responsibility.

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Where we can make common cause is over the absolute mess in which the Conservatives left both our public services and our economy. I have no quibble in agreeing with him on that point. We Liberal Democrats set out a whole series of tax measures—actually we were the only party that was not afraid to put forward revenue-raising measures—but his Government are choosing not to accept any of them. They included taxing our big tech giants that are ruining the mental health of our children and young people—[Interruption.] Yes, in fact, they are planning to slash that tax altogether. We also suggested reversing the tax cuts that the Conservatives gave to the big banks, so that we can continue putting free school meals on the table for children, which, again, his Government are thinking of cutting. Then we suggested reforming capital gains tax—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind the hon. Lady that we are in fact debating Lords amendment 1 and the Government motion to disagree.

[Munira Wilson]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply seeking to address the hon. Member’s point. I am coming in to land now.

Time and again we see Government policy at odds with their stated objectives. They want to tackle NHS waiting lists but then slap business rates on to large hospitals and put national insurance rises on to our GPs, hospices and social care providers. They claim to drive growth but then slap business rates on to much-needed manufacturing and put a cliff edge on small businesses in our town centres. They want to extend opportunity to all but then go after charitable independent schools that are serving their wider communities—not to mention punishing parents who dare to make that choice for their children.

Amid some good intentions, the Government have lost their way in parts of the Bill. I implore Ministers to genuinely consider the amendments before them in order to support our hospitals and allow businesses up and down our country to grow and flourish.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Munira Wilson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

Let me be clear: I do not call people of this country the blockers. I do not see that when I am out and about; I never saw it during the general election campaign. People want this development. The hon. Member makes an important point about infrastructure; people often say that the infrastructure is not there. This Bill streamlines infrastructure. I think it goes some way towards doing the work. It is not everything; we have to do a lot of other things, like we have done with section 106, for example. Under the previous Government, we often did not get the benefit of that, because people wriggled out of their obligations. I appreciate the tone of the hon. Member’s remarks. This Government are going to make sure that we build the houses that people want, where they want them, with consultation and with the critical infrastructure that they need.

At the same time, we will unlock land for housing and infrastructure by reforming the compulsory purchase process, ensuring that important projects that deliver public benefits—such as many more social and affordable homes—are given the green light, and that compensation paid to landowners is not excessive.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I warmly welcome the changes to hope value in order to build more affordable homes, but will the Secretary of State clarify whether that will also apply to wider projects for community benefit such as playing fields? Udney Park in Teddington in my constituency has lain derelict for over a decade as successive owners have wanted to develop it but cannot do so. There is a huge demand for community playing fields and the community wants to be able to access that land. Will she assure me that the hope value changes will apply much more broadly than just to affordable housing?

[Angela Rayner]

I hope that the hon. Member continues to engage, because we want to make sure that we can go as wide as we possibly can so that we get the land that is needed and we can build the houses that we desperately need. We are also doing work within the devolution Bill, which will be coming forward, around compulsory purchase on other assets of public value that are not for building on. That touches on the point that the hon. Member has raised.

We are also strengthening development corporations to make it easier to deliver the housing projects we need. Those corporations delivered previous generations of new towns. This Labour Government are building on our post-war legacy by giving them enhanced powers to help deliver our next generation of new towns. These will be communities built with local people in mind, with the affordable housing, GP surgeries, schools and public transport that working people expect and need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I welcome the Bill. When I studied for my planning diploma, I learned that since the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, the power of national strategic policy versus the challenge of local politics in planning approvals has waxed and waned. It felt under the previous Government as though national powers over significant development decisions almost disappeared, and MPs of the Government party effectively pressured the then Secretary of State to refuse much-needed infrastructure developments that included new housing developments, prisons and more. There has to be a balance. The national Government have to be able to deliver on their national strategies. This is what the Bill does.

I particularly welcome specific parts of the Bill. It fosters more certainty for critical national infrastructure such as electricity—that is so important, as we heard earlier in the Heathrow statement—clean energy, roads, public transport, water and sewerage. I welcome the certainty of decision making for planning applications, more effective land assembly through improving the compulsory purchase orders process and bringing back development corporations, and the return of effective spatial development strategies. The Bill will enable the Government to reform the planning system to deliver on growth, new housing, cutting carbon emissions and climate change resilience—all of which the UK badly needs.

As an MP in London where buying a home or even renting is out of reach to most young people, I welcome the Government’s focus on delivering the 1.5 million new homes that are needed. The Bill and the excellent national planning policy framework enable new housing developments to no longer be designed with entrenched car dependence. The Bill is an excellent opportunity to ensure that new housing and other developments can be concentrated in locations with good public transport, so that schools, shops, health centres, parks and open spaces are easily reachable without the need to drive. This ensures access for all, not only those who have a car. It ensures access to jobs, education, training and shops—all essential building blocks for growth across the country.

[Munira Wilson]

My constituency neighbour is making a strong speech. I agree with her about building homes in areas that are accessible by public transport. Does she agree that the Government should be encouraged to ensure that where the public sector is selling off land and buildings—disused police stations, fire stations or other public sector buildings—it should be allowed to sell below market value, and should be encouraged to do so to enable more affordable housing and social housing in constituencies like mine and hers, where there just is not the land to build on?

[Ruth Cadbury]

My constituency neighbour makes a good point, but she must remember that due to 15 years of austerity, many of those sales were the only way that public sector institutions could deliver the new services that were so badly needed.

The Mayor of London and councils such as Hounslow are working with the Labour Government on several key transport links, including the west London orbital, which will unlock thousands of new homes. However, the Bill alone will not unlock the housing and infrastructure projects that the country so urgently needs, so I ask the Secretary of State—or the Minister for Housing and Planning, who is still present—to address the other causes of delay and uncertainty that we are seeing in the system. The community infrastructure levy and section 106 agreements on, say, new bus routes, must be adequate, timely and sustainable, so that people are not moving into estates to then become dependent on having a car. Providing two buses a day for a couple of years, some time after tens or even hundreds of homes have been occupied, is not building in sustainable transport.

My second point is about new joint public-private developments. The hybrid Bill process, as was used for High Speed 2, took years and still did not deliver detailed plans for the routes. It then got mired in lengthy legal processes over the details. The chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission told our Transport Committee how France and Spain delivered new high-speed rail in a fraction of the time, without it being mired in public opposition and legal challenges. It has taken far too long to deliver even half of the original HS2 project. I therefore hope that the Government will come up with a more streamlined process for such major national projects.

Thirdly, I hope that the Secretary of State will work with the Chancellor on different public-private funding mechanisms that other equivalent economies have long used to develop transport infrastructure, social and affordable housing and other public services, so that they are no longer held back due to historic Treasury orthodoxies on capital expenditure.

Fourthly, the Housing Minister will be aware of the additional delays faced by developers of tall blocks of flats. They have planning permission but are being delayed in gateways 2 and 3 of the Building Safety Act 2022. The legislation itself may not be the problem, but the building safety regulator processes certainly are. A development of more than 400 homes in my constituency has been stuck for over a year, with no certainty about if and when they will go ahead. Obviously, my last three points are not within the scope of the Bill, but they are relevant to the aspirations of this Labour Government to get Britain building, which the Bill will deliver.

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for her work on the agenda to further devolution in her region. We recognise that in some parts of the country, including Hull and East Yorkshire and Greater Lincolnshire, local authorities worked up proposals for the previous Government that were not tabled before the election. We are currently working through those proposals at pace to make sure areas have clarity about where they are up to, and we look forward to reporting on that as soon as possible and meeting with local MPs as part of that process.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

When the Secretary of State looks at the rules around local authority compulsory purchase orders, and at removing hope value for house building purposes, will she look at having the same rules for playing fields that local authorities want to keep as playing fields and not build on? That would allow sites such as Udney park playing field in my constituency, which has lain derelict for a decade under private ownership, to be brought into community use again.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It sounds as if the hon. Lady has a response for the NPPF consultation that is in development. I welcome her views on playing fields. On CPOs, there is a discretionary power to disapply section 17 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 in relation to hope value. We need to ensure that that is brought into force; then we will take further steps to reform CPOs, as outlined in our manifesto.