Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

Olly Glover Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

Q Thank you; that is illuminating and we will take it forward in Committee. Mr Miner, could you elaborate on my question about the NRF element of the legislation?

Paul Miner: We had concerns about biodiversity net gain when it was introduced because we felt that it would not lever in as many resources for nature conservation as some of its proponents claimed, and that it would not necessarily deliver strategic benefits. On that basis, we support the principle of a nature restoration fund as something that has the potential for taking a more strategic approach. From our perspective, it is particularly important that the nature restoration fund links well with the Government’s proposed land use framework, which we also support and which we urge the Government to bring in as soon as possible after the consultation finishes. There should also be strong links between the nature restoration fund and the local priorities that are identified in local nature recovery strategies.

We have concerns about the detail proposed in the Bill, and in particular about the potential compromising of the well-established mitigation hierarchy: the principle that you should avoid environmental damage before seeking to compensate for or mitigate it. We are also members of Wildlife and Countryside Link, which you will hear from later. We support what it has been saying about the nature restoration fund.

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

Q One of the challenges in planning is finding the optimum balance between housing, environmental requirements, food production and local decision making and consultation. Do you feel that the Government’s proposed Bill strikes a fair balance between those four things?

Rachel Hallos: No.

[Olly Glover]

Please expand.

Rachel Hallos: I am not convinced that there is clarity on the balance and calculations. If you take such land out of production, what imbalance does that create with production elsewhere? If you move environmental goods from one area of land on to another, what imbalance is being created there? If we are going to go down an accounting route, what is the cost-benefit of doing it—whether it is food production, homes or environment? I am not sure that is in the Bill, and I think it needs to be to make sure that the right decisions are being taken in the right places.

As an organisation representing farmers, and as a farmer myself, I know that what we do on our land is a long process, whether it is producing food or managing the land for environmental goods. This is not a quick fix; we cannot move a dial and have something change overnight. We need to make sure that the right decisions are being taken in the right places, and we also need to recompense the people who are taken along with it as they go.

Paul Miner: We broadly agree with Rachel. Overall, the Bill needs to strike a better balance between the various objectives that the planning system seeks to fulfil. It is not just about facilitating development but about mitigating and adapting to climate change, as well as helping to secure nature recovery. We think that the Bill can do more to give the wider public and ourselves confidence that, in future, we will get better plans and decisions that will look to achieve a vision for getting more sustainable development, as well as meeting our climate change targets and our very ambitious nature conservation targets.

One element that has not come up in questioning so far, which we are particularly keen to raise, is clause 22 on householder payments for electricity transmission lines. We do not think that making payments to householders is the way to go. Instead, we should really focus on building on the good practice that we already have for onshore wind farms, where we consult and involve communities in community benefit schemes, and also look to achieve community benefit schemes that help communities, in turn, address climate change, get more rooftop solar on people’s homes in rural areas and improve the energy efficiency of rural housing. It seems to us that giving payments to householders completely goes against working in any kind of public interest, and we urge parliamentarians to look at that clause of the Bill again.

[David Simmonds]

Q I would like to ask you both about the interaction between green-belt and farming areas. In a constituency such as mine, which is on the edge of London, as well as a lot of edge-of-city constituencies, there is land that is both in the green belt and farmland. That has significant implications for the landowner because the hope value is significantly higher than farmland might be elsewhere, but it also needs additional protection because it is ancillary to the existence of the city. It sometimes provides a source of food and leisure, as well as the environmental benefits of it being a green space.

I am interested in your view on whether the Bill sufficiently addresses the balance between green belt and agricultural use. What improvements would you want to see on compulsory purchase processes to ensure that landowners in those locations have appropriate recourse? Also, where it is clear that the land in question provides a broader public benefit, as opposed to simply being a business standing on its own, how can we ensure that the broader public benefit can be accounted for in the reckoning up of the value of that land?

Rachel Hallos: It is almost like having ransom strips next to urban conurbations. That green belt gets sucked into that urban conurbation and, all of a sudden, it becomes a brown belt—I think “grey belt” was also considered at one stage. The reality is, when you are in that situation—I can completely understand, although some of my members would not; that is the leadership role that we have to take—that that land is of national benefit through development. That is because it increases the size of the town, the infrastructure—the whole thing. On what the Bill needs to do, again it goes back to doing the number crunching. What is the long-term benefit of this?

We also have to remember that when we compulsorily purchase land from a farmer who is running their business and living there, they have every right to make a decision to restart their business elsewhere. What if the land value goes up and they are being paid just the flat agricultural rate? Everybody wants that land, because guess what? Everybody wants land right now. Everybody wants land for everything, so land prices are creeping up anyway. There is then artificial inflation of the land price in that area because everybody is after it.

That bit also needs to be taken into consideration when it comes to recompensing anybody who has land taken away from them. It is a complicated formula, but the Bill really does need to look at that if we are to go anywhere near rebuilding confidence and trust between the agricultural community and Government. Especially if we put it in the package of everything else that is going on, we are very much in danger of having it go “bang” again. This has to stop. We all have to get on with life. We all have to get on with what we do—produce food, infrastructure or growth for the country.

Paul Miner: Green belt is a planning policy, but as you have rightly pointed out, green-belt land often has a wide range of public benefits and meanings for people who live in the towns and cities that the green belts surround. We strongly support the Bill’s provision for spatial development strategies, because you need effective strategic planning in order for green-belt policy to work effectively.

Also, from our perspective, we should not just be looking at how the planning policy should work. If we accept that the vast majority of green-belt land will not become grey belt in the future but will remain designated green belts, we need to think about how we can better manage that land. That is why it is really important that in spatial development strategies and in the Government’s land use framework, we have policies for improving the management of green-belt land. Until now, green-belt land has been relatively poorly served by successive Governments’ environmental land management schemes. There is relatively low take-up in green-belt areas. We urge the Government, as part of the land use framework but also with spatial development strategies, to seek to improve the quality of green belts for nature and for climate.

Rachel Hallos: May I add one last thing to that? Sorry to be rude. When it comes to the spatial development strategies, LNRSs and all the different things that are going on and are being consulted on at the moment, there is no legal requirement to consult the land manager. That worries me. It is just wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy]

Q I am afraid that my questions are also to Richard, so apologies to the other witnesses. I want to go back to your original comment about nature and development not needing to be in conflict, with which I entirely agree. You also pointed out that we are suffering from significant species loss and environmental degradation.

As someone who has worked on both housing and protecting the environment for the last 10 years, I support this approach because the current system is not delivering. Do you agree that the current system is not delivering for either nature or development? Notwithstanding the flaws—I think there can be some honest disagreement on what the outcomes might be—do you welcome the fact that a new approach is being proposed, given that the current system is not delivering for either development or nature?

Richard Benwell: There is good scientific evidence that the habitats regulations are the most effective site and species protections in the world, but we definitely still need to go further. Some of those strategic solutions, particularly for landscape issues like water pollution, air pollution and water availability, can be improved.

You are right. There are loads of places where we could go further. We would love to see things like building regulations for biodiversity in the Bill, to help get nature built into the fabric of development as we go. To suggest that the habitats regulations are not working is wrong, but their implementation can definitely be improved and more use can be made of this kind of strategic approach if it is done well.

[Olly Glover]

Q I feel it would be a shame for Carol Hawkey and Mike Seddon to visit this wonderful building without making a contribution to our understanding.

We have had a lot of discussion about what Natural England’s chief executive said earlier. In her testimony, she was very clear that she feels that the provisions in the Bill do not have the effect of reducing current levels of environmental protection. What do you feel about that? Linked to that, do you feel that the Bill strikes the right balance between agriculture, environmental protection, housing and all the other things on which the planning system is here to deliver?

Mike Seddon: Thank you for the question and for inviting us. I will give you a perspective from a land manager. Forestry England is the largest land manager in England, and we are responsible for the public forest. I am not an expert on the development Bill, but from our perspective, the idea that environmental delivery plans can secure an improvement is correct, and it is particularly appealing if they can do that at a strategic scale. Anything that starts to join up nature across the country, which provisions of the Bill will enable us to do, would be a good thing.

[Lee Pitcher]

Q I am just trying to understand, Richard. I have watched programmes, I have worked in the world of climate and I spoke at COP26, so I have a bit of background. You have talked to us about the number of species that are dying out now and, globally, I know they are dying out 100 times faster than normal evolutionary rates of extinction.

We are in a bad place, and there is a lot to be done, but that is with the existing stuff that precedes this measure. That is the position we are in, so I cannot understand why a change will not better facilitate an improvement in nature as well as planning. That leads to growth, which can then put money back into the system to improve it further.

Richard Benwell: It is because the proposed change will weaken that level of protection and make unsustainable—

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Taylor]

Q James, I would like to ask you a question first. We heard a lot on earlier panels about the number of permissions that have been granted but not yet delivered. How do you think your members can be helped by the Bill to deliver those homes? Also, when we talk about affordable housing, how much of that really needs to be socially rented housing to help deliver homes that homeless people need? That second question is more for Kate.

James Stevens: On the first element of that question, we really dispute the notion that house builders just bank land and are not interested in building out. Craig Bennett of the Wildlife Trusts cited a figure on Radio 4, I think, of 1.4 million homes that have granted permission but that have not been built out. We strongly contest that. A lot of those things are not counted as a completion until they are actually completed. A lot of those schemes have to work through very complicated discharge conditions. A lot of those permissions can just be outline planning permissions, and not the detailed planning permissions that you need to be an implementable consent. A lot of those figures are just poor figures that do not reflect the true numbers that have actually been built out.

Lastly on that, this accusation of land banking has often been levelled at the house building industry over the last 20 years. Consistently, independent studies, including one by the Competition and Markets Authority last year, have given us a clean bill of health on that. There is an issue about absorption rates—the ability of a local market to absorb certain sales—but house builders do not make their money from sitting on land. That costs them money. We make money from the sale of homes.

The issue of social housing—I will allow Kate to come in shortly—is very important. The problem is that we have a severe housing crisis. As Kate said, we have many thousands of children in temporary accommodation. Local authorities had to spend something like £2.3 billion last year on temporary accommodation; local authorities would go bankrupt there. Therefore, the tendency is to try to maximise social housing provision—social rented housing. We can understand why local authorities want to do that. However, to follow up on the point I made to Gideon Amos, the problem is that if local authority policies are too prescriptive on the tenure split, that can make it very difficult for house builders to contract with registered providers, to provide registered providers with the type of tenure mix that they need. We need to be a bit more realistic and flexible about that.

The key issue is to get houses built—to focus upon the quantity—in order to alleviate the affordability problems that make people so dependent upon social housing in the first place. But absolutely, social rented housing is very important. We are not trying to say that we do not want to build it.

Kate Henderson: Social housing is needed in every part of the country. What is really important is that we have objectively assessed needs and that those needs are then incorporated in local plans, and that we deliver mixed, sustainable communities that reflect the needs of those areas.

I will just dispute a little bit the point about the London situation and the London plan. London is the only part of the country where we have a strategic development strategy. The reason that we have a crash of supply in London is not because of strategic planning. It is because of a building safety crisis, hugely high inflation, huge land prices, an absolute crisis in temporary accommodation, and huge pressures that have happened across the social housing sector over the last 15 years in terms of cuts and caps to our income.

To get out of the situation in London and in the rest of the country, we need a comprehensive planning system that is based on objectively assessed need; a long-term housing strategy that looks at our existing homes as well as new homes; a rent settlement, including convergence, and funding that addresses building safety as well as new supply. Those are all things that the Government are looking at, which is welcome.

As for bringing forward those spatial development strategies in the rest of the country, it is really important that they have a focus on social and affordable housing, and that that should be mandated within them. The percentages will need to reflect the context of the areas and the need in those areas, so there will need to be a degree of flexibility in accordance with place, but it is vital that that is mandated as part of the remit of those strategies. We welcome their introduction.

[Olly Glover]

Q Mr Stevens, you mentioned local plans briefly in one of your previous answers. Do you feel that the draft Bill sufficiently considers the interaction between the proposed spatial development strategies and existing local plan processes? Kate Henderson, it would also be good to hear your views on that.

James Stevens: I have been involved in commenting on, I think, all the last four iterations of the London plan, so I can see that it is a successful model, in that it does a lot of the heavy lifting for local authorities in terms of identifying broad locations of growth, but in particular setting out the housing requirement for all the constituent local authorities. Once that strategic plan is adopted, it becomes part of the legal development plan, and it means that whatever stage the local authority is at with developing its plan, at least the policies, including the policies for the number and distribution of housing set out in that spatial plan, become part of the development plan, so it does assist the Government in ensuring that their new mandatory standard method is embedded within the planning system as quickly as possible.

I have been involved also in all the spatial strategies produced by the mayoral combined authorities to a greater or lesser extent over the last six years. I think the Government’s measures to reform the governance so that with spatial development strategies, the Mayor only needs majority support rather than unanimity is a very important step forward.

Kate Henderson: Returning to a system of strategic spatial planning is really welcome. Trying to work out our housing need based on 300-plus local authorities does not get us up to the sum total of actually doing things comprehensively. In terms of addressing the housing crisis, economic growth and opportunity, nature recovery, landscapes, our utility provision and how we get to work, we need to work on a larger than local scale. The ability to co-ordinate all that infrastructure at a spatial scale where authorities are working together makes a lot of sense.

What is going to be a challenge is how we do this in a comprehensive way when there are huge capacity pressures on local authorities. There are some welcome measures in the Bill around ringfencing planning fees to give some additional capacity there and we support that, but how do you do the strategic planning function, in getting local authorities to have local plans in place and getting strategic plans in place at the same time, while also recognising that we are having local government reorganisation in the forthcoming English devolution Bill?

We would really like the long-term housing strategy, which is due to come forward this summer, to be the overarching framework for at least the next decade for how we transform the housing offer to people in this country. There is a question here about boosting capacity in the system. There is also about where levels of primacy are going to sit when it comes to decision making. There are lots of different things coming forward, so we need to be really clear, if there is a spatial development strategy coming forward and local plans coming forward, about how they will interact, how they will be democratically consulted on and agreed, and where the primacy of decision making is. That is what we expect more detail on in the secondary legislation and consultations to come.

James Stevens: There is a risk, though, that the prospect of a spatial development strategy will slow down local plan making. That is something we are quite anxious about. That is what we saw in Greater Manchester. The promise of a spatial strategy for Greater Manchester meant that for about 10 years, I think nine of the 10 constituent local authorities did not bother producing a local plan, so the Government need to be very clear. It is set out in the explanatory notes to the Bill, but the Government need to be very clear that local plan production must not stop under any circumstance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

Q Minister Pennycook, how will this help SMEs, obviously when we have unlocked that grid?

Matthew Pennycook: There are a variety of ways in which the Bill will help SMEs. It is probably worth my saying, because we have had a variety of questions on issues that are not directly within the scope of the Bill—the new towns taskforce and programme, and build-out rates where the Government have taken action and are exploring what further steps we can take—that this is not the totality of the interventions that we are introducing to support SMEs.

However, to go back to Mr Murphy’s question, a good example would be the nature restoration fund. We know that nutrient neutrality and diffuse constraints of that kind are particularly affecting SME house builders in those sensitive river catchments, so there are a number of ways in which the provisions in the Bill will directly benefit small and medium house builders.

[Olly Glover]

Q Recent Government announcements on housing targets—around 1.5 million, but only 18,000 will be social homes—have led some to ask whether the Government are doing enough to promote affordable and social housing. Does the Bill go far enough, particularly in relation to spatial development strategies, to mandate more affordable and social housing provision?

Matthew Pennycook: To correct you on a point made there, I think the figure of 18,000 that you referenced is solely what we think could be delivered through the £2 billion we secured recently and announced as a down payment on the future grant funding through the successor programme to the affordable homes programme. It is not 18,000 affordable homes as social out of 1.5 million—that would be completely unacceptable. We are trying to, through all of our reforms, deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation.

[Olly Glover]

Accepted.

Matthew Pennycook: In terms of the top-up, we have already allocated £800 million to the affordable homes programme since coming into office. We have also pulled forward £2 billion as a down payment. A significant proportion of the homes coming through those funding routes are social rented homes—almost half, but I am happy to provide the Committee with the specific figure. So we are getting a huge uplift coming through, and the successor grant programme will give particular priority to social rented homes coming through.

Where I think spatial development strategies can add to what we see coming through is that these will not be big local plans—let us be very clear. They need to be pretty high-level documents that make decisions about where housing growth and infrastructure provision is best sited and delivered on a sub-regional basis. That will allow groups of local authorities to take a far more sophisticated approach to, for example, bringing forward large-scale new communities in strategic locations that allow them to meet housing targets in a more sophisticated way. Through other measures that we are introducing—the CPO measures in the Bill are a good example—we will capture more land-value uplift and deliver more social and affordable homes.

[Ellie Chowns]

Q To Minister Pennycook, I welcome your confirmation that you recognise that environmental, social and economic goals can be achieved together, and are not automatically or even frequently in contradiction with each other. Likewise, I welcome your confirmation that, as it says in the Bill, the purpose of the Government in bringing forward the Bill is to retain the existing level of environmental protections.

Given that commitment from the Government, given Richard Benwell’s observation that there are risks that could be addressed through amendments and given Marian Spain’s comments—that the Bill needs robust safeguards and that drafting amendments may make it more robust—I return to the question that Mr Murphy asked. Can you confirm that you retain an open mind and that you may consider tabling further Government amendments in response to the concerns raised, so that the Bill does what you are saying it does on the tin?

Matthew Pennycook: I appreciate the question. To reiterate—and this is where I slightly disagree with Mr Benwell and others—we are very clear that the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protections, in terms of existing environmental law. We are very clear about that, and confident in the safeguards that exist in the Bill.

I am happy to look at any amendment, and we will in the normal course of the Bill Committee; we will debate each of them in turn and I will keep an open mind about any that we think is feasible, workable, aligns with the objectives of the Bill and delivers what we want to see—absolutely. We will debate all of those in due course. As you rightly made clear, we tabled a package of Government amendments yesterday.

To bring it back to the specific point, some of those amendments on removing the statutory requirement for pre-applications consultation in relation to national significant infrastructure projects were tabled partly because we were getting feedback through the working paper, and also because there were a number of calls on Second Reading for us to specifically look at that area of reform. As you would expect in the normal course of the Bill, we will respond to challenge, criticism, scrutiny and any amendments, which we will debate in due course.

Residential Estate Management Companies

Olly Glover Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for her excellent and comprehensive speech, as well as for securing the debate.

My constituency of Didcot and Wantage in Oxfordshire has seen enormous population growth. New estates affected by these issues include Highcroft and Winterbrook Meadows in Wallingford, Fuller’s Grove and Hamilton Drive in East Challow, Dida Gardens and Great Western Park in Didcot, Kingsgrove in Wantage, and Cholsey Meadows. With 30,000 more homes planned in the surrounding area by 2041, the issue will clearly not go away.

Companies that have caused some of the issues that have come across my desk include not only FirstPort, but RMG, Remus and Home Group. My residents have experienced many of the issues mentioned by hon. Members, including arguments and a lack of accountability regarding responsibility for maintenance issues, a lack of transparency around fees and a lack of ability to influence management companies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) highlighted, the details of the fees and charges that will apply are sometimes revealed only towards the end of the purchase process, and are mysteriously absent from the pretty brochures that promote such sales.

I have seen examples of residents valiantly taking on estate management companies—for example, Home Group in Mersey Way and Venners Water, in Didcot—and securing far more reasonable charges than those originally proposed. However, that needs to be made simpler, so that residents in Springfield Way, in Sutton Courtenay, and on the Dovecote estate, in Drayton, can build on that excellent experience. We clearly need a lot more regulation because the market has failed in this area.

Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 Draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025

Olly Glover Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Our concern about the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 is that the criteria that would be used for deploying the proposed powers is somewhat vague and too broad. It would be useful to hear more clarity from the Minister on what criteria will be employed.

There is also potentially a risk that the Government are consuming too much political capital with these regulations when combined with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that we debated yesterday evening. Building new infrastructure—while respecting nature and economic growth—is of course vital for local communities and business, but it must come from community-led decision making. To keep the consent of our constituents, it is important that it is done with them, rather than to them.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Olly Glover Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

House building is essential to provide the homes that people need, but there are significant problems with our current approach to planning, and it is therefore welcome that the Government are giving time and attention to those topics.

My constituency and the areas surrounding it have seen 35% population growth in 20 years, yet the housing that has been built meets only some needs. South Oxfordshire housing association analysis highlights a serious shortage of social and affordable housing, particularly for one or two-person people households.

I have personally experienced the challenge of finding suitable and/or affordable housing, with very little to rent that is furnished. I appreciate that very few small violins will be played, but even as an MP on my salary, the place I have recently bought is wildly expensive, at nearly £300,000 for a small, two-bedroomed terraced house. In my case, building new housing has freed up an older house for me to buy, but the current market is not delivering for people on lower incomes.

Between 2012 and 2021, the Vale of White Horse local authority had the third highest net increase in dwellings as a proportion of their starting stock. I am proud that Liberal Democrat-led Vale and South Oxfordshire district councils have been proactive in developing a joint local plan, which has successfully combined meeting housing targets and five-year land supply requirements with gaining significant stakeholder support, for example from the Campaign to Protect Rural England.

The councils’ innovative and inclusive approach to consultation with the public meant that they were shortlisted for three national awards. They ran three stages of consultation to encourage as much engagement as possible. More than 5,000 responses were received from residents, parish councils and local businesses.

A key concern for my constituency is how any further increase in housing can be accommodated, given the dominance of lack of investment in infrastructure in recent years, leading to local concern about further housing. We need targets and measures for infrastructure, as well as housing, particularly given that local authorities do not have the powers or funding to deliver health and major transport schemes. The Bill does not remedy that.

[Luke Taylor]

My hon. Friend mentioned the capex costs of the infrastructure. Is it not also important that local councils and NHS integrated care boards are given increased budgets to maintain staffing for those facilities? There is no point in building a GP surgery if it cannot be staffed.

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend is right. Buildings need to be staffed, otherwise we will end up like the episode of “Yes Minister” with an empty building.

Key infrastructure needs and asks for my constituency include the Didcot-Culham relief road, with better walking and cycling provision than in the current plan. It is a controversial scheme, but I have given it my backing. They also include walking and cycling investment in new and existing areas of the towns; a new railway station at Grove; Didcot to Oxford line electrification; and health capacity to keep up with our growing population, particularly a GP surgery at Great Western Park in Didcot. That is why it is so critical that we link housing targets to targets and measures for wider infrastructure. Communities need housing, but they also need all the accompanying public and private amenities and services that are essential for happy and well-functioning communities.

Housing Development Planning: Water Companies

Olly Glover Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is truly a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I join colleagues in commending my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing time to discuss this vital issue, which I feel is a symptom of a wider malaise in our planning system, as I shall explain.

First, regrettably, I have to add my local examples of the problem to the many others we have heard. In Didcot, during the early stages of building Great Western Park in 2014, there were major sewage issues—so much so that tankers had to be brought in to deal with the sewage created by the new homes. Before long, temporary tanks were installed. Simply not enough capacity was delivered in the local system before the significant housing growth. As colleagues have said, this was accompanied by all the usual extremely circular and tedious arguments about whose fault it all was and where responsibility for sorting it out lay. I am sure that all Members can agree that our local residents are not particularly interested in whose fault it was: they just want these things sorted out—now, and for the future.

In the new street and houses of Anderson Place in the village of East Hanney, the pump station and sewerage system were not constructed to a standard acceptable to Thames Water for adoption, even though the approved plans listed the infrastructure as “proposed adoptable”. On the Childrey Park estate in the village of East Challow, the council has been unable to adopt the drainage and residents are currently in a state of limbo. A section 104 application was submitted, but everyone is unsure whether that means the infrastructure has been adopted. Thames Water says that adoptions are not a short process and that it has a high standard of inspection before it adopts, so it cannot commit to a timescale.

Meanwhile, local planning enforcement is, as we have heard elsewhere in the debate, struggling with how to deal with sewerage systems that are not fit for adoption by water companies. Developments are being built with drainage and sewerage systems that the water company refuses to adopt and that, in any case, are not capable of being adopted without expensive remedial work.

The Liberal Democrats want to ensure that all new development is accompanied by the necessary infrastructure to support it. Given the missed opportunity of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, I call on the Government to ensure that provision is made in upcoming legislation to ensure that providers of essential infrastructure are held to account. We will continue to challenge water companies to stop sewage spills, but also hold developers to account so that infrastructure for good water management is built with new developments. This all reflects a wider problem with our planning system. We certainly need houses, but central Government enthusiasm for housing targets is not generally matched with as much passion for ensuring and measuring the improvement of infrastructure and key public services alongside them.

I approach my final point with some trepidation. I have already established something of a reputation as a geek among my hon. Friends, but I will take the risk and continue. I will confess to being a fan of the 2015 computer game “Cities: Skylines”. If the Minister has not yet had the pleasure of playing that game, perhaps he could request it as an early Christmas gift. The game is all about the planning and building of cities, and it teaches us much about effective planning. Insufficient sewage and waste water capacity leads to fewer people moving in, as well as reduced tax revenues. The game elegantly demonstrates how a “predict and provide” approach is far better than reactive chaos. I hope the Minister will tell us how the Government plan to move the real world in that direction.

Proportional Representation: General Elections

Olly Glover Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jas Athwal]

I think it is about being pragmatic in our response, being pragmatic with our residents, and making the right decisions.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jas Athwal]

I will made some headway, because I can see the clock ticking.

Another key weakness of PR systems is that they almost inevitably create coalition Governments. We know what happens there. No one votes for coalition Governments. Instead, they are created by agreements hammered out in dark rooms, behind closed doors—they are Frankenstein Governments, which undermine the popular vote. When voters cannot predict the consequences of their votes, coalitions circumvent the will of the people, and when creating an effective Opposition becomes an impossibility, democracies fail. Colleagues should be careful what they wish for: they may get a better vote share and better representation, but they may not get better outcomes, which is what is important to our constituents.

It is our duty in this place to protect the democratic process. It is also our duty to effectively govern to the best of our ability, deliver the promises of our manifesto and create the change that our constituents voted for. PR systems create unstable Governments with weak foundations and constant compromise.

We are all too aware of the consequences of Government instability and the impact that can have on people’s lives—promises broken, legislation delayed, injustice prolonged. Look at our neighbours in Europe. In Belgium, the federal elections in 2019 paralysed their political system, leading to more than 500 days of deliberation, compromise and bartering before they finally formed a Government. It took almost two years of debate before a seven-party coalition was created—a coalition nobody voted for. The role of government is to change people’s lives, to legislate and to act. Instead, PR systems grind Governments to a halt. Contrast that with the first 100 days of this Government, though hon. Members sitting on the other side of the Chamber may not like the decisions made.

Effective democratic systems ensure accountability and enable delivery. On those two tests, PR systems fail.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the hon. Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for securing a debate on this important topic.

I will endeavour not to repeat the remarks that have been made so eloquently by other Members, but I must start by also thanking the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for referring to the question that I asked the Deputy Prime Minister a few weeks ago: that is perhaps as close to fame as I will get in this Chamber. He was right to observe that the Deputy Prime Minister requires persuasion on this point, although hopefully the eloquent and articulate contributions of Members on both sides of the House will help to achieve that and gain her support for the APPG’s request for a national commission on electoral reform.

For me, there are three key arguments in favour of proportional representation. First, there is currently a clear gap between how people vote and the outcome—namely the Parliament that they get, and thus the Government—and they do not necessarily feel invested in the result. Let me address the point made by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst). The 2024 general election was, probably for the first time, quite a proportional one for the Liberal Democrats in its ratio of vote share to the number of MPs we have. Indeed, if I may be perfectly candid—at the risk of incurring the wrath of my colleagues—in parts of the country where we have more proportional systems, we do not always perform quite so well, so we are certainly not campaigning for this change on the basis of self-interest. It has, in fact, been a very long-standing Liberal Democrat and, indeed, Liberal commitment, and I will say more about that shortly.

Secondly, the current system is not engaging people. As has already been mentioned, turnouts are declining. In 2024, a record low of 58% voted for the two largest parties, Labour and Conservative, while one in three said that they had voted tactically for someone other than their preferred candidate or party member. Indeed, when many voters were telling me on the doorstep that they would be voting tactically for me, I pledged to commit myself wholly, so that I would not have to ask them to do that again in the future, and that is partly why I am here today.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

My hon. Friend speaks of low turnout. I would be grateful for his opinion on whether a switch to an electoral system of proportional representation would be to the deficit of any particular parties in the House, and whether that is reflected in their turnout at this debate.

[Olly Glover]

There is certainly a clear variation in the representation of parties in the House for this debate. However, I agree with other colleagues who have said that while we do not necessarily know how people will vote if they are given a more proportional voting system, that is all the more reason for us to have one, so that people can feel they can vote with their hearts and not with their heads or, indeed, on the basis of a bar chart of whatever level of accuracy—[Interruption.] I should emphasise that mine are always spot on.

Thirdly, proportional representation would deliver less adversarial and more inclusive and discursive politics, which has the potential to improve policy, governance and tone—things which many people find frustrating in our current system. Parties would no longer be able to govern alone with as little as a third of the vote, and would have to do so with others. That is not a problem but a benefit of moving to a proportional system, because Governments would represent a majority of voters and would have to work together to represent the various platforms of the parties concerned.

The United Kingdom is highly anomalous in retaining first past the post. Very few other European countries do so. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) made a point about coalitions. I hope he is equally condemnatory of coalitions that Labour has had with other parties—for example, the coalition with the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament in the late 1990s, and, in Wales, the need to rely on minority support from either the Liberal Democrats or Plaid Cymru at various times.

As for those who scaremonger or are worried about the stability of countries with proportional representation, let us consider some examples from Europe. The hon. Member for Ilford South cited Belgium. Well, Belgium has a better GDP per capita than we do, and, if I may defend a nation that is so often mocked, the only real crime of the Belgians is preferring mayonnaise to ketchup on their chips, rather than their electoral system. Let us consider Norway, a highly prosperous nation that has made wise decisions such as creating a sovereign wealth fund from its precious oil resources, something from which this country would have benefited had we done the same. Switzerland, which also has proportional representation and regular coalition Governments, has the most punctual railway in Europe, and 100% of it is electrified compared to our derisory percentage somewhere in the 30s. Poland, a new democracy with 30 years of the fastest economic growth in Europe, also has proportional representation and coalition Governments. I put it to the House that we have very little to fear, and a great deal to gain.

As I said earlier, the Liberal Democrats and the Liberal party have called for fair votes for a century, and we continue to lead the campaign for fundamental reform of the electoral system. I will go where my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove did not, and say that it is wrong to suggest that preferential and proportional systems prevent individual accountability. The single transferable vote system is highly proportional and also, critically, retains voters’ ability to vote for individual candidates or not, if they choose. I agree with Conservative Members who have described that as an important principle. Reform is needed to address the need for fair representation in politics, and to improve the engagement of members of the public. Not to take action would further erode trust in politics and politicians, and would increase the risk of people voting for more extreme options next time out of frustration with the current system.

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Olly Glover Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I begin by making a declaration of interest: my former employer, CPRE, the countryside charity, is a supporter of the Bill. Many of my constituents are also passionate supporters of the proposal for mandatory rooftop solar on new buildings; it is one of the issues on which I have had the most correspondence in recent months.

In North East Hertfordshire, the towns of Royston and Buntingford have seen rapid development in recent years, as have smaller villages such as Barkway, Puckeridge and Standon. In the near future, a new estate will be built on the edge of Letchworth Garden City and the town of Baldock is due to roughly double in size. At the same time, we face many challenging decisions locally to balance the need for renewable energy with the protection of our high-quality farmland, while also preserving and enhancing space for nature. It is therefore unsurprising that residents in North East Hertfordshire can see the common sense in making the best possible use of our finite land by putting the solar panels we need on rooftops.

Our approach to delivering the renewable energy we undoubtedly and desperately need has been far too laissez-faire.

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

My constituency has also seen significant population growth; it has grown by 35% in the past 20 years. New estates in Didcot, Great Western Park, Wantage, Kingsgrove, Highcroft in Wallingford and Wellington Gate in Grove have not all sought the opportunity to have solar panels on the new houses. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we do not create the homes of the future now, there is a risk that we will have to retrofit them in future, at great expense, to reach our net zero targets and help residents with their bills?

[Chris Hinchliff]

I wholeheartedly agree.

As I was saying, we could suffer from the potentially profound impacts of competing demands for space for the homes we require, our commitment to protect 30% of our land for nature by 2030, and our fragile food security. Government figures show that with an industry average of 5 acres per megawatt, the proposed ground-mounted solar schemes put forward to date would, if they all went ahead, require a total land area roughly equivalent to Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Liverpool, Nottingham, Newcastle and Leeds combined. Yet at the same time, academic analysis indicates that between suitable existing buildings and new construction, there is potential space for 117 GW of rooftop solar in England by 2050.

Responsibilities of Housing Developers

Olly Glover Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Mr Pritchard. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I join my colleagues in praising the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this important debate. I am going to focus my remarks on the challenges of estate adoption, generally unaccountable management companies and fees. I thank the House of Commons Library for its comprehensive briefing on this subject, but I confess it rather blew my mind. The legal and contractual concepts are quite bewildering, and I do not know whether to be saddened or reassured by how many colleagues have raised similar issues to the ones that I am about to describe.

Since our election in July, I have been contacted by people across my constituency about issues relating to estate adoption and management companies, including Highcroft and Winterbrook Meadows in Wallingford, Fuller’s Grove and Hamilton Drive in East Challow, Dida Gardens and Great Western Park in Didcot, Kingsgrove in Wantage, and Cholsey Meadows in Cholsey. With 30,000 more homes planned in the surrounding area by 2041, which will account for 20% of all the housing stock, it is important that we collectively get a grip of the issues so that we prevent their recurrence in future.

Problems experienced by my residents include huge and disproportionate hikes in estate management fees, which they pay in addition to council tax, endless arguments between parties, and a lack of accountability regarding who exactly is responsible for maintenance on some of these new estates. They also include lack of timescales for the adoption of roads and other items, a lack of transparency and clarity on how to influence and hold to account the management companies, and complicated ownership and financial models, which vary from estate to estate.

I lack the legal and contractual PhD needed to understand all of the framework, but I can be clear on the simplicity that my residents seek: a simpler approach to planning and development, clear and consistent adoption policies and processes, the ability to hold developers to account, value for money, and proper funding for local authorities to remove any perverse incentives around planning agreements and adoption decisions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Olly Glover Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[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?

[Angela Rayner]

No.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Olly Glover Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) on her excellent maiden speech and her comprehensive survey of Colchester’s history.

On the morning of Friday 5 July I was elected as a Member of this House. My result was declared at around 6.30 in the morning. Like so many of us, I had been awake for 24 hours and I was exhausted but elated. When I got home I had breakfast and a couple of hours’ sleep. I was woken up by hearing something being put in my letterbox. That in itself was not unusual; my landlords received my post and put it in that box, as they lived just 25 metres away. I wondered what it could be: another magazine from a charity I support, a credit card bill or perhaps, even, a belatedly delivered Liberal Democrat election leaflet?

When I opened the letter, it was something even worse: a section 21 eviction notice stating that my landlords intended to retire, and giving me just over two months to move out and find somewhere else to live. I had been renting that home for more than four years. I have always rented, and up to that point I had generally had a good experience, so I have no particular axe to grind. But receiving that eviction notice via letter without any prior conversation or indication that it may be coming was not what I needed any morning, let alone that morning when my head was spinning from having been elected.

Receiving a section 21 eviction notice was tough for me, but it is far worse for many others—people with children, those who care for disabled or elderly relatives and those without the financial means to deal with the deposits and up-front rents associated with moving to a new place. Some tenants may seek a landlord notice period of more than two months, but the current market does not provide that, which shows that regulation is needed.

Exposure to many of these renting issues is, at root cause, driven by a lack of social or affordable housing to rent. In the town of Didcot in my Oxfordshire constituency, the average house price is 14.8 times the average annual salary. This significant disparity highlights the need for more homes that are cheaper than market rent, so that young people wanting to start families can afford to remain living in the area. More social and affordable housing would also ease pressures on some lower paid key worker roles in education and healthcare, which currently are hard to recruit.

There are many problems with the current renting arrangements, which I am pleased to say the Bill addresses. However, some organisations representing renters believe that it does not go far enough. For example, the charity Crisis feels that stronger action may be needed to protect tenants from unfair rent increases, and to remove some of the barriers that make it harder for low-income tenants to secure a private rented tenancy in the first place. Research commissioned by the TDS Charitable Foundation indicates that nearly half of private renters do not know where to turn if their landlord or letting agent fails to address a problem they may have. That highlights the need for better information for tenants on their rights and where to find support.

The Bill does not include a requirement for landlords to engage in dialogue or discussion with a tenant before issuing an eviction letter—something that would have helped in my case. As my hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) and for Taunton and Wellington (Mr Amos) said, more could be done to require landlords to improve energy efficiency, and local authorities and courts will need to be properly resourced to enforce the Bill’s provisions.

In a free market economy people have the right to invest in property, but it is important to remember that a home is far more than a financial asset. Unlike stocks and shares, a home is a place of safety, security, shelter, warmth, comfort and privacy and somewhere to raise a family. That should always be our starting point.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Torsten Bell to make his maiden speech.