Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Paul Holmes and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Member tempts me into commenting on hypotheticals. I will instead say the following. There are two things happening here. We have to be aware of the ability for some existing mechanisms—section 73 applications are a good example—to be gamed in terms of viability to drive down the amount of public gain. I am aware of that, and I have been very candid about it. On the other hand, and correspondingly, if a permission such as the one he hypothetically mentioned is in place, I think that is testament to why it is so important that we bring forward measures on build-out transparency and have the powers to be able to say to developers, as the Government are saying to all developers, “If you’ve got a consent, then get on and build.”

The Government are making a variety of reforms to the planning system, which in any number of ways will provide for a more rules-based system, more certainty and will drive down development costs. We are firming up planning policy guidance and expectations. We are making it clearer and easier for developers to put in an application and we should reduce costs as well. Correspondingly, we can ask for more. We are bringing forward measures in fairly short order on build-out and we will turn on the LURA provisions that I have mentioned. On that basis, I ask for the new clauses to be withdrawn.

New clause 76, tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, seeks to prevent those who have deliberately undertaken unauthorised development from obtaining planning permission retrospectively. The Government do not condone unauthorised development and are clear that anyone seeking to undertake development should first obtain planning permission where it is required. I therefore very much appreciate the sentiment behind his new clause. I recall debating with a shadow Secretary of State this particular matter in relation to Gypsy and Traveller camps, and I appreciate that across the House there is concern about the use of unauthorised developments.

However, the Government’s view is that there may be circumstances—I am happy to set this out in writing to the shadow Minister—in which unauthorised development, even if it is intentional, may be acceptable in planning terms or may be made so by the imposition of planning conditions. I say that only to make the point that we believe that there is a need for some pragmatism here and that such developments should be considered by the local planning authority. It is already the case that intentional unauthorised development, as he said, is a material consideration. It must be weighed in the balance when determining planning applications and appeals. That approach retains local decision making.

The Government obviously keep this matter under review. I am more than happy to have a conversation with the shadow Minister about the Government’s view as to whether the enforcement powers available to local planning authorities—they have a wide range of powers, with strong penalties for non-compliance—are being used, and if not, why not. I am also more than happy to share with him our understanding of how local planning authorities and inspectors are treating unauthorised development as a material consideration, as they are now required to do. I hope that, on that basis, I have provided him with some reassurance.

[Paul Holmes]

I appreciate the Minister’s being so open and genuinely—I wouldn’t say I didn’t believe him before—promising to go away and look at this issue. We would like to take him up on that; we will not press our new clause today, but there are conversations to be had further down the line on this topic. Will he just confirm whether his Department holds any statistics on how many unauthorised developments we are talking about? Is there is a reporting structure for local authorities, which may be held by the Planning Inspectorate? We would like to know how his Department is monitoring the number of unauthorised developments that are using the powers that were given to local authorities, if that makes sense.

[Matthew Pennycook]

What I can commit to—I feel the glares from my officials on me now—is this. If we have the information, I am more than happy to have a conversation with the shadow Minister to give him a sense of, across the country, how local authorities are using their existing enforcement powers and the extent to which, although I think this will be difficult information for Government to track, local planning authorities and inspectors are relying on unauthorised development as a material consideration. I am thinking, for example, of inspectors allowing things on appeal that are unauthorised. If we have that information, I am more than happy to share it and to have that conversation with the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think some of this will become evident in the fullness of time. There has been an implicit criticism of the Government at several points in Committee that we are entirely reliant on a market-led approach, and are happy with an entirely developer-led, market-led approach. That is not the case. We think that targeted reforms to the planning system are necessary, but we also absolutely believe that reform of our broken house building model is required. I have said on many occasions that we are overly reliant on a speculative development model that produces bad outcomes. Hon. Members across the Committee will see before too long other measures that the Government are bringing forward to both transform and disrupt that market in ways that are beneficial.

[Paul Holmes]

Disrupt!

[Matthew Pennycook]

Well, the market does need to be disrupted, in the particular sense that we need new entrants coming forward, and small and medium-sized enterprises and community led-housing back in the game.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington said, and I think he is right, that developers have a business model, particularly volume builders. Some are changing their business model and we would encourage change to those business models, but there is a particular model that relies on very high margins. I know the academic study that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire cited. We must and will reduce our reliance on that. We also must be careful about weighing in on viability in a way that would just stop house building coming forward in lots of cases, because that would ultimately help nobody.

A final point that I think is pertinent to this debate: I always find the nimby and yimby debate incredibly reductive, but I think that some who oppose development on the basis that they only prioritise social and affordable housing discount the fact that building homes of any tenure in localities assists people trying to access social and affordable rent. It all helps and it need not be one or the other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Not yet. Those have been reversed by a lot of the things that this Government have done. For the first time, the sector does not have any incentivisation.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend has a quote.

[Paul Holmes]

If he has a quote, then I am not giving way. I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow East that the local housing plans that we are proposing must also include social housing. Local authorities need to put forward a proper housing mix.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman’s position on the matter is very clear. We will keep under review how the taskforce’s recommendations on new towns interact with housing targets.

Although I appreciate that the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is seeking, understandably, to prevent areas with a new town from taking unmet need from neighbouring areas, his new clause would have the effect of discouraging effective cross-boundary co-operation on a much wider range of matters, which could lead to issues with local plans in those areas. For that reason, I ask him not to press it.

I turn to new clause 48. In our manifesto, the Government committed to restoring mandatory housing targets and reversing the supply-negative changes introduced by the previous Government in December 2023. In December 2024, we therefore implemented a new standard method for assessing housing needs that aligns with our ambition for 1.5 million new homes over this Parliament and better directs homes to where they are most needed and where housing is least affordable. The standard method is an important tool to ensure that housing is delivered in the right places, which is critical to tackling the chronic shortages facing the country across all areas and all tenures.

We consulted extensively on our changes to the standard method. Our public consultation received more than 10,000 responses from a range of relevant parties, including 387 submissions from local authorities. Our response to the consultation sets out the evidence received and how the Government have responded to the points raised. We have also published revised guidance to support authorities utilising the standard method. Given the recent consultation exercise on the revised standard method, I do not believe that new clause 48, which seeks further consultation and procedural steps, is the right way forward. I ask the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner not to press it.

I turn to the hon. Member’s new clause 50. National planning policy—specifically paragraph 72 of the NPPF—already expects local planning authorities to prepare strategic housing land availability assessments to provide evidence on land availability within their area. Authorities should then set out, through their local plans, a sufficient supply and mix of sites that can be brought forward over the plan period. Through this existing policy, local planning authorities are already expected to make an assessment of the number and type of homes that are required and proposed to be built in the authority’s area. I note the comment that several hon. Members have made about older people’s housing. I think it fair to say that the housing and planning system has not kept pace with demographic change, but that is why the Government are exploring the recommendations of the older people’s housing taskforce, for example.

In addition, we are committed to introducing the new plan-making system, which includes the following provision set out in new section 15C(8) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as inserted by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023:

“The local plan must take account of an assessment of the amount, and type, of housing that is needed in the local planning authority’s area, including the amount of affordable housing that is needed.”

New clause 50 would therefore duplicate national planning policy and legislation that we anticipate will come into effect later this year. It would create new burdens on local planning authorities, with the effect of delaying plan making. It would also undermine the Government’s priority for extensive coverage of local plans across England, reducing much-needed housing supply. I ask the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner not to press it.

I fully understand and support the principle behind new clause 75, tabled by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. The Government fully recognise the benefits that small sites can offer in contributing to house building, diversifying the housing market and supporting faster build-out. We are therefore fully committed to increasing delivery on small sites and supporting our SME developers. This is a real priority for the Government. The statistics show that back in the 1980s SMEs built something like 40% of housing supply; the figure now is less than 10%. That is a large part of the reason that we are not bringing homes forward in the numbers we would want. Council house building is another example.

Via the NPPF, local authorities are already expected to allocate 10% to small sites in local plans unless they can provide a strong explanation why this is not possible. If such an explanation proves wanting, the plan can be found unsound when it is examined by an independent inspector. In line with the thinking behind new clause 75, we consulted on strengthening that requirement by making it wholly mandatory in local plans. That was part of the summer 2024 consultation on the NPPF, but the responses we received were clear that making the target fully mandatory would be resource-intensive, would put significant pressure on local authorities, would be unworkable in many areas and might lead to delays in plan making.

In the Government response to the NPPF consultation in December, we therefore made clear our intention to explore other options to support small site delivery as part of the upcoming national development management policies. I do not want to tease the Committee again, but details will be forthcoming and will be subject to consultation. Although I appreciate the principle behind new clause 75, I therefore do not believe that it is the best way to support small site delivery. I ask the hon. Member for Hamble Valley not to press it.

[Paul Holmes]

I am a pragmatist, so if the Minister says that he will make announcements in due course to strengthen what he already has a track record of doing, which is what the new clause seeks, we will welcome that. I must press him slightly, however. I grant that he has only been in his position for 10 months, but if the 10% is already in the NPPF and has not made any real change, and if he is reluctant to make legislative changes to enforce it, what other measures can he introduce to increase the number of houses that SME builders can build?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is worth referring to the NPPF consultation in the summer and the Government response. We think that there was good reason not to make the 10% allocation mandatory. Local authorities, in particular, told us that they had concerns in that regard. There are many other things we could do. Without using this as a defence, in fairly short order the shadow Minister will see some of the measures that we want to introduce to support SME house builders. Access to land is a concern, and access to finance is another issue, as is the cumulative burden of regulation on SME house builders, which, for obvious reasons, are less able to cope with that than large-volume house builders. All of that is part of the answer, but I am sure we will have further debates on the matter once the Government have brought forth new measures in that area.

I turn to new clauses 92 and 26. I share the commitment of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to enhancing provision and choice for older people in the housing market. I agree that the need to provide sufficient housing to meet older people’s specific needs is critical. We must ensure that the housing market is moving with demographic change. I also recognise that well-designed, suitable housing can improve the quality of life, health and wellbeing of older people, as well as supporting wider Government objectives.

That is why the revised national planning policy framework already makes it clear that local authorities producing a local plan should, as I have said before, assess the size, types and tenure of housing for different groups in their communities, including older people, and reflect that in their planning policies. Supporting guidance also makes it clear that an understanding of how the ageing population affects housing needs should be considered from the early stages of plan making through to decision making.

Furthermore, clause 47 contains provision for spatial development strategies to take account of that factor. It provides that SDSs

“may specify or describe…an amount or distribution of affordable housing or any other kind of housing”

if the provision of that housing is considered

“to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.”

One can well imagine how, in particular sub-regions of the country with high proportions of older people, SDSs may want to take particular account of that factor.

We will of course consider how we can continue to make progress on delivering sufficient housing for older people, as we develop our long-term housing strategy, which we will publish later this year. I recognise that that will have benefits not only in meeting housing need for older people, but further down the housing chain, by unlocking homes that are inappropriate for older people. Those people may wish to move if they have a better offer and if challenges such as those mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, such as the excessive service charges on some older people’s residential housing, are dealt with.

On new clause 26, I do not believe that introducing legislation to impose targets and capital funding for the affordable homes programme is the best way to incentivise the market to increase the supply of older people’s housing and later living homes. The Government’s view is that local housing authorities are best placed to bring forward the right amount of new housing for older persons and later living homes in their areas through the planning and care systems, and based on local need. The Government will obviously support them to do that when they set out the full details of a new grant funding programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme at the spending review on 11 June. Alongside wider investment across this Parliament, the new programme will help to deliver our commitment to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. For that reason, I respectfully ask that none of the new clauses in this very large group are pressed to a vote.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Paul Holmes and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 81 primarily seeks to standardise the list of infrastructure that development corporations can deliver to be in line with that of mayoral development corporations. The co-ordination of infrastructure with large-scale property development is essential. However, the current legislation is inconsistent concerning the types of infrastructure that different development corporation models can provide, creating unnecessary uncertainty.

In particular, the existing legislation sets out a long list of infrastructure that mayoral development corporations can provide, but the same list is not currently applied to new town and urban development corporations. Clause 81 addresses that by standardising the list of infrastructure that development corporations can provide. It also goes further in adding heat networks to the list. This recognises heat as a distinct utility, alongside others such as water, gas and electricity. The addition of heat networks will also empower development corporations in their aims with respect to sustainable development and climate change, a point that we have just debated.

Existing legislation also places unnecessary restrictions on new town development corporations to deliver transport infrastructure. Clause 81 therefore removes the restriction on new town development corporations so that they can provide railways, light railways and tramways. No other type of development corporation is subject to this restriction, and provision of sustainable transport systems is vital to delivering large-scale developments. These measures will ensure that development corporations are on an equal footing to deliver the infrastructure to unlock more sites and co-ordinate more housing infrastructure and transport in the public interest. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. It is good to see the Minister and all members of the Committee here again; I have déjà vu, but we are still happy, aren’t we? [Interruption.] “Speak for yourself,” the Minister says.

We generally welcome the powers in relation to infrastructure in clause 81. I particularly welcome what the Minister said about removing restrictions to deliver infrastructure such as trams. That is a welcome move to deliver for those of us who have had constantly had frustrations at the lack of ability to get that infrastructure, but I would like to ask a few questions. Having said that, I deem that the clause does not account for the varying needs and characteristics of different regions. Can he reassure the Committee about the effective standardisation that he is promoting?

We do not necessarily have an argument with it, but we would like to examine the checks and balances in the consultation element of what the Minister is proposing to ensure that there is not a one-size-fits-all model. Even though I know that is what standardisation aims to do, I hope he would accept that in varying regions, with the wants and needs of different communities, that may not be appropriate at all times. Will he outline the checks and balances and how that could be varied according to the needs of local communities? Other than that, the Opposition welcome the clause and the Minister’s commitment to infrastructure.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for that question. I think it raises a slightly wider debate than the provisions of the clause and their purposive effect, but he raises a valuable point. Decisions to designate and grant powers to a development corporation must be made via regulations. They are subject to statutory consultation and are carefully made with consideration given to issues of oversight and governance. The particular model selected in a particular area will be chosen by the relevant parties on the basis that it is the model that best suits what they are trying to achieve.

I take the shadow Minister’s point about regional variation in the sense that all this clause does is standardise the list of infrastructure that can be provided by development corporations of all types, making it equal to the existing list that applies to mayoral development corporations. It is a simple simplification to ensure standardisation across the infrastructure that can be provided across all models.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 81 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82

Exercise of transport functions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 82 seeks to introduce a new duty for relevant local transport authorities to co-operate with development corporations in the development and implementation of their plans, Too often developments are not co-ordinated with the transport infrastructure needed to service existing and new communities. That has detrimental impacts on quality of life, productivity and economic growth. Development corporations cannot currently take on local transport powers. As a result, there can be significant delays and barriers to delivering essential transport infrastructure, particularly where local transport authorities are unaligned with the plans of development corporations. Clause 82 will therefore place a duty of co-operation on local transport authorities to ensure that sites delivered by development corporations include the necessary transport infrastructure and are seamlessly integrated into the wider spatial plan for the area.

Local transport authorities must have regard to the plans of development corporations and co-operate in the development and implementation of their plans. Where that duty is not fulfilled—resulting, for example, in a failure to produce key outputs in an agreed timeframe or transport provisions being blocked and impacting growth potential—the Secretary of State will have a new power to direct relevant local transport authorities. Where the direction is not complied with, and as a last resort, the Secretary of State will have the new power to transfer specific transport functions from local transport authorities to the development corporation in question.

In addition to transport planning functions, the transfer may also include specific property rights and liabilities—for example, in instances where the development corporation needs to undertake upgrades to existing highways within its red line area. Any such transfer will be made by regulations and in relation to the development corporation’s red line area. The measures are intended to increase co-operation while ensuring that development corporations can ultimately deliver necessary transport infrastructure in a timely manner. I want to be very clear: our preferred approach is for the development corporation to work with the local transport authority in the first instance. The measures are therefore escalatory and will be used only as a last resort. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to transport infrastructure. We have had disagreements on other parts of the Bill that we have discussed in previous sittings, and no doubt we will in this afternoon’s sitting on the new clauses, but I think this part of the Bill genuinely tries to reform models to make sure that transport infrastructure, which is often controversial, is delivered. We welcome his commitment and foresight in that.

The clause aims to address, as we know, the co-ordination issues between development corporations and fragmented local transport authorities by placing the statutory duty of co-operation on the latter. Although the intention to improve alignment between housing and transport planning is welcome, I have a couple of questions about its practical impact and enforceability. None of the questions comes from a place of criticising or carping; they are to get genuine clarification for Opposition Members. By simply requiring transport authorities to “have regard to” and “co-operate” with development corporations, does the Minister not have a concern that the plans may not be sufficient to ensure meaningful collaboration? The terms are legally vague and may result in only minimal compliance. He has said that it is escalatory, but I wonder whether the clause needs to be slightly strengthened, in terms of “have regard to” and “co-operate”.

The clause stops short of granting development corporations any direct transport powers. That may be a fundamental disagreement between us, if the Minister does not believe they should have those powers, but we have a concern about the good intentions not being delivered on because of that collaboration and “having regard to”. Other than that, we welcome the clause, which will make a huge difference in delivering the fundamental change that we need in regional and local communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We just debated a clause about standardising the list of infrastructure that all development corporations can bring forward, but clause 82 addresses a specific gap in the legislation, which is that development corporations cannot have transport powers and are reliant on local transport authorities to bring them forward. I do not dismiss his point about wider infrastructure—we have debated it elsewhere, and I have taken on board the points that hon. Members have raised—but the clause addresses a specific issue and outlines a way of dealing with it. As I say, the preferred approach is co-operation in the first instance and working with the local transport authority in question.

The ability to transfer transport powers, which is available under the clause, is ultimately a backstop measure, and escalation via direction is an initial measure to address insufficient co-operation. The clause clearly sets out how the escalatory process will work, although it is worth saying that decisions to either direct or transfer powers will be taken on a case-by-case basis and applied only where there is good reason to believe that co-operation on the part of the local transport authority is not forthcoming and necessary transport infrastructure is not delivered.

We think that the backstop is necessary for cases where the local transport authority refuses to co-operate and is blocking necessary infrastructure that the development corporation requires for its urban regeneration and development needs. On that basis, I hope I have reassured hon. Members.

[Paul Holmes]

You may rule me out of order, Ms Jardine—I entirely expect that you might—but I want to follow up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne on health services. I know that it is not directly in the scope of this clause, but I want to explore the fact that, in many of our constituencies, integrated care boards, which, as the Minister will know, are locally responsible for the provision of health services, simply are not doing the work that is needed on demographic or infrastructure changes because of the silo-based approach to central and local government. Can the Minister assure the Committee that he will go away and work with the Department of Health and Social Care—maybe other clauses could be included—on how we can bring that together and allow those health facilities, as well as transport issues, to be delivered?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for that question. Hansard will correct me if I am wrong, but I feel that I have already given a commitment in that area, which I am more than happy to give again, on the following basis: to the extent that essential infrastructure and amenities, particularly those delivered via the existing developer contribution system, are not forthcoming in the manner required or in a timely manner, and where section 106 agreements are not being honoured, the Government are looking to take action to strengthen the existing system. There are two aspects to this. One is ensuring that local authorities are in a position to, on a fairly equal basis, negotiate with an applicant and get a good section 106 agreement. Then, there is the other part of the process, which is ensuring that the agreements entered into are honoured.

However, in some instances—I think I have recognised this in a previous debate—there is a co-ordination issue. I am interested in what more can be done and I am exploring that across Government Departments. ICBs are a good example—there have been examples in my constituency. In certain cases, it may be that the 106 agreement or other provision is not bringing forward the necessary—let us put it in very practical terms—GP centre. In other cases, as I hear from many hon. Members across the country, the 106 has facilitated the construction of the building, but there is a workforce challenge. That is a wider challenge for Government and the Department of Health and Social Care to address, which they are doing. I think that co-ordination can help us to address some of these problems.

To bring us back to the clause that we are debating, we are talking specifically about instances of a development corporation, either within the red line area or outside it where transport infrastructure is necessary to facilitate growth within it. We need a mechanism to ensure that co-operation occurs with the local transport authority. As I have said, judged on a case-by-case basis, in instances where the local transport authority in question is not co-operating, or where Government have good reason to believe that it will not co-operate, we need a measure to ensure that those powers are transferred or a direction is put in place. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 82 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83

Electronic service etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clauses 83 to 92 relate to compulsory purchase and are designed as a group to improve the compulsory purchase order process and land compensation rules to enable more effective land assembly through public sector-led schemes. As hon. Members will no doubt be aware—I am sure that they have read every word—the Government’s 2024 manifesto made a commitment to further reform compulsory purchase compensation rules to improve land assembly, speed up site delivery and deliver housing, infrastructure, amenity and transport benefits in the public interest. That manifesto promised that a Labour Government would take steps to ensure that, for specific types of development schemes, landowners are awarded fair compensation rather than inflated prices based on the prospect of planning permission.

The Government’s reforms, which were outlined in the consultation published at the end of 2024, are necessary to deliver the housing and critical infrastructure that this country needs and to make it more attractive for the public sector to use its compulsory purchase powers to deliver development in the right places. That is the intent behind the clauses that we are debating this morning. To be clear, changes introduced in the Bill are not targeted at farmers or any particular landowners, and they make a limited addition to the existing power for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value, so it may apply to parish or town council CPOs facilitating affordable housing provision.

I made this point on Second Reading and I want to be clear: there is nothing in the Bill that changes the core principle of compulsory purchase—that it must be used only where negotiations to acquire land by agreement have not succeeded and where there is a compelling case in the public interest. It will be for individual authorities to decide where it is most appropriate to use their CPO powers to deliver their schemes in the public interest. Taken together, the clauses will ensure that quicker decisions on CPOs can be made, the administrative costs of undertaking the process are reduced, and a better balance is struck so compensation paid to landowners is, as I have said, fair but not excessive.

Clause 83 amends the legislation underpinning the compulsory purchase process and compensation rules to allow the service of statutory notices to be undertaken by electronic methods of communication. Allowing CPO notices to be served on parties by electronic communication will ensure that the CPO process is modernised and made more efficient. Notices may be served by electronic communication providing the person receiving the notice has provided an address for such a service, such as an email address. Where an address is not provided, the existing methods of service—for example, by post—will remain. The default method for service of notices on public authorities will be electronic communication, providing the authority has specified an address for communicating about the specific CPO in question. The clause, which again I hope is uncontroversial, simply intends to modernise and speed up the compulsory purchase process and reduce the administrative costs, and I commend it to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

I will take the tactic of discussing each clause relating to CPOs at a time, if that is all right with the Minister. I know he had to give an overview of clauses 83 to 92, but we would like to scope out some questions before coming on to new clause 52, which we will discuss under clause 88, where most of our disagreement comes from.

I understand what the Minister has said about CPO reform and not targeting farmers. However, the record of this Government’s relationship with farmers in other areas of policy has raised anxieties about agricultural land and the rights of farmers, and the amount of compensation that tenant farmers versus occupied land farmers will be offered. Some of the reforms that the Minister is making raise questions about the Government’s general campaign against farming and agriculture in this country, which we remain very concerned about in other areas of policy, but we will discuss those issues in a moderate and constructive manner when we debate later clauses.

Clause 83 concerns electronic services. We generally welcome any simplification and reduction in costs and administration; that is why I am a Conversative. However, we believe that the clause could still raise some implementation challenges. Public authorities are presumed to consult with an electronic service if they provide a relevant email or web address, but that assumption may lead to issues where authorities have multiple points of contact or emails go unattended, potentially causing delays or disputes within an effective service.

Secondly, the clause introduces a default presumption that notices are received the next business day after sending, but that might not hold in practice—for example, if the message is caught in a spam filter or fails to send due to technical error. There could be some conflicts and complications in some of the cases that the clause seeks to amend. The legislation could benefit from a clearer mechanism for confirming receipt to reduce uncertainty or legal challenge further down the line.

Moreover, although the shift to digital communication is welcome, the clause stops short of encouraging or mandating broader digital transformation across the CPO process. For instance, there is no mention of a centralised digital portal for tracking notices or verifying delivery, which could further enhance transparency and reduce administrative friction. Although modest in scope, the clause is a positive step towards a more efficient compulsory purchase regime, notwithstanding the concerns that we have about further reforms, but its practical success will hinge on thoughtful implementation, clear guidance and ongoing support for acquiring authorities and affected parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Again, we do not see the clause as particularly controversial, but we would like to ask some questions. Can I put on record, first, that I wish the Minister well with his jury service? We will see whether he is the living embodiment of being “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”. I am sure that the Whips will love the fact that one of their Ministers is off-site—hopefully on Report so that we can get most of our amendments through.

As the Minister said, clause 84 aims to streamline the content requirements for newspaper notices related to CPOs by permitting either the use of a postal address or a general location description where a specific address is not available. The clause is expected to reduce administrative complexity and cost, which is a welcome step for authorities managing CPOs under tight timelines and budgets.

However, while simplification is beneficial, there is a risk that overly brief or vague descriptions could undermine transparency for affected landowners or the wider public. Newspaper notices remain a critical means of ensuring that individuals who may not be directly notified are still informed about CPOs that could affect them. If the language becomes too generic, individuals may be unaware that their land is included in an order, potentially limiting opportunities for objections or engagement.

The clause could benefit from safeguards or accompanying guidance to ensure that clarity and public accessibility are maintained, especially in cases involving rural land, undeveloped plots or where postal addresses are unclear. Moreover, the clause does not address whether digital platforms could supplement or eventually replace newspaper notices, which could further modernise the process while improving public access to information. Overall, the clause is a pragmatic reform, but we must strike the right balance between efficiency and the need for meaningful public engagement.

Has the Minister had any feedback from local newspaper industry representatives saying that they are concerned, given some of the ways in which these notices provide an income stream to a sector that is increasingly under pressure in being able to communicate with our local residents?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I again thank the shadow Minister for that fair and reasonable challenge. I recognise—as the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, would—that the loss of local newspapers is very keenly felt in a London context. Blogs and other things have sprung up in their place, but this is definitely an issue. That is one of the reasons why we have determined not to remove the requirement to publish CPO notices in newspapers. We think that that does have benefits, particularly for members of the public who cannot access the internet, but we do think that a modernisation of the process is necessary.

This is not about reducing transparency; it is about making the administrative process more proportionate and more cost-effective. The key point is that the information contained in the newspaper notice will still give the location of the land and other information, and, importantly, as I have said, that will be complemented by information available in site notices affixed to the land in question, notices served on individuals, and information published about the CPO on the acquiring authority’s website—for example, electronic copies of the CPO, including a map and notices. The requirement to describe the land fully in these other notices is not changing. We are just trying to make more proportionate the information contained in the newspaper notice in question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 85 will speed up decisions on CPOs where no objections have been received. Currently, where a CPO is not objected to, the confirmation decision can be made by the acquiring authority, providing certain conditions have been met. One condition is that the CPO does not require modification—for example, to correct an error in the drafting of the order. That adds unnecessary delay and prevents authorities from taking earlier possession of land to deliver benefits in the public interest.

Clause 85 allows an acquiring authority to confirm its own compulsory purchase order with modifications, providing that they do not affect a person’s interest in the land. Where they do, it introduces the ability for acquiring authorities to confirm their own CPOs where modifications are required, providing that the modifications do not affect a person’s interest in a controversial way. Where modifications need to be made to a CPO— for example, to remove land from the CPO, or to correct a drafting error such as the wrong colour used on the map to identify land—the confirming authority will set out in a notice what modifications are required. Acquiring authorities will not be allowed to add new land into CPOs or exclude part of a plot of land from CPOs, as such changes could provoke objections. In those circumstances, the modification and confirmation of the CPO will still be made by the confirming authority.

The changes are intended to speed up the decision-making process for CPOs that have not been objected to, and to allow benefits in the public interest to be delivered more efficiently. They will be particularly helpful in situations where, as part of a wider land assembly exercise, an acquiring authority needs to exercise its compulsory purchase powers to acquire title to land in unknown ownership. Modifications that do affect a person’s interest in land are allowed, but only if the affected person gives their consent for the modification being made. For these reasons, the Government believe that the clause will enable the CPO process to better benefit the public interest.

[Paul Holmes]

Again, we welcome the Minister taking a pragmatic approach to streamlining the process. That would be useful to some elements of CPOs, with minor modifications. Although the clause is framed around efficiency, however, it raises some concerns about checks and balances. Even modifications deemed minor can have implications for how land is used or valued. Relying on the judgment of the acquiring authority alone may create a risk of oversight or perceived conflicts of interest.

The provision for consent from affected landowners offers a safeguard, but in practice, there may be power imbalances that undermine the voluntariness of that consent, especially if pressure to expedite delivery is high. Furthermore, the process for how affected parties are informed and how modifications are assessed as “non-impactful” remains vague. Without clear guidance or criteria, the risk of inconsistent applications across authorities is significant. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that specific issue. Although the goal of speeding up land assembly for public benefit is legitimate, greater transparency and procedural clarity is essential to ensure that the clause does not erode public trust in the compulsory purchase process.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome that question from the shadow Minister. We are confident that the power will not be misused. The legislation will allow acquiring authorities to make minor modifications to CPOs in cases where they do not affect a landowner’s interests, other than with the landowner’s consent. We broadly consider that such modifications are non-controversial and will not provoke objections, but given the strength of feeling that the shadow Minister has expressed on the matter, I am more than happy to write to him to set out some further clarification of how we believe the process would operate, and why we do not think there is risk of misuse in the way that he fears.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 85 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86

General vesting declarations: advancement of vesting by agreement

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I will make some brief comments on the clauses. On clause 86, we believe that the conditions under which earlier possession may occur, such as when land is unoccupied, unsafe or where ownership is unknown, are potentially valid, but they rely heavily on subjective judgements by the acquiring authority. For instance, allowing the authority to determine whether items left on the land are of significant value or whether the land is

“unfit for its ordinary use”

introduces a risk of inconsistent or contested interpretations. The exclusion of illegal occupation from the definition of occupancy is also fraught with complexity, particularly in areas where land may be informally used by vulnerable individuals.

Although the clause provides a process for effective parties to make representations, it does not establish an independent mechanism for appeal or review if the acquiring authority rejects those representations. That could weaken procedural safeguards and may leave individuals or communities with limited recourse. Furthermore, although the clause excludes partial acquisitions of buildings, the broader implications for owners of derelict or disputed property could be significant, particularly in urban regeneration contexts where such assets are common.

Overall, while the reform seeks to introduce efficiency, it must be implemented with caution to avoid undermining rights to property and due process. Stronger safeguards, such as independent oversight of early possession decisions and clearer statutory definitions, may be necessary to prevent potential misuse or unintended consequences.

On the surface, the provisions in clause 87 appear pragmatic: they enable willing parties to bypass the standard three-month wait under the general vesting declaration procedure, and instead agree to an earlier possession date no sooner than six weeks after the publication of the CPO confirmation notice. We accept that this could reduce delays in project delivery, particularly where landowners prefer a swift resolution, or where prolonged possession timelines would otherwise stall regeneration or infrastructure efforts.

However, the clause’s wider implications warrant attention. While this is an agreement-based route, the inherent power imbalance in the compulsory purchase context can make voluntary agreements feel pressurised. Landowners—particularly smaller ones or those with limited legal support—may feel compelled to agree to early possession without fully understanding their rights or the valuation consequences. The clause attempts to address compensation timing and valuation issues, but the technical nature of the provisions may still leave room for confusion or disputes. I look to the Minister for reassurance.

The exclusion of counter-notice rights in cases of partial early possession under schedule A1 to the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 also weakens the landowner’s ability to negotiate fairly, as it removes a potential tool for resisting piecemeal acquisitions that may render the remainder of the property less viable. While efficiency is a legitimate goal, it must be weighed against individual rights and procedural fairness.

Overall, while the clause introduces a useful flexibility for streamlined land acquisition, it should be accompanied by strong safeguards, including clear guidance for landowners, transparent compensation mechanisms and accessible dispute resolution processes, to prevent coercion and ensure genuinely informed agreements.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for those questions. As ever, I will reflect on his request for procedural fairness to be maintained, but in broad terms, I would say that abuses of the kind he suggests are highly unlikely. I am more than happy to provide him with further reassurance on that point.

Given that clause 87 is about undertaking the procedure in question by agreement, I think it is less controversial. On clause 86, it will be for the acquiring authority to be confident that the conditions for the use of the power have been met, and to objectively identify where it thinks that the conditions for the use of the power have been met. In doing so, it will be for acquiring authorities to respond to and defend against any disputes or challenges made on the use of the power.

Where the land includes a dwelling, the acquiring authority is empowered only to expedite the vesting of the land if the dwelling is unfit for human habitation within the well-understood meaning set out in section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. However, included within the power to take early possession of land or buildings is a safeguard to prevent the vesting of land from being brought forward where there is disagreement as to whether the land is unoccupied or is in a condition that it is fit for use, or where an occupant identifies themselves to the authority. As I have said, parties can make representations to the acquiring authority that those conditions have not been met, but ultimately, the decision as to whether they have or not remains with the acquiring authority. However, I am happy to reflect on whether there is a need for further safeguards in this area and to update the shadow Minister accordingly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 86 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 88

Adjustment of basic and occupier’s loss payments

[The Chair]

Does anyone wish to move amendment 134?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for not pressing amendments 134 to 147. I would not have been able to accept them for reasons I could have gone into at some length.

I will deal with the clause and then new clause 52, which the Opposition still wish to move. To ensure that compensation paid to those whose land is compulsorily acquired is fair, clause 88 makes changes to the Land Compensation Act 1973 and the framework for basic and occupier’s loss payments. Loss payments exist to reflect the inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase. They are valued either on the market value of a person’s interest or on an amount calculated by reference to the area of the land or buildings known as the “land amount” or “building amount”, whichever is the highest.

The market value of a freehold interest is often more than the market value of a leasehold interest held by an occupying tenant, which often has little or no market value. That usually results in occupying tenants receiving less compensation than owners. As occupying tenants bear the burden of having to close or relocate their businesses, the existing allocation of loss payments is poorly targeted. It unduly favours investor owners over occupying businesses or agricultural tenants who incur greater costs. The Government believe that to be unfair. The clause therefore amends the 1973 Act to adjust the balance of loss payments in favour of occupiers.

Under our changes, we are increasing the land and buildings amount payments, which will benefit occupiers as that is the payment that they usually receive. That will better reflect the level of disruption and inconvenience caused to them through compulsory purchase, compared with investor-owners. It also ensures that the compensation regime is fair. To be clear, the reforms to the CPO process and compensation rules will not encourage the use of any particular type of CPO or change the fundamental principle that there must always be a compelling case in the public interest for use of a CPO.

The changes being made to the loss payments regime will benefit tenant farmers whose land interest is compulsorily acquired, as they will receive a fairer share of compensation to reflect the level of inconvenience that they experience from CPOs. The changes under the clause will not result in landowners being paid less than market value for the compulsory purchase of their interests.

The clause also simplifies the method of calculating the buildings amount for occupier’s loss payments relating to non-agricultural land by using the gross internal area method instead of gross external area, which we believe is more consistent with industry standards. The clause applies to England only, apart from the change to the method of calculating buildings amounts, since the Welsh Ministers have devolved competence to reform loss payments for CPOs in Wales. I therefore see the clause as an integral part of ensuring that the CPO process is built on a fair and balanced compensation process, relative to the level of disruption and inconvenience caused to occupiers of land by a CPO. I commend the clause to the Committee.

I am more than happy to respond in due course, but will first turn briefly to non-Government new clause 52, which seeks to introduce a change to the loss payment compensation regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973. The new clause would increase the amount that occupiers of buildings or land subject to a CPO would be entitled to, and place them on an equal footing with owners. Clause 88 already achieves, in part, what the shadow Minister is looking for: it increases the loss payment compensation due to occupiers of buildings and land in the way that the new clause seeks to do. The purpose of loss payments, however, is to reflect the inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase, and it is occupiers, rather than investor owners, who bear the greater burden in that respect because they are the ones who will need to close or relocate their businesses.

As I said, the clause rebalances loss payment compensation to allow occupiers to claim a higher amount and landowners to claim a lower amount. We believe that that rebalancing of loss payment compensation in favour of occupiers is the right approach. While the clause does some of what new clause 52 seeks to achieve, elements of the new clause are problematic for the reasons I set out. I am afraid I will not be able to accept the new clause, and I ask the shadow Minister not to move it.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for that detailed assessment of the clause. Lord knows how long his speech would have been if we had referred to the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) tabled. I thought I would spare the Minister that—and also spare myself having to explain them. We will table more amendments on Report.

As the Minister explained, the clause revises key provisions of part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, particularly loss payments to landowners and occupiers whose properties in England are subject to compulsory purchase. The intent behind the changes is to ensure that compensation more accurately reflects the disruption and inconvenience caused to affected individuals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 89 amends the Land Compensation Act 1973 and introduces provision to exclude the right to a home loss payment in certain situations. A home loss payment is an additional amount of compensation paid to a person to recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused where a person is displaced from their home as a result of a CPO. We have just had a debate about a slightly different aspect of what the Government intend to effect by these provisions.

Under the current provisions, where property owners have failed to comply with a statutory notice or order served on them to make improvements to their neglected land or properties, their right to basic and occupier’s loss payments may be excluded. There are, however, currently no similar exclusions for home loss payments. Clause 89 amends the 1973 Act to apply this exclusion to home loss payments also. The situations where home loss payments may be excluded will include where certain improvement notices or orders have been served on a person and they fail to undertake the necessary works.

Local authorities can expend significant resource and cost using CPO powers to acquire neglected properties to bring them back into use. Where property owners fail to undertake mandated improvement works to their properties, they should not be able to benefit financially through claiming a home loss payment. Non-compliance with improvement notices or orders can increase the costs to the public purse of bringing valuable housing resources back into use through use of CPOs. If memory serves, we had a short debate on empty homes and what more the Government can do, and I think that making changes in this area will help with that. Introducing provision for these circumstances will lower local authorities’ costs of using their CPO powers. It will support the delivery of more housing for communities. It also further ensures that the compensation regime is fair.

[Paul Holmes]

I have nothing further to add.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 89 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 90

Temporary possession of land in connection with compulsory purchase

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 90 amends the power to take temporary possession of land under the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017. Promoters of major infrastructure have indicated that their current consenting regimes provide flexibility for the taking of temporary possession of land, and should the 2017 Act power be commenced, that flexibility would be taken away. The clause sets out that the power for acquiring authorities to take temporary possession of land by agreement or compulsion under the 2017 Act does not apply in respect of: first, other express temporary possession powers provided for by other Acts; secondly, development consent orders made under the Planning Act 2008, and infrastructure consent orders made under the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024; thirdly, orders made under the Transport and Works Act 1992.

The clause will enable the taking of temporary possession under the 2017 Act, without interfering with the process for taking temporary possession under development consent orders, infrastructure consent orders or transport and works orders. It will help ensure continued flexibility for the delivery of critical infrastructure, while paving the way for the taking of temporary possession under other regimes such as the CPO process and the New Towns Act 1981.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I absolutely can confirm that. If the hon. Member is interested, that was set out in the extensive debates on that power during the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee. The public benefits to which the direction can apply are very clear: transport schemes but also affordable housing schemes. However, it would be judged on a case-by-case basis whether the amount of affordable housing provided, in each instance, was sufficient to meet that public benefit test.

The important point that I need to make is that the reference to the provision of affordable housing and other benefits is an important safeguard, to ensure that directions removing hope value could meet the public interest justification test and ensure that the use of the power would be compliant with human rights legislation. That is really important. Trying to draw the power too widely would fall foul of human rights legislation and we would not be able to use it in any case. That is why it has to be targeted at schemes that deliver in the public interest. That will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

The Government also have concerns that amendment 2 could introduce a change that could make it difficult for authorities to justify directions removing hope value in the public interest. We think that it could make the benefits delivered through use of the existing direction power less clearly identifiable and problematic for those reasons, so I will not be able to accept the amendment, although, as I say, I am sympathetic to the use of the direction in clear instances when a public benefit is at stake.

Although we have commenced the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provisions only this year, to date no acquiring authority has used them; I suspect that is partly from the usual hesitancy about being the first mover and partly about ensuring that there are sufficient skills in the acquiring authority to use it. But the Government are very clear: we do want an acquiring authority, where appropriate, to make use of the power, although we cannot draw it more widely for the reasons I have given.

I turn to amendments 86 and 87. The amendments seek to amend clause 91 and expand the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value. The amendments propose to extend the types of CPOs for which directions removing hope value may be sought to CPOs providing provision of sporting and recreational facilities.  The amendments also seek to introduce a change so that CPOs that provide sporting and recreational facilities would not have to facilitate affordable housing provision when seeking directions removing hope value. 

While the Government recognise the value of parks and playing fields to our communities—we could all give our own examples of how much they are cherished and loved—we are unable to support the amendments. As I have said, the non-payment of hope value to landowners through the use of CPO powers must be proportionate and justified in the public interest. 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.  The proposed changes could make it difficult for authorities to justify directions removing hope value in the public interest, as the benefits to be delivered would be less clearly identifiable. The Government are therefore unable to support the amendments. 

I turn briefly to clause stand part. Clause 91 makes amendments to the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which we have just been debating, that allows authorities to include in their CPOs directions the removal of hope value from compensation, when that is justified in the public interest. First, the clause amends the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and provides that CPOs made with directions removing hope value may be confirmed by acquiring authorities where there are no objections to the relevant CPO.

Alongside that reform, the Government intend to publish updated CPO guidance to make clear their policy that the power for inspectors to be appointed to take decisions on CPOs under the 1981 Act can be used for CPOs with directions removing hope value. CPO guidance published by my Department sets out criteria that the Secretary of State will consider in deciding whether to delegate confirmation decisions to inspectors. The updated CPO guidance, reflecting the Government’s policy, will be published when we implement the Bill’s reforms following Royal Assent. The changes will speed up the decision-making process for CPOs with directions removing hope value and ensure that the process is more efficient and effective.

Secondly, clause 91 extends the power for CPOs to include directions removing hope value to CPOs made on behalf of parish or community councils under section 125 of the Local Government Act 1972. That will allow parish or community councils, when seeking to deliver affordable housing in their areas, to acquire land without paying hope value compensation—again, when a direction removing hope value is justified in the public interest demonstrably and clearly. The change is intended to increase the viability of such schemes to deliver more affordable housing, which these communities desperately need.

Lastly, the clause amends the legislation to ensure that when CPOs are confirmed with directions removing hope value, the directions apply not only to the assessment of market value of land taken but to loss payments where the assessment of market value is a relevant factor. That makes it clearer that hope value will be removed from all heads of claim where market value is assessed. That provides for the consistent application of the principles for the assessment of the market value of land where CPOs are confirmed, with directions removing hope value. It also ensures that the compensation regime does not deliver excessive compensation where compulsory purchase is used to deliver benefits in the public interest.

I again make it clear that these reforms are not about targeting farm owners or any specific types of land or landowner. Neither do the clauses seek to change—returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke—the core principles of compulsory purchase, which remain. There is nothing in the Bill that changes the core principles of compulsory purchase. As I have said, it must be used only where negotiations to acquire land by agreement have failed, and where there is a compelling case in the public interest. To deliver the homes and infrastructure we need, we must look to unlock land in the right places. These clauses ensure we have the correct tools to realise that.

Briefly, new clause 108, tabled by the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, seeks to repeal section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which provides the power for CPOs to be confirmed, with directions removing hope value where justified in the public interest. For that reason, I understand why the shadow Minister has at the last moment hesitated to speak to it. In essence, the new clause would remove the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which allows acquiring authorities to take forward certain types of scheme by compulsory purchase and to pay a reduced value for land where it will deliver clear and significant benefits and is justified in the public interest.

I disagree with the reforms made by Baron Gove—I think that is now the correct terminology—in a number of areas. He tainted his record in my Department very late on in the previous Government by abolishing mandatory housing targets under pressure from the so-called planning concern group, the ringleaders of which all lost their seats in any case. He did, however, introduce a number of very valuable reforms, one of which is that reform to CPOs. It is therefore absolutely right that we do not attempt—as the right hon. Lady clearly does, if not the shadow Minister—to remove it from the statute book.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister is being slightly unfair in saying that I have chosen not to speak to the new clause at the last minute; I had always intended not to speak to it because we are very collaborative on our Opposition Front Bench in deciding what we will and will not speak to. The Minister should know that there is always a good intention behind a new clause or amendment—in this case, to restrict the unfairness to some people.

The Minister should also not be surprised that the shadow Cabinet and shadow Ministers such as myself are assessing what happened under the last Government. We are looking back and, as we have said repeatedly, we are under new leadership. The Minister will know—in a basic constitutional lesson—that no Government is bound by the actions of its predecessor, and we are not bound by the actions of our previous leader. [Interruption.] They should not be surprised by that. They were always reviewing their successes under Gordon Brown and particularly the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband). They have changed a lot of their views from what they used to say then. They have definitely changed a lot of what they thought when they were under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and were extolling the virtues of loyalty.

We will look to see how we can strengthen the provisions in the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, and we will come back to it a further stage. The Minister should not always think that there is a conspiracy when I decide not to press an amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It has been pretty dry going this morning on these clauses. For the purposes of entertaining the Committee, I just want to make sure I have understood the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes]

No, you do not need to.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Opposition are at liberty to change their position on any policy that the previous Government introduced, but they do not want to change policy in this area as they believe that the power is proportionate and necessary. However, the right hon. Lady still tabled the new clause to signal that they may be willing to come back to it at some point. Is that broadly right?

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister is being overly cynical. As he knows, our leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), has said that there is a mainstream review of what worked and what did not work under the very successful Conservative Government that served for the last 14 years. What we are looking at going forward is whether we need a new approach to planning reform. That is exactly what the new clause was intended to probe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the Government move to bring forward the new system of environmental outcome reports that will replace the EU processes of environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment, it is necessary to make a minor amendment to the original drafting to ensure the new system can comply with relevant international obligations. Environmental outcomes reports provide the opportunity to streamline the assessment process while securing better outcomes for nature, but it is vital we start this journey with the right powers.

Clause 93 amends the power to specify environmental outcomes to ensure they can relate to areas outside of our national jurisdiction. This is to ensure that the new system of EORs can comply with, among other things, the UK’s obligations under the Espoo convention, which requires signatories to consider the potential transboundary impact of development. This measure will ensure that, as the Government progress with developing the new system of EORs, they will have sufficient powers to ensure the new system can adequately fulfil all our international obligations.

[Paul Holmes]

Before we receive a statement later from the Prime Minister, can the Minister outline whether any of the movements in this domestic legislation, which stem from the transitioning of EU-derived systems, will be affected by any Government deal made between the EU and the United Kingdom?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will come back to the hon. Member on that point in writing, because it is important that I am precise on it. Obviously a series of obligations stem from the trade and co-operation agreement, and they are set out. This clause specifically attempts to ensure that the new system of EORs—legislated for through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023—can, once it is brought into force, function in a way that is compliant with all our international obligations. I think members of the Committee would very much support that being the case. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

I would expect the Minister to write to us; I would not expect an answer on the Floor of the Committee. What the Prime Minister is going to outline later is a detailed and holistic deal. When we talk about a change that is being framed within the context of transitioning from the EU-derived systems of environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments—I have only read what is in the papers; I am sure the Minister has, too—any area that is encapsulated within that wider deal may affect this domestic legislation going forward, so I would appreciate his writing to us on that.

By expanding the geographical scope within that derived system, the clause allows for a more holistic consideration of environmental impacts, including transboundary and global effects, as the Minister has outlined, which are particularly relevant in an era of climate change, biodiversity loss, and other interconnected environmental challenges. The broadened scope may be seen as a progressive move, enabling regulators to take a more comprehensive view of environmental harm such as greenhouse gas emissions or marine pollution, which can extend well beyond national borders. It aligns with growing international expectations that environmental assessments account for broader spatial impacts, enhancing the credibility and robustness of the UK’s post-Brexit environmental governance framework, although that is potentially subject to change by the Government.

Although the clause strengthens the theoretical scope of environmental assessments, it does not clarify the practical mechanisms by which the likely significant effects beyond the UK will be evaluated or enforced. Without that clear guidance, the broader remit could become more symbolic than operational, risking inconsistencies in application. Bearing in mind the time, I would appreciate it if the Minister could briefly come back on those points, and then we would be content not to vote against the clause.

[Matthew Pennycook]

In speaking to the clause, I stressed that the purpose is to ensure that the new system of environmental outcomes reports introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which this Government are committed to proceeding with, is compliant with all our international obligations. I mentioned, for example, the Espoo convention. The UK is party to that convention, and thus all development must consider whether the project will have likely significant effects on the environment in other states that are also party to it. I understand the shadow Minister’s points, but this is a non-controversial clause that simply ensures that once we bring the new system into force, it is compliant with all our international obligations.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Paul Holmes and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Thursday 15th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I entirely agree with him, which is why, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, we make a dream team that is in fast competition with the Minister. He should watch this space—it is four years and counting. [Interruption.] I am joking with the Minister.

What I would say to my hon. Friend is that that is the key reason why we have concerns about clause 63. We understand the Minister’s intentions, and we will not press the amendment to further complicate the clause. However, we are concerned that the lack of clarity in the Bill could, in a very complex EDP involving multiple parties, damage the clause’s intent to enhance environmental protection. The number of planning permissions going through could increase, but the end result would actually be that the delivery was not there. That is a key area where the Minister needs to look at strengthening the wording in the Bill. That aside, we will not push our amendment to a vote.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me make a couple of comments in response. First, I understand the point that has been made, but a fair amount of the detail will come through regulations. The House will have an opportunity to scrutinise those, and they will, as I said, be under the affirmative procedure. Secondly, to refer the shadow Minister back to clause 62, I think issues such as phasing and complex development are dealt with in subsection (2).

My other, wider point goes perhaps not to the kids in schools, but certainly to the species that existing arrangements are designed to provide for. Developers are already paying a separate type of fee to discharge their environmental obligations. The Bill proposes a smarter way of doing that, and the levy will proceed on the basis of that smarter way to discharge those obligations.

I have not had the chance to say this, and it is worth doing so, but it is the Government’s clear intention that the aggregate cost of conservation measures to developers under an EDP is no greater than it is under the status quo for existing mitigations. The Government’s intent is not to charge developers more. This is a more effective, strategic and efficient way to discharge existing environmental obligations on a strategic scale. However, further detail will be forthcoming.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65

Appeals

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 65 will allow a right of appeal in relation to the calculation of the amount of the levy payable by a developer. As environmental delivery plans include charging schedules, which can set out the levy rates for different types of development, there is a need to ensure that there is a route for developers to appeal if they believe that the levy payable has been miscalculated. Crucially, the levy rates will be part of the draft environmental delivery plan, which will provide clarity as to the cost for developers, but we want to ensure that if developers believe that the rate has been miscalculated, they have a right to appeal. The appeal process will be set out in regulations, and the clause provides the detail of what those regulations may include. This is a simple and straightforward clause, and I commend it to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

I have a brief question. I understand that the Minister wants to bring forward regulations backed by the affirmative procedure, and that is welcome. I am slightly concerned by the wording in subsection (3):

“In any proceedings for judicial review of a decision on an appeal, the defendant is to be such person as is specified in the regulations (and the regulations may also specify a person who is not to be the defendant for these purposes).”

I seek reassurance from the Minister that once the Bill receives Royal Assent, he will err on the side of being liberal about who can bring an issue to judicial review, and that he will not seek to restrict a category of person from taking such actions. I would be grateful if he could give that assurance.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate—as, no doubt, the development sector will—the hon. Gentleman’s concern for developers and the right of appeal. I do give him that commitment. I will go away and think about the point he raises.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66

Use of nature restoration levy

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

We will not press amendments 130 to 132, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley, to a vote. On clause 66 more generally, we accept that it sets out how funding collected by Natural England through the nature restoration levy must be used. In broad terms, it is to be spent on relevant conservation measures, as well as on the administrative costs that arise. However, there is an absence of clarity that could lead to potential concerns about the transparency and accountability of fund distribution. Without clear guidelines, there is a risk that administrative costs could disproportionately consume the funds meant for conservation, thereby undermining the levy’s effectiveness in achieving its environmental objectives.

Furthermore, we have a concern that the clause provides no safeguards to ensure that the funds are spent efficiently or effectively, and nor does it establish any oversight mechanisms to monitor the use of the funds. We would argue that a more detailed breakdown of how the funds will be managed, with clear priority given to conservation over administration, would help build trust in the system and ensure that the nature restoration levy delivers the intended environmental benefits.

Additionally, and lastly, there should be a requirement for periodic reporting on how the funds are used, which would provide necessary transparency and reassurance to stakeholders.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me work through each of the amendments that have been tabled and spoken to. I will start with amendment 9, which was tabled and set out by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. It requires that funds gathered through the nature restoration levy be spent without unreasonable delay.

An environmental delivery plan will have had to meet the overall improvement test, as we have debated at length, to have been made. In designing the conservation measures in an environmental delivery plan, Natural England will have been aware that delivering measures at the earliest point in time is usually the easiest way to achieve that outcome. However, the appropriate timing to deliver a conservation measure may depend on the specific circumstances of each case and the nature of the conservation measures that represent the best outcomes for the environment in the view of Natural England, as the body preparing the EDP. Natural England’s discretion in these determinations should not, in our view, be unduly restrained by an obligation to spend money quickly, rather than well and effectively, to achieve the outcomes under the EDP. There is an option for Natural England to establish—

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We heard evidence from the chief executive of Natural England, and in case she is listening, I say again very clearly that I make no imputation about the way she or the organisation are doing their job, but the language that she used was very loose. Without that financial certainty, there is a question about whether the organisation will be able to cope with all the responsibilities that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington outlined. As my hon. Friend just mentioned, the Minister has also admitted—if he wants to intervene, that is fine—that no additional funding means that Natural England will be relying on the spending review even more than we thought at the beginning of the evidence session.

[Matthew Pennycook]

indicated dissent.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister is shaking his head, so I will give way.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am shaking my head, for the following reasons. I have made it clear that the nature restoration fund will ultimately work on the basis of full cost recovery. To be clear, these are costs for introducing compensation measures and discharging environmental obligations that Natural England at present does not handle; developers do them on a site-by-site basis. Although I do not underestimate the resourcing challenges across Government, the full cost recovery for the service provided will not impact on Natural England’s wider work. There will be full cost recovery for the preparation and delivery of environmental delivery plans for Natural England. I hope that that addresses the matter.

In that sense, I do not think the shadow Minister is right to say that we are giving Natural England an additional responsibility, on top of its existing responsibilities, outside the provisions of the Bill here, for which full cost recovery will apply. There is a specific, direct link with the levy that is going to be raised.

Broadly, I say to the shadow Minister—I am just flicking through the explanatory notes—that he has challenged me, and I accept the challenge, that there is not enough specificity in the regulation-making powers in the Bill. I have committed to regulations coming forward under the affirmative procedure. If he could go away and help my reflection by guiding me to another piece of legislation that has included the specificity around regulation-making powers that he would like to see, that would very much aid my deliberation.

[Paul Holmes]

I am a very aspirational, can-do, go-getter politician—[Interruption.] Yes, it is everyone else who needs to say that. I am willing to sit down with the Minister and guide him in any way I can—perhaps over a double espresso—to make sure that the gist of what the Bill seeks to achieve is matched in the specificity about what is required in regulations. I do not think I am being ungenerous to the Minister; I have accepted that he has been very good in saying that we will consider them under the affirmative procedure. But as we discuss the key driving force behind the Bill, we seek reassurance on some of the unclear elements of Natural England’s responsibilities.

The Minister, who is driving this legislation forward, could indicate to the Committee verbally or in writing afterwards where he will give more specifics on enforcement action, on costs, on raising powers and on other things. I am not being mean to him; I am just saying that if he spent years writing this while he was shadow Minister, he should know what he wants Natural England to do now that he is Minister. I have full confidence that he can do that, and I cannot be any more complimentary to him than I have been on this Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As complimentary as the shadow Minister is being about me, I think it is a stretch—even for someone such as myself, who has lived and breathed this for years—to have been setting out while in opposition the fine details of collection for nature restoration levy regulations forthcoming. That is a level of detail that I did not get into, and would not be expected to, and that the House can consider when those regulations come forward.

[Paul Holmes]

If the Minister has lived and breathed this for the many years for which he has wanted to write this legislation, and he has then got to the dizzying heights of a red box and a ministerial desk, he should know what he wants to do—

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I understand why the shadow Minister has sought to press me on this point, as I hope I have conveyed on previous clauses where we have touched upon compulsory purchase. We expect Natural England to use compulsory purchase orders as a last resort, and subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight. It will need to be authorised by the Secretary of State. I hope I can reassure him up front that Secretary of State oversight of the CPO process, as it applies through the nature restoration fund, is the same as in the existing process. Schedule 5 makes it very clear that the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 applies.

More generally, clause 72 provides Natural England with powers to compulsorily purchase land. As we have set out throughout this sitting, to be successful in delivering a win-win for nature and the economy, it is vital that Natural England has the necessary powers to secure and implement the conservation measures needed to protect the environment and enable Britain to get building. Although it is necessary to equip Natural England with those powers to ensure conservation measures can be delivered, they can be used only if the land is required for the purposes connected with a conservation measure set out in an environmental delivery plan, where attempts to acquire land by negotiation have failed, and where there is a compelling case in the public interest for use of the compulsory purchase powers.

As a further safeguard, the use of those powers will need to be authorised by the Secretary of State. Equipping Natural England with compulsory purchase powers is not unusual or novel. I sought to address that point on Second Reading. Many public bodies with statutory powers have compulsory purchase powers, and Natural England can already make compulsory purchase orders in some circumstances.

Clause 72 is supported by schedule 5, which applies the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and makes necessary modifications to compulsory purchase compensation legislation to accommodate these changes. Government new clauses 112 to 118 support this approach to compulsory purchase by making a number of technical amendments to ensure the operability of the new powers. That includes protections in respect of the use of CPO powers where the use of them may affect those carrying out statutory functions.

Finally, the package of amendments removes certain terms that are a hangover from outdated regulations and makes adjustments to the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 to allow for powers of entry where notice has been given. As the Committee has already heard, the Government have taken a cautious approach to extending compulsory purchase powers but are clear that they need to be available in the context of the nature restoration fund to ensure that there is sufficient certainty that, where necessary and appropriate, compulsory purchase can be used to ensure conservation measures are delivered.

I turn now to amendment 150, tabled by the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), which would restrict Natural England from utilising compulsory purchase powers for land that forms part of a dwelling or private garden. If I heard the shadow Minister correctly, it is a probing amendment, but I am more than happy to provide him with some further detail on the Government’s position. We agree that it will be crucial for the use of compulsory purchase powers to be appropriately constrained. That is why we have made sure that the current clauses provide that these powers can be used only where attempts to acquire land by negotiation have failed and there is a compelling case in the public interest for use of the compulsory purchase powers.

That is supported by the further safeguard that the use of the powers will need to be authorised by the Secretary of State, which will include considering whether the public interest benefits of the acquisition justify interfering with the private rights of those affected. It is highly improbable that conservation measures in private gardens could form an ecologically essential component of an environmental delivery plan. I do not say it would be impossible, but it is highly improbable.

Any restriction, however, of the use of the power where land contains an occupied dwelling or forms part of a private garden would be an unusual restriction on CPO powers, and would introduce unnecessary risks of complexity and delay when they are exercised. Any private dwellings will already benefit from additional protections, as I am sure the shadow Minister will know, under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. For that reason, and the existing safeguards within the Bill itself, I hope that the shadow Minister will withdraw the right hon. Lady’s amendment.

Finally, I turn to new clause 107, which would provide for circumstances where Natural England must return land that has been compulsorily purchased. In providing Natural England with new powers to acquire land through compulsory purchase, the Government have been at pains to ensure that the powers operate with effective safeguards, as I have said, and are in line with the wider approach to compulsory purchase. As raised elsewhere in the debate, we are clear about the need to ensure that Natural England can, where appropriate, use such powers to secure land to deliver conservation measures.

The new clause would undermine the efficacy of the proposed targeted powers by requiring land to be returned, at a loss to the taxpayer, where Natural England had to spend more money on conservation measures than the original contract price offered to the landowner. That would leave a hole not only in the public purse but in the environmental delivery plan in question, which would need to secure additional land to implement additional conservation measures that would have been secured on land now returned to the original owner.

We share the desire of the shadow Minister to see the effective use of the powers—that is why the safeguards are in place—but I hope that, with that explanation, he will withdraw the amendment.

[Paul Holmes]

We are satisfied with and appreciate the Minister’s response, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Compulsory acquisition of land under Part 3: supplementary provisions

Amendments made: 112, in schedule 5, page 148, line 36, at end insert—

“5A (1) Paragraph 3(2) does not apply to—

(a) any right vested in statutory undertakers for the purpose of carrying on their undertaking,

(b) any apparatus belonging to statutory undertakers for that purpose,

(c) any right conferred by, or in accordance with, the electronic communications code on the operator of an electronic communications code network, or

(d) any electronic communications apparatus kept installed for the purposes of any such network.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) ‘statutory undertakers’ means persons who are, or are deemed to be, statutory undertakers for the purposes of any provision of Part 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and ‘undertaking’ is to be read in accordance with section 262 of that Act (meaning of ‘statutory undertakers’).”

This amendment secures that the things mentioned in the inserted paragraph 5A are not affected by paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 5, which would otherwise provide for their extinguishment or acquisition when land is compulsorily acquired under clause 72.

Amendment 113, in schedule 5, page 152, line 10, leave out “or restrictive covenant”.

This amendment and amendment 114 remove erroneous references to a restrictive covenant from paragraph 11 of Schedule 5. Paragraph 11 relates only to the compulsory acquisition of a new right over land under clause 72.

Amendment 114, in schedule 5, page 152, line 14, leave out “or enforcing that covenant”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 113.

Amendment 115, in schedule 5, page 152, line 14, after “sections” insert

“11A (powers of entry: further notices of entry), 11B (counter-notice requiring possession to be taken on specified date),”.

This amendment secures that the modification of section 11 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 made by paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 affects sections 11A and 11B of that Act, as well as sections 12 and 13.

Amendment 116, in schedule 5, page 152, line 29, at end insert—

“New rights: application of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981

13A The Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 (‘CP(VD)A 1981’) applies to the compulsory acquisition of new rights under section 72—

(a) with the modifications specified in paragraph 13B; and

(b) with such other modifications as may be necessary.

13B (1) The modifications of CP(VD)A 1981 referred to in paragraph 13A(a) are as follows.

(2) References to CPA 1965 are, in appropriate contexts, to be read (according to the requirements of the particular context) as referring to, or as including references to—

(a) the right acquired or to be acquired; or

(b) the land over which the right is, or is to be, exercisable.

(3) References to CPA 1965 are to be read as references to that Act as it applies to the compulsory acquisition of a right under section 72.

(4) Section 8(1) (vesting, and right to enter and take possession) is to be read as securing that—

(a) a general vesting declaration in respect of any right vests the right in the acquiring authority on the vesting date; and

(b) as from the vesting date, the acquiring authority has power, exercisable in the same circumstances and subject to the same conditions, to enter land for the purpose of exercising that right as if the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a) and (b) of section 8(1) had arisen.

(5) Section 9(2) (right of entry under section 8(1) not exercisable in respect of land subject to certain tenancies unless notice has been served on occupiers of the land) is to be read as requiring a notice served by the appropriate authority under that provision to refer to the authority’s intention to enter land specified in the notice in order to exercise the right.

(6) In section 10(1) (acquiring authority’s liability on vesting of the land), the reference to the acquiring authority’s taking possession of the land under section 11 of CPA 1965 is to be read as a reference to the authority’s exercising the power to enter the land under that provision as modified by paragraph 11 of this Schedule.

(7) Schedule A1 (counter-notice requiring purchase of land not in general vesting declaration) is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraph 1(1), for ‘part only of’ there were substituted ‘only the acquisition of a right over’;

(b) paragraph 1(2) were omitted;

(c) references to the land proposed to be acquired were (subject to paragraph (e) below) to the right proposed to be acquired;

(d) references to the additional land were to the house, building or factory over which the right is proposed to be exercisable;

(e) in paragraphs 14 and 15, references to the severance of land proposed to be acquired were to the acquisition of the right; and

(f) in paragraph 15, after ‘in addition to’ there were inserted ‘or in substitution for’.”

This amendment secures that the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 applies in relation to the compulsory acquisition of a new right over land under clause 72, subject (a) to the specific modifications in paragraph 13B (designed to secure that certain provisions of that Act work correctly in relation to that case and (b) any other modifications necessary to secure that result.

Amendment 117, in schedule 5, page 152, line 32, leave out

“with the necessary modifications, in”

and insert “—

(a) with the modification specified in paragraph 15, and

(b) with such other modifications as are necessary,

in”.

Paragraph 14 of Schedule 5 secures that the enactments relating to compensation for the compulsory purchase of land apply to the acquisition of new rights over land under clause 72 with the modifications necessary to make them work correctly in relation to that case. The amendment makes clear that the modifications include the particular modification of the Land Compensation Act 1961 set out in the new paragraphs 15 inserted by Amendment 118.

Amendment 118, in schedule 5, page 152, line 35, at end insert—

“15 Section 5A (relevant valuation date) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 is to be read as if for subsections (5A) and (5B) there were substituted—

‘(5A) If—

(a) the acquiring authority enters on land for the purpose of exercising a right in pursuance of a notice of entry under section 11(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (as modified by paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025),

(b) the acquiring authority is subsequently required by a determination under paragraph 13 of Schedule 2A to the 1965 Act (as substituted by paragraph 9 of Schedule 5 to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025) to acquire an interest in the land, and

(c) the acquiring authority enters on and takes possession of that land,

the authority is deemed for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) to have entered on that land when it entered on that land for the purpose of exercising that right.

(5B) If—

(a) a right over land is the subject of a general vesting declaration,

(b) by virtue of paragraph 11(2) or 16(2) of Schedule A1 to the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981, the declaration has effect as if it included an interest in the land, and

(c) the vesting date for the right is different from the vesting date for the interest in the land,

the first of the vesting dates is deemed for the purposes of subsection (4)(a) to be the vesting date for the whole of the land.’”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This amendment sets out a modification of section 5A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 as it applies in relation to the compulsory acquisition of new rights over land under clause 72. The amendments ensure that section 5A works correctly in relation to its application to the acquisition of such new rights.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 73 and 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75

Duty of co-operation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Paul Holmes and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Thursday 15th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

Missing in action and not winning here. I know that the Minister is very keen that we expedite this Committee today because of the semi-final play-off with Charlton tonight. I hope that his team does well in that, because we would like to invite him down to the Den to watch a match between Millwall and Charlton, if Charlton are promoted. The Minister is always welcome down to the Den.

I turn to amendment 126, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). We absolutely agree with the Minister’s sentiments on EDPs, and we wholeheartedly agreed with the majority of what he said on the previous clause. We accept that EDPs will be a step change in environmental delivery across the United Kingdom.

One of our concerns, and the reason why we tabled amendment 126—I will come to amendment 127 in a minute—is that at the moment the legislation says that there will be two reviews into the EDP: one at the mid-point and one at the end. We simply want to see whether the Minister would entertain the idea of review periods at five-yearly intervals and a report on an EDP covering the previous five-year period. That is for a number of reasons.

First, with only two reports—one at the mid-point and one at the end—there could be long gaps during which important issues or shortcomings in implementation go unaddressed. In rapidly evolving environmental contexts, more frequent reporting would allow for timely adjustments and a greater responsiveness to emerging challenges. What would happen under the current proposals if a mid-term report showed a failure to deliver in conservation outcomes? Also, are the two required reports sufficient for long-term monitoring and public accountability?

We have a slight concern that the clause does not seem to specify the content or required level of detail in those reports. I hope that the Minister will be able to elaborate slightly on what he and the Secretary of State would expect in terms of the detail when a report is published. It is also important to state that although the Bill will have to meet equality legislation, it does not meet the standard for public accessibility or independent review. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about that. Without these safeguards, the report could become a box-ticking exercise rather than a meaningful tool for transparency and continuous improvement.

I turn briefly to amendment 127, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley. Given what the Minister said in our discussion of the last clause about the impact that the wording will have on legal definitions and measurements if those were to be challenged, I do not intend to press amendment 127 to a vote. We think that the wording

“the local economy and community of the relevant area”

is not defined enough, so we will have to look at whether we need to tighten it up, bearing in mind what the Minister said about the language in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. But I would like to press amendment 126 to a vote.

On amendment 127, I hope the Minister will say something about community benefits and the local economy in the relevant area. I hope he looks favourably on amendment 126, which stipulates more transparency and a clearer guideline for the process of reviewing EDPs. I look forward to his response.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me start by setting out our overarching intentions behind clause 57. Once an environmental delivery plan is made, it is crucial that Natural England can effectively monitor the performance of the conservation measures put in place and report on its progress. It is vital that key information, such as the performance of conservation measures and remaining development capacity under the environmental delivery plan, are made available. That is why clause 57 sets out that, as the shadow Minister just said, Natural England must publish reports at least twice over the environmental delivery plan period: once covering the period from commencement to its mid-point, then a second report covering the mid-point to the end date. The reports must be published no later than two months after the period the report covers, and Natural England may publish reports at any other time.

The reports are intend to demonstrate how an environmental delivery plan is progressing. They must cover specific topics—I hope this gives the shadow Minister some reassurance—including how much development has been agreed to, how that compares to the total amount of development that could be agreed to, what conservation measures have been implemented and the effect that they are having. The report must also specify the amount of money received through the levy and whether that is in line with expectations. That transparency will ensure that proactive steps can be taken if an environmental delivery plan is underperforming, and it will allow the Secretary of State to consider amending an environmental delivery plan to accommodate continued demand. I will come to clause 58 shortly.

Those reporting requirements are also important to ensure transparency as to whether delivery is aligning with the expected costs, and how the levy is being set and spent. By legislating for appropriate levels of reporting, we are ensuring that developers, local communities and environmental groups will be able to continue to engage with environmental delivery plans across their lifespan, ensuring they can be adapted as needed.

Amendment 126, tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, seeks to require Natural England to publish a report at five-yearly intervals that covers the previous five-year period of an environmental delivery plan. I very much share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to ensure that Natural England appropriately monitors the performance of the conservation measures put in place and reports on the progress of the environmental delivery plan. However, as drafted, clause 57(1)(a) and (b) already provide adequate safeguards by requiring appropriate levels of reporting. Under the existing drafting, Natural England is required to produce reports for each EDP. As I have set out, the first report will cover the start date to the mid-point, and the second will cover the mid-point to the end date of the plan.

As the maximum length of an environmental delivery plan is 10 years, the latest a report will be published is in year five, and then year 10. As such, the proposed requirement to provide a report every five years would not add further value. Where the duration of an environmental delivery plan is less than 10 years, a prescriptive timetable for reporting could create duplication. However, we recognise the need to ensure that Natural England can tailor reporting, which is why clause 57(3) allows it to publish a report at any other time.

On amendment 127, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, the Government share his desire to ensure that EDPs make a positive impact on the regions they cover, but we are clear that they should be judged first and foremost on their delivery of the environmental outcomes they are designed to achieve. That is why the legislation focuses on reporting on the environmental performance of EDPs. However, through subsection (6), the Secretary of State can publish guidance that Natural England must consider when producing a report. That gives the Secretary of State the ability to introduce new elements of reporting where appropriate.

The core focus of these reports is to provide the Secretary of State and the public with confidence that an EDP is providing the necessary environmental benefits to bring about an overall positive environmental outcome. Adding a new metric to cover the impact on the local economy and community, we believe, risks extending the scope of reporting and losing focus on the core objective of these reforms. Local economic benefits would, to a degree, be covered by the existing requirement to report how much of an EDP’s development capacity has been utilised. With that explanation, and the assurance that I always give the shadow Minister that I will go away and reflect on whether the wording is the best it can be, I hope he will withdraw the amendment.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister, as always, for his clarity on the amendments. He has said many times in Committee that he will be reflecting; I hope that he finds time to do things other than reflect. Given his assurances, I will have a word with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley so that he might have a proper look at where in the Bill the timescales are already set out; that may be a lesson for cross-shadow ministerial working in the future. Given the Minister’s assurances, I will not press the amendment; as I have said already, we are content with what he said on amendment 127. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Amendment of an EDP

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I rise to speak to amendment 128, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley—let us hope this one goes slightly better.

We understand the reason for clause 58 and for outlining the provisions for amending an environmental delivery plan. The clause clearly lays out the process the Secretary of State must go through to amend an EDP, which they may do either on their own initiative or at the request of Natural England.

The reason why my hon. Friend tabled amendment 128 is that, in some cases, the Secretary of State may choose to revoke an EDP. We will come to compulsory purchase orders later, but we would like to tighten up the wording of the Bill, so that when an EDP is revoked, the Secretary of State must seek to return any land obtained under a CPO for the purposes of that EDP to the original owner.

Will the Minister outline his thoughts on those proposals, which relate to cases where land has been CPO-ed and what happens to it afterwards? I hope he will see amendment 128 as a minor adjustment to the Bill and that he will give me some satisfactory answers, as he has this morning. We support the clause in general, but we just seek to tighten the language.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me set out for the Committee the intentions behind the clause, which gives the Secretary of State the power to amend environmental delivery plans in specific circumstances, where it is necessary to do so, and lays out the process that must be gone through.

The ability to amend may be required, for example, to reflect new environmental information or to extend an environmental delivery plan to accommodate additional development. The Secretary of State may amend on their own initiative or at the request of Natural England. It is right that environmental delivery plans can be amended, but our intention is that, where development has already contributed to the environmental delivery plan, any future amendment does not expose such development to requests for additional funding.

In providing a power to amend, we have also included proportionate requirements to consult on amendments. Crucially, however, in making an amendment to an environmental delivery plan, the Secretary of State will be bound by the same overall improvement test and will need to be satisfied that the conservation measures in the amended plan are likely to sufficiently outweigh the negative effect of development on the relevant environmental feature.

If the Secretary of State wishes to amend an environmental delivery plan, other than to amend only the charging schedule, they may first direct Natural England to consult on the environmental delivery plan as proposed to be amended. That allows environmental delivery plans to adapt and reflect changing circumstances, while ensuring that they are subject to sufficient scrutiny and oversight.

Turning to the amendments, I will begin with amendment 11, as set out by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I recognise the concern he highlights that, in a certain scenario, an amendment could be made that reduces the environmental outcomes and lowers the amount of protection. There are of course many important reasons why an environmental delivery plan may need to be amended, but we recognise that that ability to amend needs to be carefully considered. That is why existing clauses already offer a number of safeguards.

The central safeguard is that, where amended, an environmental delivery plan is still required to pass the overall improvement test. That means that, when amending an environmental delivery plan, the Secretary of State will not be able to reduce the amount of conservation measures without amending the scale of development that can rely on that environmental delivery plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

No, Dr Huq, but on the assurances that the Minister gave in relation to amendment 128, which he said he expected we would take in the spirit in which he intended them, let me say that we will seek further clarification from him on CPO.

Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60

Challenging an EDP

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The clause sets out the approach to challenging an environmental delivery plan. As the obligations discharged through an EDP will not be subject to separate consideration at the point of development consent, we recognise that it is important that EDPs are subject to appropriate scrutiny. Earlier clauses provided for consultation in respect of EDPs, and clause 60 provides a route to challenge them.

The route of challenge enables a claim for judicial review to be brought within a period of six weeks from the date that the EDP is published. The same six-week period for judicial review is available following any decision by the Secretary of State not to make an EDP or to amend or revoke one, or when the Secretary of State has decided not to amend or revoke an EDP.

The decisions of the Secretary of State and Natural England in preparing EDPs must be subject to scrutiny, and the clause sets out a clear, time-bound mechanism for parties to question those decisions. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for that explanation of the clause. We have tabled no amendments, but we do have some questions for him.

We welcome the Government’s recognition that there should be the right to challenge an EDP—that is perfectly sensible and we appreciate it—and we welcome the fact that an EDP can be challenged by judicial review. We have all seen examples in our constituencies of large-scale projects in the planning system; in my area, although I disagreed with the people who were against an extension of Southampton airport’s runway, they had the right to go to judicial review. We also see—I declare an interest given what I said on Tuesday about Hamble quarry —communities wanting to assess whether they can take cases to judicial review. We absolutely welcome that provision in clause 60.

However, we have a concern about the six-week window. The Minister will know—and we have all seen these cases, for good and bad—that people who may want to bring a judicial review, or at least investigate one, cannot always afford it. They are not always well-organised or large-scale businesses with the resources to afford that very expensive and complicated process. We are concerned that such a short window may hinder meaningful access to justice, particularly for local communities, smaller organisations, or individuals or charities, which may lack the resources or legal expertise to respond quickly enough. I know that this is in legislation, but is the Minister confident that the six-week window is sufficient, given the potential complexity of EDPs, and will he look at reviewing it or consulting interested parties on it?

We have been very clear that we expect robust public engagement and clear communication obligations. Especially on something as substantial as an EDP, and bearing in mind the charities or small activist groups that may be affected by it and that may, whether we back the principle of EDPs or not, have genuine disagreements, I invite the Minister to outline his thoughts on the six-week period.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate why the shadow Minister raises that point. I am confident, for the following reasons. A six-week timeframe to challenge an EDP is in line with similar legislation on plan making. For example, the statutory consultation period for local plans is six weeks, as set out in regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. We think it is an appropriate timeline, and there is precedent. We are trying to strike a balance between allowing sufficient time for an EDP to be challenged when it is made, amended or revoked—in all the circumstances that I set out—and not making the period so long that it will not allow for EDPs to be prepared and implemented as swiftly as possible, which is obviously the objective of the Bill. I hope that, on that basis, the shadow Minister is reassured.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Paul Holmes and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse, and echo the comments about your chairing yesterday being absolutely excellent. I am sure that, as the afternoon goes on, the Government Whip will be looking for you to be as stern as you were yesterday.

I rise to speak briefly in favour of amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire, on the importance of chalk streams. I know about this issue personally, as I spent five years as the Member of Parliament for Eastleigh, which had another chalk stream in the River Itchen. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke mentioned, Hampshire has a unique ecosystem and a huge array of chalk streams.

I also pay tribute to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, which is vociferous in making sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Hampshire constituencies know about the importance of chalk streams. I will refer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth North as well, because she is a very welcome part of our Hampshire family—even if many of my constituents would not accept that Portsmouth exists. She also knows how much the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust does in the local area and for us as parliamentarians.

It is important for chalk streams to be protected. We support this well intentioned amendment, because it does no harm to have guidance to make sure that spatial development strategies refer to the unique and important ecosystems that need to be protected. I do not think it is anti-development or that it would harm or hinder activating development if needed. It is a useful step and guideline to make sure that developers take into account the areas that need to be protected.

The River Hamble, which is not a chalk stream, runs through the middle of my constituency. In that river, too, we are seeing the adverse effects of development in the parameter of the river, with water run-off and the pollution that is naturally created by the building process. The current regulatory framework is not doing enough to protect those rivers.

We are seeing our river ecosystems die. That was a heavily political subject at the last general election, and we need to do more on that issue. There are provisions in the Environment Act 2021 that give chalk streams some protection, but even though I am a Conservative who does not believe in over-regulation, I do believe that having that guidance for local authority decision makers would be helpful, which is why we support amendment 1.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank members of the Committee for so eloquently outlining the intent of these amendments. I will first deal with amendments 1 and 30. I very much accept the positive intent of these proposals and would like to stress that the Government are fully committed to restoring and improving the nation’s chalk streams. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire made clear, 85% of the world’s chalk streams are found in England. They are unique water bodies, not only vital ecosystems, but a symbol of our national heritage. This Government are committed to restoring them. We are undertaking a comprehensive set of actions outside the Bill to protect our chalk streams; in the interests of time, it is probably worthwhile for me to write to the Committee to set those out in detail.

We do not believe it is necessary to include amendment 1 in the legislation, as existing policy and legislation will already achieve the intended effect. Local nature recovery strategies are a more suitable place to map out chalk streams and identify measures to protect them. Proposed new section 12D(11) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already requires spatial development strategies to

“take account of any local nature recovery strategy”

that relates to a strategy area.

Strategic planning authorities will also be required to undertake habitats regulations assessments, subject to a Government amendment to the Bill. That places a further requirement on them to assess any adverse effects of the strategy on protected sites, which, in many cases, will include chalk streams. The point I am trying to convey to hon. Members is that strategic planning authorities will already have responsibilities in relation to their protection.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for that point. We will come on to discuss our approach to development and the environment more generally when we reach part 3 of the Bill. In response to his specific question, it is probably best dealt with in the letter I will send to the Committee on this matter, where I can pull together a range of points. The important point I am trying to stress, for the purposes of amendment 1, is that if a strategic planning authority considers the identification and protection of chalk streams to be a matter that should be included in its SDS, proposed new section 12D(1) already makes clear that an SDS must include policies relating to the

“development and use of land in the strategy area, which are of strategic importance to that area”

so that it can be taken into account. There is nothing to prevent strategic planning authorities from including such policies in their spatial development strategies if they consider them to be of strategic importance.

As I said, we have an ongoing debate about when centralisation is appropriate or not; I assume the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will tell me that it is, in this instance, in her view. But for those reasons, we do not consider these amendments necessary to achieve the desired effect.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister is absolutely right on this occasion. I just want to probe his comment. He outlined perfectly how, under the proposals he is bringing forward, spatial development strategies can include and incorporate the protection of chalk streams—I perfectly accept that. However, does he not accept that there is a risk that, if any of the decisions arising from the SDS are later challenged under the appeals procedure, without the national guidance that the amendments might provide, those protections might not have the full weight that they would if national regulation ensured the protection of the site? I hope he gets my gist.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think I do, and I am happy to expand on the point. What I have been trying to convey is that local nature recovery strategies are a new system of spatial strategies for nature and the environment, which will map out the most valuable areas for nature, including chalk streams, and identify measures to protect them. Proposed new subsection 12D(11) requires spatial development strategies to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to any part of the strategy area.

For the reasons I have given—I am more than happy to expand on these points in writing—I think that the well-founded concerns, which I understand, are unfounded in that respect. We believe that the amendments are not necessary to achieve the desired effect that the hon. Lady has argued for.

I turn to amendment 28. As outlined previously, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary as existing provisions in this legislation will already achieve the desired effect. Again, proposed new subsection 12D(11) already requires spatial development strategies to take account of any local nature recovery strategies that relate to any part of the strategy area. Local nature recovery strategies are required to identify areas of particular importance for biodiversity, and statutory guidance published by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs is clear that they should include all existing local wildlife sites. Strategic planning authorities are therefore already required to take account of local wildlife sites in relation to the strategy area.

Similarly, existing policy already affords protection from development that would adversely affect local wildlife sites. The current national planning policy framework is clear that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should reject applications where significant harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for. We therefore do not consider the amendments to be necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

In the interests of making progress, let me say that I have understood the hon. Lady’s point, and will happily go away and reflect on it, but we do not think the amendment is necessary. For the reasons I have set out, we will resist the amendment if she presses it to a vote. As I said, I am more than happy to reflect on her point; she has made it very clearly and it has been understood.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister is being very clear in his position on the amendments, but I have extreme sympathy for, and agreement with, the hon. Member for Hereford north.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I apologise; I thought the Minister had finished.

[Matthew Pennycook]

In the interests of brevity, Mrs Hobhouse, I will make one final comment, then I will go away and reflect and we can return to the matter on Report, where there will be time for consideration.

Again—it has felt like this a lot today—I think we are conflating different things. The process for an SDS is different from the process for the development of a local development plan. They are different things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I cannot yet tell you that, Mrs Hobhouse, because I want first to respond to what the Minister has said, and then hear his response in an intervention I will invite him to make. The Minister and I are obviously fairly jaded about the length of time that this is taking. I feel exactly the same as he does, but this is a serious concern from all parties, as he has accepted. He outlined his belief that the wording in the Bill is substantive enough to ensure that there is an invitation to make representations.

The process established by the Bill says that the authority must “consider notifying”—that could be, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, in a very small advert on a distinct web page that is not very accessible somewhere—“(at least) the following” people. It then publishes a strategy and asks for representations, which must be in a prescribed form and manner and within a prescribed period. That is fine, but nowhere in the Bill does it outline what happens to those representations once they are received. There is no obligation on the development organisation to look at those representations.

[Matthew Pennycook]

indicated dissent.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister can make that face, but that is true. Nowhere does it say that the authority has to look at the representations, give any feedback on them or do anything about them. All we are saying in amendment 78—it was addressed in other Members’ speeches as well—is that local people should be consulted on what they think about the proposals.

The Minister is, as I have said repeatedly on this Committee, a man of integrity and he has listened to our case, but nowhere under proposed new section 12H, particularly in subsections (3) and (4), does it require authorities to do anything with the representations. There is nowhere where those representations could feasibly make the proposals and draft plan better or fundamentally change their contents. I will invite the Minister to intervene—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will—

[Paul Holmes]

—when I have posed this question. We are seriously concerned about this element of the Bill. The Minister said in Committee yesterday that they have the numbers. We accept that, and we can look at this on Report. We will look at this on Report, because it is a substantial area in which the Bill falls short.

If the Minister commits to meeting all interested parties and look actively at how, in subsection (3), we can remove “consider notifying (at least)” and include not just notifying, but consulting, and we get a clear, proper commitment to that in Committee this afternoon, then we will consider not pressing the amendment to a vote. I know the Minister has the numbers, but I hope, in the spirit in which our amendment is intended, he understands that people who will be impacted by these decisions will want to have that consultation. I ask the Minister to intervene to hear if he is willing to do that. If he is not, we will press this amendment to a vote.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will intervene in the interest of trying to bring this discussion to a close, because I feel I have outlined the Government’s position in quite some detail. I have understood the points that Opposition Members have made. I have committed to reflecting on them.

I have also committed to writing to the Committee, which I will do, and it might be useful for the debates on Report if I outline, because I have made reference to the London plan, as the prime example of an existing spatial development strategy, how consultation works under that plan; how generally, in terms of the principles of good plan making, consultation operates across the system; and how we think the approach outlined in clause 47 in reference to spatial development strategies will operate. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley is more than welcome to press the amendment to a vote—I do not mind in any sense—but if I give hon. Members that detail and they still feel strongly enough on Report, we can continue the debate then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

In that case, I will sit down.

[Paul Holmes]

I apologise to the Minister and to you, Mrs Hobhouse, because I did not register that amendment 148 was in this group—that is my fault.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

It is getting late, and I have been thinking about chalk streams all day. I will speak briefly to amendment 148, which is in the name of the shadow Environment Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). Clause 50(4) states:

“Where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site, the EDP may, if Natural England considers it appropriate, set out conservation measures that do not directly address the environmental impact of development on that feature at that site but instead seek to improve the conservation status of the same feature elsewhere.”

The amendment would add two important carve-outs through an extra subsection (4A), whereby subsection (4) does not apply where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site and is a chalk stream or a blanket bog—[Laughter.] The Minister was laughing. We have carved out those two things in the amendment—well, the shadow Environment Secretary thought it was very important, obviously, and I have researched what a blanket bog is—because of what we discussed earlier.

In particular, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined perfectly that our chalk streams in this country are exceptionally special, are unique ecosystems and are unique in most ways to the UK, particularly Hampshire and certain other parts of the country. Therefore, we think there is scope to create subsection (4A) to exempt those two specific protected characteristics from subsection (4).

That is the reason why we tabled amendment 148: chalk streams obviously cannot be moved—I am not being facetious; I promise the Minister that we are not at that stage of the day—and they are incredibly rare, so it would not be appropriate to try to create that environmental protection elsewhere. We could do it from one chalk stream to another, but chalk streams are so rare that we would not want to harm, inadvertently or purposefully, the country’s chalk streams.

I hope the Minister sees that those very small additions to the text of clause 50 would strengthen the Bill. I commend the amendment, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, to the Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Just to clarify, for Hansard more than anything, I laughed only at the shadow Minister’s delivery of the term “blanket bog”. I was not in any way questioning the importance of that type of peatland.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Paul Holmes and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As we know, done properly, transport infrastructure and effective interventions in that regard can unlock huge numbers of homes. As I said, the Government have already taken action to support the provision of infrastructure, for example in the changes to the national planning policy framework in December last year, and we are looking at what more can be done, but it is not necessary for the clause to introduce that.

I will make a final point about how IDPs work now. IDPs are put in place where local authorities decide to take them forward, on the basis that they support the delivery of a local development plan. Local development plans have to be in general conformity with spatial development strategies. There is a clear link here, even though we are not asking strategic planning boards to have responsibility for bringing forward IDPs in the way that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage suggests. I hope that I have given him some reassurance and, on that basis, that he will agree that amendment 122 is not necessary. I also request that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley withdraws his amendment 76.

[Paul Holmes]

I appreciate the spirit in which, as usual, the Minister comes back. I am content to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I would appreciate some further conversations and some reassurance on how, in the reform of local government, we do not add an undue burden on local authorities.

The hon. Member for Barking made an astute point, as usual, approaching this topic with her experience: we must absolutely make sure that where development happens, whether in rural areas or areas in the middle of nowhere—although I presume that that would be rural too—the infrastructure also comes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne said, nowhere is that stated in the legislation.

The Minister is a man of integrity and I take what he says as such. I know that his aims and ambitions are to make sure that there are further plans with an infrastructure-first approach, but given the Bill at the moment, as well as the reforms and changes to the NPPF, the aspirations of the hon. Member for Barking will simply not be met under this legislative agenda. Indeed, some of the housing targets and reforms brought in by this Government have placed an overwhelming burden on rural areas, rather than on urban areas where the infrastructure is already in place and easier to develop.

We look forward to challenging and scrutinising the Minister in future stages of the Bill. We also await with anticipation proposed future legislation that he will bring forward on infrastructure—

[Matthew Pennycook]

Not legislation, necessarily.

[Paul Holmes]

Not legislation, sorry. Forgive me. We are good mates—well, I think we are—so I must resist the temptation to talk across the aisle. On that basis, we look forward to what the Minister will say. We will scrutinise the measures on infrastructure that he may bring forward, and we will not press the amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, and I completely agree. We should do anything we can to strengthen councils’ hands in protecting green belt. I suspect there is broad support for brownfield-first and protecting the green belt.

I turn to amendment 82, tabled by the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). A wider failure of the planning system is that it does not account for the cumulative impact of lots of planning decisions. This amendment goes some way to protecting farmland. It may be appropriate for a field to be developed for a specific farming purpose, but if there is lots of development in farming areas in a specific location and the planning committee does not take into account the cumulative impact, there can be negative consequences—for example, where a floodplain is built on and that creates issues for the field next door.

The Government need to grapple with this wider issue of the cumulative impact of lots of development. At the moment, planning committees judge the planning application in front of them and do not necessarily look at the cumulative impact. I hope the Government will support our amendments, in particular amendment 82, which tries to rectify some of those cumulative impacts in order to protect our agricultural land, which is very important for our food security.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank members of the Committee for these amendments. I hope I can give them some reassurance that none of them is necessary from the Government’s point of view.

I turn first to amendments 72, 75 and 82, tabled by the hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. These amendments relate to developments taking place on green-belt, brownfield and agricultural land resulting from the introduction of spatial development strategies. While I understand the positive intent behind the amendments in seeking to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect valuable land from development, they are not necessary, as current national policy already achieves the intended aims.

On amendment 72, I fully agree that we must make the best use possible of brownfield land for development. The Government have been very clear that we have a brownfield-first approach to development. That is recognised in national planning policy. We made changes in the recent national planning policy framework update to expand the definition of “previously developed land” and reinforce the expectation that development proposals on such land within settlements should normally be approved.

We are also consulting on our working paper on a brownfield passport, which we are considering through the introduction of national development management policies, as provided for by the previous Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The aim of those proposals we are seeking feedback on—lots of feedback has been gratefully received—is to ensure that we prioritise and accelerate the development of previously developed land wherever possible. We are very firm on our brownfield-first approach.

[Paul Holmes]

I accept what the Minister says; there is a recognition across Government, demonstrated by some of the actions they have taken, that they have a brownfield-first approach. I simply ask him: what has he got to fear from an amendment that would back that up and ensure that that goes out into the community, strengthening his Government’s position?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will make a couple of points in response to the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I understand his argument, but I go back to the point that what we are doing in this clause and others in this part of the Bill is setting out a framework for spatial development strategies for cross-boundary strategic planning. National planning policy is already in place in those areas and is very clear. The national planning policy framework sets out the considerations for deciding whether development in the green belt is appropriate.

The definition of grey belt is set out in the glossary of the NPPF. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it includes previously developed land in the green belt, such as disused petrol stations, and other land that, although formally designated green belt, does not strongly contribute to green belt purposes. The test of what qualifies as grey belt is very clear in the NPPF, and that is supplemented by planning policy guidance. For every application, there will be a judgment about how the national policy applies—the hon. Gentleman will understand, for the reasons he has outlined, why I will not comment on specifics.

I repeat that it will not be for SDSs to allocate plots of land; that will be for local plans and neighbourhood plans. Where the release of green-belt land is necessary, the Government are asking authorities to prioritise the release of brownfield land within the green belt, along the lines I have just discussed. Our proposal in the Bill to allow spatial development strategies to specify infrastructure of strategic importance or an amount of distribution of affordable housing does not change the existing requirements in relation to the release of green-belt land. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendment 75.

I can assure the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine that the Government are committed to maintaining strong protections on agricultural land, but I do not consider amendment 82 to be necessary to achieve that objective. Strategic planning authorities will need to consider national policy when preparing their SDSs. The NPPF is clear that authorities should make best use of brownfield land before considering development on other types of land, including agricultural land. Planning policy already recognises the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. If the development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land should be prioritised.

The Government are supplementing the national planning policy that is in place in respect of this issue with a land use framework, which has gone out to consultation. That will set out the Government’s vision for long-term land use change, including by exploring what improvements are needed to the agricultural land classification system to support effective land use decisions. We all agree on the need, on such a constrained island, to make the most effective use of land possible.

When it comes to issues such as solar farms, which we have discussed in the Chamber many times, I want to ensure the debate is proportionate. Even in some of the most optimistic scenarios I have seen for solar deployment, no more than 1% of agricultural land will be released. That is why the National Farmers Union and other bodies have called for a proportionate debate in this area. It will be necessary in certain circumstances to release agricultural land, but that must clearly proceed on the basis of national planning policy.

In the event that spatial development strategies do not meet the requirements in the NPPF, the Bill gives the Secretary of State a range of intervention powers to ensure consistency with national policies. For those reasons, I am confident that there is adequate planning policy and guidance already in place to describe requirements for development on different types of land tenures.

New clause 104, in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, also focuses on green-belt developments. It seeks to prevent development on green-belt land for 20 years or more after a green belt review has been completed. As hon. Members know, the Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another. That remains the case.

I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking. Not only did the green belt expand between 1979 and 1997—it almost doubled to just over 1.6 million hectares—but we saw a significant amount of green-belt land release, in what I would argue was a completely haphazard manner, under the last Government. It is not the case that this Government have introduced green-belt land release for the first time, and through the changes to national policy we are trying to introduce a strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release so that we release the right parts of the green belt first. Our revised national planning policy framework maintains strong protections for the green belt and preserves the long-standing green-belt purposes. It also underlines our commitment to a brownfield-first approach.

However, we know that there is not enough brownfield land in this country, and not least brownfield land that is viable and in the right locations to meet housing demand and needs. That is why we ask local authorities who cannot meet their needs through it to review their green-belt land to identify opportunities to create more affordable, sustainable and well designed developments. In doing so, we expect authorities to prioritise the development of brownfield land and low quality grey-belt land in the first instance.

High performing green-belt land and land safeguarded for environmental reasons will still be protected, and our new golden rules will ensure that development that takes place on the green belt benefits communities in nature, including the delivery of high numbers of affordable housing. That is a really important point to stress once again. Given the value that the public attribute to the green belt, the Government clearly expect that through our golden rules the communities that see development take place on it will benefit in a way that is slightly different from other forms of development.

The framework is clear that where it is necessary—only in exceptional circumstances—to alter green-belt boundaries, that must be done using the local plan process of public consultation and formal examination by planning inspectors. The framework is clear that development can be committed in the green belt only in specific prescribed exceptional circumstances. Beyond that, it can happen only in very special circumstances. That is a high bar.

Given that statutory plans secure the designated status of green-belt land and that planning policy already demands the rational and evidence-based application of green-belt protection for plans and decisions, I do not consider amendment to be necessary. In the same way as I have politely asked Opposition Front-Bench Members to withdraw their amendments, I hope the hon. Member will feel content to withdraw this amendment, for the reasons that I have outlined.

[Paul Holmes]

As always, I appreciate the Minister’s very detailed response. However, we tabled these amendments to set a precedent. We welcome the Minister’s clear words about how there is an anticipation and a want from the Government’s policy agenda, particularly through the NPPF, for a brownfield-first strategy. He therefore has nothing to fear from allowing some of these new spatial development strategy boards to have that precedence underlying how they are acting and operating.

The Minister is absolutely right that those boards do not allocate sites, but there is an argument to be made about where those boards, in their constitution through the national legislation that is being set up, are guided by precedence that is overwhelmingly backed, as he clearly said, by other legislation and guidance from his Department. He therefore has nothing to fear from amendments 72 and 75.

On amendment 82, I completely understand the Minister’s point. It would be churlish for any politician to stand up and say there should be absolutely no development on agricultural land. That is a fair challenge, and that is not what the amendment’s parameters seek to establish. He was right that development will be needed on such sites on occasions, but again, the amendment would clearly set out that the most valuable productive agricultural land—not in terms of financial value—would have precedence in the guidelines of these new boards.

Again, the Minister should not fear the intentions of the amendment. He clearly set out that he agrees—much more than I thought he would—with some of the aims and aspirations behind the amendments. Apparently, his Government agree with those intentions and will cover them through other means. He should not fear the amendments. I politely ask him to accept them, although I know that he will not change his mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have already said, I will not speak about two individual decisions that have been made. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that the concern that he outlines—that is, a particular decision that he does not agree with—will not be resolved by trying to transcribe national planning policy into the SDS process. National planning policy remains in force, and I do not think it is necessary that in order to achieve the aims that are set out, which the Government agree with—in terms of brownfield first and a strategic approach to green belt release—for the amendments to be agreed. I ask hon. Members to think again, but reading the room, I think they are certain about pressing the amendment to a vote. The Government will resist it.

[Paul Holmes]

I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Okay, I just wanted to double check. The Opposition have tabled amendments 73 and 74 to limit increases and decreases in the allocation of housing targets when being assessed by spatial development strategies. The Minister should not be surprised by this approach. We have been very clear from the beginning that we disagree fundamentally with how the Minister and the Secretary of State have decided to assess housing targets and algorithms since they took office last July.

We fundamentally disagree with what we think is a politically gerrymandering housing algorithm, as we can quite clearly see through the evidence. We believe that in the rural areas where there is a lack of infrastructure—notwithstanding that we agree that infrastructure needs to be built, although, as the Minister has said, there is no actual mechanism in the legislation to insist on an infrastructure-first approach—the housing targets outlined by the Government are political gerrymandering. In very rural areas, housing targets can sometimes be doubled, tripled or quadrupled, but in urban centres and particularly in cities, those housing targets have been reduced.

We have tabled our amendments because we believe there needs to be some guidance on spatial development strategies. There should be national guidance and regulation for the Government’s approach to housing allocation: on how much they should be allowed to uplift, but also on how much that they can decrease, particularly in the amount of housing they can deliver in urban areas.

There is precedent for why we have done this. If we take my constituency of Hamble Valley as an example, there are two local authority areas. Under the Minister’s proposals, Fareham borough council has gone from a yearly housing target of 470 houses to one of more than 800. Eastleigh borough council, which is already over-delivering on its annual housing targets, currently has a target of around 623. They are building 1,200 homes a year themselves because of their debt levels, which is clearly a massive overreach and increase in an area that does not have the necessary infrastructure. The doubling of that requirement for house building, including on junction 7 of the M27—I do not expect the Minister to know the geography—is leading to huge amounts of bad effects with increased traffic because of the lack of infrastructure delivered alongside the housing targets.

If the Minister looks at neighbouring Southampton city council, which is controlled by the Labour party and has delivered only 200 homes a year, whether they are affordable or for private purchase, its targets have been reduced from 1,200 a year to 1,000 a year. That is the same in nearly every urban authority that the Minister has put forward—[Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but if he looks at the evidence from the House of Commons Library, housing targets in urban council-centred areas are generally being reduced. It is happening in Southampton, and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Barking—her targets have gone down.

Need I remind the Minister that it is also happening in London? The Government’s targets in London are being reduced, while the mayor has announced just this week that he wants to build on the green belt. If he is so keen to build, he should be looking at the densification of his city. He should be looking to build on brownfield sites first, as we have just discussed, and he should not be given political cover for failure by a Minister and a Secretary of State who are reducing housing targets in predominantly Labour council areas in urban cities.

That is an argument that we have rehearsed before. I know the Minister will come back and say that he disagrees, and I expect him to do that, because he is defending his algorithm, but he cannot defend it to the people in this country. It is a politically gerrymandering algorithm that damages. It targets the failure of predominantly Labour councils in urban areas, and targets the success of predominantly rural authorities that struggle, and it punishes them. Those are the areas that have challenges that urban areas do not have in trying to match those housing targets.

We have tabled amendment 74 in such detail—to ensure that there cannot be an increase in the number of homes in any strategy area of more than 20%, or a reduction of the required number of homes in urban areas by more than 20%—to try to mitigate some of those politically motivated measures that the Government have undertaken in other areas through the national planning policy framework. That is why we are putting forward these amendments.

We have a fundamental disagreement with the Minister over the housing algorithm. He knows that we have a fundamental disagreement over housing targets and the way in which they deliver them, because we think that, where there are hugely increased housing targets, that places a burden on local authorities. The algorithm also reduces the quality of housing provided, because there is a rush to try to meet housing targets for fear of Government repercussions, but the quality of builds, the quality of the developments and the associated infrastructure and community investment goes down. Believe me, I have seen that in my local authority, and I invite the Minister to attend my constituency at any time he wants. On its boundaries, Eastleigh borough council has been building double the number of homes that are required. The financial decisions that it has made mean that the quality of development has gone down and resentment among the public has gone up. The infrastructure that has not been delivered means that people in my local area—and areas across the locality in Hampshire, just outside my constituency—suffer.

So I say to the Minister: that is why we are tabling these amendments. I know that he is going to come back to me very strongly—

[Matthew Pennycook]

With facts!

[Paul Holmes]

Well, the Minister says “facts”, but he should read the House of Commons Library document on the housing targets that he proposed. He cannot deny that the rural uplift in housing targets under his algorithm is an exponential rise, but the increase under his housing algorithm for urban centres is much smaller. That is delivered by the fact that for many urban centres in cities across the United Kingdom, the number of houses required under his Government’s targets has reduced.

I look forward to the Minister’s “facts”. I hope that he knows that we have a fundamental disagreement on this; I have said that repeatedly in the Chamber, on Second Reading, and in many Westminster Hall debates, where housing targets have been a topic of concern for many Members of Parliament across the country. As I say, I look forward to his “facts”, and I look forward to his reading the House of Commons Library document that backs up the arguments that we are making. We will press this amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Amendments 29, 73, 17, 74 and 94 would introduce additional requirements for spatial development strategies in relation to housing. They seek to specify or describe what spatial development strategies must include across a range of areas, such as housing target limits, affordable housing definitions and housing density requirements.

I thank hon. Members for their interest in the Bill’s spatial development strategy provisions. However, the Government believe that these amendments are not productive in achieving the Bill’s objectives. I will attempt to be succinct rather than verbose, given the time we have lost and the need to make progress on the Bill. In general terms, we think that introducing further requirements for SDSs would limit their effectiveness and operability, as well as the purpose and effect that the clause seeks to achieve.

Amendment 29, moved by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would make specific provision for strategic planning authorities to have regard to the provision for new social rented homes. The Government are clearly committed to delivering more social housing, and I hope the Committee recognises the steps that we have taken over the past 10 months, including an £800 million in-year funding top-up to the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme; £2 billion of bridging support—I think the hon. Gentleman made a mistake in referring to it as £2 million—that will bring forward up to 18,000 new social homes; and in the multi-year spending review, the Government will set out the full details of a new grant funding programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. In that, we are looking to prioritise the delivery of social rented homes, which is a Government priority.

Proposed new section 12D(5)(b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 makes provision for a spatial development strategy to specify or describe an amount or distribution of affordable housing, or any other kind of housing that the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area. SDSs can therefore already play an important role in the delivery of social and affordable housing, if the strategic authority in question considers it necessary. Amendment 29 is therefore not necessary, and I request that the hon. Member withdraws it.

The shadow Minister tempted me into a much wider debate on the Government’s revised standard method for assessing housing need, which was introduced in the updated NPPF late last year. I will not go into too much detail, but the point of difference is that, under the previous Government, a 35% urban uplift was applied to the most populous local planning authority within the country’s 20 largest cities and urban centres. We have removed that urban uplift.

[Paul Holmes]

Why?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Because it was a completely arbitrary number that bore no relation to objectively assessed housing need. We have replaced it with a standard method and with targets under which city regions, as a whole, will see their targets increase by 20%, on average, compared with the previous planning period. We have increased targets across those city regions, and the new method directs housing growth to a wider range of urban centres across England. We have introduced a more ambitious, credible and objective method of assessing housing need in any given area.

On average, that gives rise to a 20% increase in city regions. The previous Government said that the 35% urban uplift applied not to London’s most populous local authority but to the whole of London, which is out of kilter with all the other arrangements that they made across the country. That left London with a fantastical target that was impossible to deliver. We have rightly revised down the target, but the shadow Minister will know that we are being very clear that London needs to increase delivery quite significantly. The Mayor has taken steps in recent days to ensure that happens.

Amendments 73 and 74 would apply limitations to the extent that spatial development strategies can redistribute housing requirements over a strategy area. The distribution of housing requirements is likely to be a key role for most, if not all, spatial development strategies. It would be overly prescriptive to apply an arbitrary restraint on the ability to decide the most appropriate location for new housing. I hope that hon. Members recognise that, in many of the debates I attend, this is what their parties call for: a smarter and more strategic way for local authorities in sub-regional groups to come together and select locations for housing growth that help to absorb some of their housing target numbers in a more sensible way, where that is applicable. We do not want to be prescriptive and constrain their ability to do so in whatever way works for the sub-region in question.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Paul Holmes and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse.

Chapter 3 of part 1 of the Bill deals with reform of transport infrastructure. Its various clauses—all of which, I hope, are uncontroversial—are designed to streamline and improve the efficiency of delivering transport infra- structure projects. Clauses 25 to 29 of the chapter make various amendments to the Highways Act 1980.

As hon. Members will be aware, local authorities and statutory consultees provide advice, share information and prepare responses to consultations on proposed highway projects. However, they currently do not have a statutory basis on which to recoup the costs associated with the work they do to review the applications. That can lead to delays in processing applications due to a lack of resources, or information being received late in the process.

Clause 25 inserts a new section 281B into the 1980 Act, providing a new regulation-making power for the Secretary of State in England and for Welsh Ministers in Wales to charge applicants for services in connection with certain schemes and orders on a cost-recovery basis. To be clear, it will not allow them to make a profit; instead, it will support the capacity and capability of local planning authorities and statutory bodies to carry out those processes, which in turn will encourage timely and high-quality inputs into the process.

The charges will apply to parts of the Highways Act associated with approving new roads, making changes to existing ones and making other legal orders necessary for highway projects. Furthermore, we will use a proportionate delegated power to ensure that cost recovery and the provision of services remain flexible and responsive in the light of changing circumstances over time, such as inflation.

The clause will bring the Highways Act into line with cost recovery provisions established under other infrastructure consenting regimes. By resourcing the input from critical stakeholders, this power will contribute to the acceleration of highway infrastructure project delivery, supporting the Government's economic growth mission now and in the future. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome clause 25, and I welcome the Minister to his position. He has a lot to live up to after those clauses, and I will continue to be nice to him. I say well done also to the other Minister for the constructive way he has been working on this Committee. Opposition Members do appreciate that. Because we are not stupid, we realise it is sometimes a challenge to win votes. Although the votes we undertake here are closer than the ones on the Floor of the House of Commons, let that not be an encouragement to us to call more.

As I said, we welcome clause 25, which allows public authorities to charge fees for services related to specific highway schemes. None the less, some clarity is needed on several points. While recovering costs is reasonable, the clause must be carefully implemented with safeguards to ensure fairness, accessibility and consistency across England and Wales.

The Minister has stated that this is a reserved matter for certain statutory bodies and local planning authorities, but will he outline how this goes with his perfectly admirable stance on devolution? Will he look to allow new combined authorities and mayoralties to take on some of the powers, or is he planning for them to be devolved even further, to mayoral authorities coming on stream rapidly from the Department under this Government? We would like some clarity on how he sees the powers being amended once local authorities and some of those statutory bodies no longer exist or are reformed.

Has the Minister considered the impact of the fees on small developers, charities and community groups? Could they create barriers or delays in any process? Will there be provisions allowing fee waivers or reductions for certain applications, such as for community-led or rural projects? How will disputes about fee fairness be resolved, and will there be an appeals process? What guidance will there be to ensure consistency in fee application across regions, to avoid significant variations from one local authority or statutory body to another? Finally, could the fees delay or discourage essential infrastructure development, especially in areas with planning capacity challenges?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

On that point—depending on the Minister’s answer, I may not have to make a speech and detain the Committee—the Minister has outlined that the strategic highways authority is National Highways; does he envisage that for some roads, particularly across England, the county council is the strategic highway authority, and will have to apply the section 10 changes? Is he not worried that, because of the financial implications for some county councils—regardless of politics—there could be a kind of enticement for people to get rid of some of the strategic parts of their local road networks? It may be a complete lack of understanding on my part, but could the Minister outline whether county councils could be included in some of that process?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister about the role of county authorities in managing the highway network, and how the Highways Act and the consenting regime applies to them. I do not think his point is pertinent in this respect, in the sense that the clause transfers administrative functions related to section 10 orders under the Highways Act from the Secretary of State purely to National Highways. It does not change the legal decision-making authority, which remains the Secretary of State’s, but the administrative burden, in terms of the final preparation, publishing and consultation of the necessary documents, would be done by the applicant—National Highways. But I am more than happy to provide the shadow Minister with further detail about the interaction with county authorities.

[Paul Holmes]

Please do not write to me on that. I say that not to offend officials but because I do not want them overworked and the Minister has clearly outlined what he means, for which I am grateful. The question was obviously to clarify my understanding of the legislation. I asked it because I just wondered whether strategic highways authority included county councils. My county council controls a large number of roads, and I wondered whether it was enveloped under the proposal—under the meaning of strategic highways authority. The Minister has answered that, and I am perfectly content not to make a speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 27 will reduce the objection period for applications under the Highways Act 1980 from six weeks to 30 days. Such applications could be for the construction of new roads, changes to existing ones and other necessary legal orders for delivering highway infrastructure. The objection period refers to the timeframe during which interested parties can view application materials and provide comments.

Reducing the objection period will speed up the consenting process without sacrificing the safeguards that are essential for the fair consideration of objections. An objection period of 30 days aligns with the relevant objection periods for other transport consenting regimes, such as the Planning Act 2008. Again, I draw the shadow Ministers’ attention to the fact that, as per the previous clauses, we intend to align the Highways Act provisions with those in other consenting regimes, to provide for a more uniform arrangement across the piece.

Additionally, the clause will introduce a 10-week deadline for the Secretary of State to make decisions on these schemes and orders. Currently, there are no statutory deadlines for the decision-making stage for the relevant processes, unlike in other consenting regimes, such as the Planning Act 2008. Bringing the Highways Act into alignment with other consenting regimes will improve certainty and the efficiency of the process. The power for the Secretary of State to extend the decision deadline, if necessary, ensures flexibility in cases where additional time may be required.

By shortening the objection period and setting a clear decision timeframe, the clause makes the process more predictable for all stakeholders. Faster, more predictable decisions will result in more efficient delivery of transport infrastructure projects, contributing to better transport networks. We think this change strikes the right balance between improving speed and maintaining fairness, ensuring that the process remains transparent and accountable. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

May I say, Mrs Hobhouse, that you are absolutely on fire? We are getting through things very quickly, and I will adhere to your instructions.

The clause updates the objection and decision-making timelines under the Highways Act 1980. Although the goal is to align with other planning regimes, several concerns remain. First, the clause reduces the objection period in England to a minimum of 30 days, but maintains it at six weeks in Wales. What justifies that discrepancy? Should there not be consistency across all authorities?

Furthermore, is it not the case that reducing the objection period may limit the time available for affected parties to prepare responses? I know that this is outside the remit of this very prescriptive clause, but many constituents will say that they did not get the letter or see the things that were posted, or that local people simply were not able to see things. I really think that this 30-day restriction will harm many average Joes—I hate that term, but I do not know how else to put it. People out there, who have busy lives, busy jobs and families, and who are working on their daily lives, will really struggle, in the first place, to see things within 30 days. However, they will also not know that the period is now 30 days and may therefore not be consulted on some of the actions that authorities may take.

I ask the Minister to assess whether 30 days is the right length of time. I am not talking about having an unrestricted length of time for consultation, and we absolutely need to make sure, if we want to deliver on some of these policies, that the timeframe is reasonable. However, I question whether 30 days is far too rapid and will cause more harm than good to the consultation rights of the British public. I would also ask what systems will be in place to notify stakeholders of deadline changes and extensions in individual cases, to ensure clear and accessible communication.

I have a last question. While the intent of the clause is to streamline processes, we must ensure fairness, transparency and quality decision making, allowing stakeholders to engage meaningfully. We absolutely accept that there is currently no statutory deadline. Ten weeks is adequate, but on the 30 days element of the consultation period, when we think about people out there with busy lives, I think could cause a huge problem for democratic accountability and for the transparency of the system in allowing local people to have their say. I ask the Minister to look at that 30 days again, but we will not press the clause to a Division.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for his response and questions. Again, I make the point that with a number of these provisions we are trying to align the Highways Act with other consenting regimes. I do not know whether his position is that the statutory objection period in those other consenting regimes—for example, the Planning Act 2008—should be lengthened. I would argue that such an extension would add time and complexity. We think that should be brought into line with the others.

We think that 30 days is the appropriate period, that the existing arrangements, which set out a period of not less than six weeks, are too long, and that we should bring the Highways Act into line with the other regimes. On that basis, we do not think that the clause sets a precedent for the shortening of objection periods, because objection periods of about four weeks, as I have said, can be found in other infrastructure consenting regimes. That is an adequate period of time in which to submit objections.

The shadow Minister asked another, separate question about the Secretary of State’s ability to extend deadlines from the 10-week period. Again, in any such instances, the Secretary of State would need to send written notice of the extension to the relevant parties in those cases, setting out why an extension is required. I hope that on that basis the shadow Minister is reassured about the use of that particular part of the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Procedure for certain orders and schemes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome the clause and the clarification and certainty that the Minister has given, but I want to put some questions, along similar lines to those we have asked before, about transparency and limits or caps on the fees that authorities can charge.

We believe that without clear limits, there is a risk of inconsistent or excessive charges and a disproportionately wide range of fees across authorities. What mechanisms will be in place to allow applicants to challenge or appeal fees that they consider unreasonable? What impact does the Minister think this measure may have on smaller companies in the supply chain, which may be less able to absorb the costs that will be imposed? We do not disagree with the principle of the clause; we just have some questions about the detail.

Finally, how will the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers review or update the regulations? As costs and administrative practices evolve, it is crucial that the regulations are reassessed regularly to ensure that they remain fair, relevant and effective. Will the Minister remark briefly on that and on some of the smaller businesses that may be affected?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for those points. The clause only allows for the charging of fees for services on a cost-recovery basis. I think there is broad agreement across the Committee that cost recovery for applications is a fair and proportionate way to proceed. Organisations will not be—

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Paul Holmes and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 38 allows Transport and Works Act orders to include a deemed marine licence for projects in UK waters, where a separate authorisation is currently required. That removes the need for a separate application to the Marine Management Organisation, or MMO. It allows for a single process, again similar to the Planning Act 2008, which already allows deemed marine licences. Applicants will still need to consult the MMO before applying, ensuring that proper oversight remains in place.

The MMO will continue to enforce marine licence conditions under existing powers. This is another change that we believe creates efficiencies and removes duplication. As I have said, it aligns the Transport and Works Act with the Planning Act 2008 process, making it simpler and quicker for transport projects that involve marine areas. A streamlined approval process will save time and costs for applicants while maintaining important environmental safeguards. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. The Opposition wholly understand the intention behind clause 38, but I want to ask the Minister a quick question. How will enforcement responsibilities be co-ordinated to prevent confusion between the MMO and other authorities involved in Transport and Works Act orders? I accept that the core of the Bill, for good or bad, is to streamline and ensure the Government deliver their objectives quicker than at present, but can the Minister reaffirm that he is wholly assured, in line with his officials’ advice, that streamlining the process will not compromise environmental protections?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I can provide the hon. Gentleman with that assurance. In terms of enforcement, I assure the hon. Gentleman that if consent is granted under the Transport and Works Act, any breaches of marine licence will continue to be dealt with by the Marine Management Organisation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

Authorisation of applications by local authorities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 39 removes the requirement that exists at present for a second local authority resolution after submitting a Transport and Works Act application, making the process faster and simpler. Currently, local authorities must achieve a majority vote from their local authority members both before and after submission of an application. Key stakeholders told us during the development of the Bill that the second resolution is unnecessarily bureaucratic and causes delays. Removing it will cut red tape and speed up transport projects. This is a simple and, I hope, uncontroversial clause, and I commend it to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

We agree with the Government on clause 39. However, if local authority members need to give a majority vote on the first round, it makes the Minister’s claim that the measure will reduce bureaucracy seem a tad overstretched. We will not press the clause to a Division, but circumstances do change between the first and the second resolution. With great respect to the Minister, it is a bit of a stretch to say that simply not putting the second resolution on the agenda of a full council meeting or committee will overwhelmingly reduce bureaucracy. On that point, as well as on the slight undermining of transparency, we seek reassurance from the Minister.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for that point. In no way am I implying that in a committee meeting, the process of putting hands up on another vote is itself onerous. What are onerous are the delays that can be caused by the need simply to reaffirm a vote that has already taken place. The Government think this is a simple and proportionate change to ensure that the Transport and Works Act is modernised appropriately.

As I hope the Committee saw this morning, the Transport and Works Act, which is over 30 years old, needs to be brought up to date and into line with other consenting regimes. Clause 39 deals with just another example of an element of that Act that requires addressing. All interested parties in a Transport and Works Act project will be able to make representations as they do now—the process will continue as it does now, but without the need for the second resolution.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Extension to Scotland of certain amendments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Clause 45 relates to mandatory planning training, which is long overdue. It could be a huge benefit to local planning authorities to have trained planning committee members.

When many members of the public—and many Members of Parliament—saw the mandatory training element of the Bill, they probably shouted, “Oh good God, thank you!” There is a massive variation in the outcomes of planning committees, as we will come to in debates on other clauses where we disagree with the Government on planning committees. To strengthen planning committees and ensure that they all perform—and that members of planning committees perform to the best of their ability and are trained to make the complicated decisions that local planning authorities and committees have to make—is a good thing.

I declare an interest that, as a former chair of a planning committee at Southampton city council for two and a half years, I really enjoyed the training. The planning training at the time, when the council was under Conservative control—I will say that it does it now under Labour too—was automatically given to newly elected councillors on the committee. It was exemplary.

Councillors could not pick and choose whether to go. Instead, the council very clearly said from an early stage, “If you do not attend this training, we will not defend any decision that you make, and we will not put you on the planning committee, despite the best wishes of group leaders from all parties.” That is a commendable approach, and one that I know other local authorities also take.

Planning decisions are sometimes the most user-friendly decisions that are made; although they are not necessarily the most important, they are where a local resident will have the most interaction with their local authority. Apart from when a bin is not collected—or, in a unitary or county council, when someone is going through problems with education or an education, health and care plan—planning decisions are the bread and butter of the public facing element for locally elected politicians.

Later in Committee, we will talk about how the Opposition feel that the Government are trying to take some of those responsibilities away, but the precept of this provision to allow locally elected councillors to have the best training that could possibly be provided, so that they make decisions that they are proud to stand by and are legally defensible on appeal, is long overdue and is of huge benefit to local authorities. We welcome clause 45.

On Government amendment 49, the Minister may forgive me a slight rant. I absolutely agree with this amendment on mineral planning authorities. I suggest that officers and managers of highways authorities, particularly those in Hampshire, should also undergo some training, given how woefully Hampshire county council officers have dealt with a mineral extraction facility in Hamble in my constituency. I know that the Minister cannot comment on that in his semi-judicial capacity, but I can because I do not have those responsibilities.

Locally elected councillors, who should make the decision and have had the proper training, refused Cemex’s application. When it came to appeal, local planning officers removed the rug from under people’s feet by refusing to defend that decision, so the local community has had to find £75,000 to try to defend it—thank God for the constituents of Hamble who are defending it. I know that the Minister cannot comment on that case, and I am being slightly facetious, but perhaps we need an audit of the way that officers engage their responsibilities as mineral and waste planning authorities. Other Committee members are aware of the case in Hamble, and, although I will not ask them to speak on it, I know they will be sympathetic to my call.

I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for moving amendment 152 on behalf of the hon. Member for Shipley. It is well intentioned, but it would create a burden that is already met by national equality and planning legislation, as well as local authority planning guidance and locally set planning regulations. This is a slight role reversal, but I hope that the Minister will agree—I am not writing his lines for him—that accepting the amendment would create more bureaucracy for councillors on planning committees.

There is already provision, through national guidance, national legislation and local guidance, to ensure that developments are accessible and that accessibility is at the forefront of any proposed development. The Opposition do not support the amendment, because we believe that we have made great advances over recent decades in ensuring that developments are accessible and that local authority members and planning officers take very seriously their responsibilities when it comes to accessibility in the planning system.

I wholly welcome clause 45, which is a great thing for the empowerment of local authority councillors. It will bring councillors, their constituents and their residents closer together. Some of the most difficult decisions that I had to defend in my time as a councillor were those I took on planning applications as chair of the planning committee, particularly on the big blue IKEA in Southampton, which other hon. Members might have been to. Yes, I did that—I am looking to other Hampshire Members, who may have been there.

That decision was controversial, but I was able to defend it because I had had the training. When some of my or my committee’s decisions were challenged, I had a detailed knowledge from that planning training, which officers provided, so I could be questioned at appeal and make sure that the decisions were sound. We lost a few, but we defended a few; that is the nature of local democracy. I say to the Minister that I am deeply encouraged by clause 45, which we wholeheartedly support. We do not accept amendment 152. We wholly agree with Government amendment 49.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome the considered and thoughtful contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I will set out the purpose and effect of the clause, address amendment 152 and speak about Government amendment 49.

As we heard in the contribution of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, planning is principally a local activity, because decisions about what to build and where—although not decisions about whether to build at all—should be shaped by local people. That is why we believe that planning committees have an integral role to play in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. As I have said, I have been a local councillor and sat on planning committees, as have many Committee members—the hon. Gentleman just set out his experience. Planning committees are comprised of dedicated elected members, and in most instances the decisions are well informed and robust.

It is, however, vital that in exercising their democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions. One of the ways we want to achieve those outcomes is by ensuring that all planning committee members receive adequate training to support their important work, which can be extremely complex when it comes to certain challenging applications.

The hon. Member for Broxbourne rightly made the point that lots of local planning authorities already have some form of mandatory training in place. Data from the Planning Advisory Service suggests that more than 80% of councils do, but a percentage do not, and approaches to training vary quite widely across the country. That leads to inconsistencies in knowledge relating to planning law and in practice among planning committee members, which obviously has an impact on their ability to apply the relevant laws and policies when making planning decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a fair and reasonable point. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will write to him to set out the Government’s thinking on that issue. If it is available—I fully expect that it will be— I will give him some sense of the level of refusals on appeal for decisions made by committees versus decisions made by expert planning officers, which I think would be relevant. In general terms, in many instances, we think that expert planning officers have the relevant expertise to make good decisions on the basis of planning law. We are trying to ensure through this clause that elected members also have that experience in place through mandatory training.

As has been rightly said, the clause is about building on existing good practice—there is very good practice out there—and ensuring that it is implemented consistently across the country. It is worth noting that mandatory training for committees was strongly supported by the sector as a whole in the responses to the planning reform working paper where we set out ideas in this space, lots of which we are taking forward.

We will introduce regulations to specify which planning functions are covered by this measure, what the training looks like—its nature and content, and how it will be delivered—and details about the certification process. Those regulations will be subject to further engagement with the sector and I will reflect on all the points that have been made today.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister is being very kind; he just mentioned a point that I forgot to mention. I do not expect certainty, and he has said that he is bringing forward regulations, but what work has the Department already done with organisations that may have the capacity and the desire to provide that training to local authorities?

There may be situations where a planning officer within a local authority may be confident that they can provide that training, as was provided to me, but we also had the Local Government Association and other private KCs—QCs at the time—who could be paid to provide training. How does the Minister anticipate the training will be provided and by whom? Has his Department started the work to see what parties might be interested in providing the training?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have had a huge amount of engagement with the sector, both in working up the proposals and in the feedback that we have received to the planning reform working paper. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the Planning Advisory Service that already provides local authorities with support, and there are other organisations in this space that have a direct interest in planning and training. I am happy to provide him with further details if he wishes but, as I say, through the introduction of regulations, further detail will be forthcoming.

I should mention—Opposition Members will particularly enjoy this one, I think—that the Mayor of London can act as a local planning authority in respect of applications of potential strategic importance, so the training requirement will apply to him too.

[Paul Holmes]

I might as well pack up and go home— I did not hear any “hear, hears” in response to that—because the Minister has given us the best news that the Mayor of London requires planning training, after the failure of his authority to deliver the housing numbers that it wants and now the announcement that he thinks that he has carte blanche to build over the green belt with his blessing and that of the Secretary of State. I am delighted that under a Labour Government’s proposals, the Labour Mayor of London might actually learn something about planning in his authority.

[Matthew Pennycook]

What is there to say to that? In no way did I imply that the Mayor of London requires planning training—I think he has had extensive planning training—but the training requirement set out in this clause will apply to him, because he acts as a local planning authority in respect of applications of potential strategic importance.

Likewise, it will apply to mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities where they have functions corresponding to the Mayor of London conferred on them. The requirement will also apply to any persons authorised to act on their behalf, including, for example, deputy Mayors in London and other such figures. A mandatory requirement for training in planning matters will improve the overall decision-making process and decrease delays in delivery of much-needed homes and other crucial developments.

Before I turn to amendment 152, I will address a very well made point raised by the hon. Member for Broxbourne. Through regulations, we will set out the timing of when training is required, but he asked an important question about what happens if training is not in place when a decision is required and whether that would stall the process. As he will know, local authorities have their own codes of conduct. We trust local authorities to ensure that committees are carried out in accordance with the rules and regulations set out by the clause. We are aware of the need to ensure that undue delays are not caused, so for that reason any decision reached by members who are in breach of the measure will not be invalidated, but the requirement will still apply to local authorities. We are reliant on their code of conduct to enforce it.

Amendment 152 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and spoken to by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. As other hon. Members have said, it raises the excellent point that development must form an inclusive and safe environment for everyone. We wholeheartedly agree that that is of paramount importance.

The national planning policy framework makes it clear that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible. We want to ensure that our mandatory training supports members of local planning authorities to make decisions properly, in accordance with the relevant planning policies, including those I have just mentioned, and other material considerations. That is why we will work closely with the sector to design the mandatory training.

We do not think it is necessary to specify details of all the matters covered by mandatory training in the Bill, as to do so would be exhaustive and would pre-empt the forthcoming regulations and the further detail that I have referred to. I assure the hon. Member for North Herefordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, who tabled the amendment, that we will consult on the content of the training to ensure that councillors are appropriately supported in making decisions in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have set out, the Government recognise the vital role that planning committees play in ensuring that decisions about what to build and where are shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. Under local government law, local authority planning decisions must be a committee function, not an executive one, and presently every council has its own scheme of delegation to identify the circumstances in which planning decisions are taken by the planning committee rather than delegated to officers.

While the vast majority of planning decisions for local planning authorities are made by committees— around 96%— there is some inconsistency, which can create risk and uncertainty in the system. Clause 46 therefore seeks to build on the existing approach by giving the Secretary of State the power to introduce a national scheme of delegation. I reassure the Committee, as I have at other stages, that these measures are not about taking away democratic oversight but about spreading good practice, and there is good practice out there already.

A national delegation scheme will set out which planning functions across the country should be decided by officers and which by planning committees. It will also give the Secretary of State the power to set requirements around the size and composition of planning committees, so that we can have a uniform arrangement across the country as to what is effective in that regard. That will help to address some of the issues that we have identified around the operation of planning committees, which include a lack of consistency and clarity on which applications will be determined by committee; too much time spent considering applications that are compliant with the local development plan, or considering niche technical details including post-permission matters; and a lack of transparency on committee decisions and their consequences.

There is lots of good practice out there, and we know that in almost all instances, committees make good decisions on the basis of planning law and relevant material considerations. However, we are all familiar—in particular those of us who have served in local government and on these committees—with examples of where a development proposal was on a site allocated in the local plan, and in line with all policy expectations, but the committee refused the application against officer advice, and the subsequent appeal was upheld, unnecessarily costing the local authority significant sums of money and creating delay.

[Paul Holmes]

Does the Minister not understand that local plans are usually formed by an administration and executive of the council, and that it is up to local ward members who may be affected by appointed or adopted sites within that local plan, and who feel that they want to have a say, to request that that is called in? If a planning committee decides that it should not go ahead, that is their decision. Does he not see that there is a separation between the power of the executive to meet the guidelines that the last Government and his Government have set out, and the willingness and ability to allow the planning committee to make decisions, even if it is on sites that an executive has already approved in the council’s local plan?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is not a cost-free decision to refuse an application where a committee does so on grounds that are not robust. That does not apply in the vast majority of instances. As I say, most committees are comprised of elected members who are diligent, considerate and aware of the risks. Through the mandatory training that we have just discussed, we are trying to get to a situation where elected members are trained and are more cognisant of planning law and the considerations they have to take forward. We want to ensure that there is consistency across the country.

As I say, there are two issues at play here. Some Members may take the view that a national scheme of delegation is wrong in principle. If Members do not take that view, which is not the Government’s view, the debate that we should be having, and will have—as I said on Second Reading, we will bring forward details, so that we can consider them alongside the Bill—is what the most appropriate national scheme of delegation would be, to achieve the right balance between making sure that the most controversial, major applications come before committees and entrusting expert planning officers to make other decisions.

[Paul Holmes]

I wonder whether the Minister has given any thought to political proportionality when it comes to any future national scheme of delegation. I will give him an example. Forgive me if this is slightly out there; if so, I can write to him, or we can have a conversation in the Lobbies later.

Say a local authority was 87% made up of one party, and there was one councillor from one party and another councillor from another party. In my constituency, we have a local authority that is overwhelmingly dominated by one party. For many residents, the planning system feels like it is out of touch, because the leader creates a different committee that allows just his party to make a decision—or, in the usual planning committees, local residents do not feel like the administration’s wishes are being taken into account, because the planning committee is overwhelmingly dominated by one party.

Will the Minister please assure us that any national scheme of delegation will not exacerbate that situation where local authorities have very strong political control one way, and political decisions within the planning system are taken by an overwhelming political administration? Will he assure us that we can have future discussions about that, so that such a situation in any local authority would not be made worse by a national scheme of delegation? I hope I explained that right.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The shadow Minister did explain that correctly, and I recognise the challenge. I would say two things: first, I assure him that party political considerations have not factored in any way into the development of the clause. The measure that we are proposing will improve the situation in the sense that, if there are very clear rules about which applications can come before a committee and which should go to national expert planning officers, as per a national scheme of delegation, some of the potential to use specific applications that might not be the most major, controversial applications that should come before a committee, in a political way, will be removed. As I said, the detail regarding what the national scheme of delegation will entail will come forward in due course.

As I mentioned, the clause also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the size and composition of planning committees. Best practice suggests that having smaller planning committees can lead to more effective debates and decision making. We have seen some extremely large and unwieldy planning committees across the country. We want to ensure that there are, within reasonable parameters, some prescriptive views on what the most effective size is.

Our views have been tested with the sector. In response to our working paper, there was broad support for the principle of the proposals from the local government sector, and we will continue to take on feedback as we refine our detailed proposals. That will, as I said, include a formal consultation on the regulations through which the new powers will be exercised. That is a requirement imposed on the Secretary of State by the clause and must happen prior to the regulations being made.

As I said, local democratic oversight of planning decisions remains essential, but it is vital that planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions. Clause 46 is about ensuring that skilled planning officers in local authorities are trusted and empowered in their roles, while retaining important democratic oversight on those sites that local people care about most. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Government amendments 50 and 51 are both minor and technical amendments clarifying that the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring relevant planning functions to be discharged by committee, sub-committee or an officer, and regulating the size and composition of a planning committee, also apply to mineral planning authorities. As the Committee will be aware, a local planning authority is not necessarily also a mineral planning authority; it depends on if and where there is a minerals site.

Mineral planning authorities are a special type of planning authority, and it is only right and proper to include them within these provisions to ensure greater consistency and certainty within the planning system. We must be clear about which local authorities are to be caught by this clause. The amendment clarifies that mineral planning authorities, where they exist, are to be subject to the provision in the clause.

[Paul Holmes]

We will oppose the clause. Our reason for doing so is that this chapter of the legislation is a massive power grab and piece of centralisation. The whole Bill—in particular its planning reform elements and this clause—reeks of this Government’s centralising zeal, as I said on the Floor of the House on Second Reading.

I tried to explain our point of view in my interventions on the Minister. He rightly challenged people to say whether there should be a national scheme of delegation, and Conservative Members wholly say that there should not be. I am grateful that he recognises that that is a not an opportunistic viewpoint; it is one that we sincerely believe.

Local authorities should have the power to do what they wish to do, because they are elected by their constituents and their residents. They, too, have a democratic right to exist and to undertake the responsibilities placed on them by the residents of their wards. They have a democratic right and duty to undertake those responsibilities and to participate in their accountability structures as local councillors, delegated to make decisions on behalf of their residents, and of their towns, cities and villages all over the UK.

As I said, we are concerned that the clause is just another attempt to centralise and to give the Minister and the Secretary of State the ability to build 1.5 million homes without necessarily allowing democratic checks and balances to be in place. In further amendments later in the Bill, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State actively try to take power away from local authorities and locally elected people.

Has anyone on the Labour Benches who was in a local authority—I asked this on Second Reading—been approached by their local councillors saying that they are not happy? Former council leaders and former councillors sit on this Committee, and I ask them whether councillors have told them that their own party is taking away councillors’ power and ability to speak for their residents. Members of Parliament in Committee are actively allowing that to happen if they vote for this clause to stand part.

Many local authorities are allowed to choose the way in which they do their business. That is why we do not believe that there should be a national scheme of delegation. In my own regional structures, the county council has a regulatory committee and two planning committees, and the borough council—although I have vast disagreements with how Eastleigh is managed—has local area committees that are accountable to the local wards in their localities. Such committees are actually more democratic, because different parties might represent the ward on them. When I was a councillor in Southampton, we had one planning committee that looked after everything within the authority boundary. All of that is because local authorities, through their own delegated schemes and democratic structures, pick how they wish to conduct their business. The clause will simply stop those local authorities being able to do that.

I am not talking to the Minister only about the size of the committee and the principles behind that. All the way through this clause are regulations for the Minister to lay, not only about the size and composition of committees discharging such functions, but requiring which functions are to be discharged. Local authorities already have that. We believe that local authorities should be able to decide that.

I challenged the Minister on one of his examples about local plans that are drawn up by an executive but can now be challenged by locally elected members of a planning committee. We do not see anything wrong with that. Local council members represent wards affected by local plans delivered by an executive. Whether that is an executive of the same political persuasion as the councillors who have concerns or of a different political persuasion, councillors have their rights under a local scheme of delegation.

That planning application should be able to go to a planning committee and be called in by a member under the rights that they have as a councillor. If, after its members have been trained through the excellent provision proposed by the Minister, the planning committee still decides to reject the application, that is the power and right of the locally elected councillor, and this Government are taking that right away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I take the point, but let me be clear about what I said: every reserved matters application should come back before a committee. I will come back to the point that the hon. Gentleman rightly raises, but in terms of outcomes we think this measure will be impactful.

My second point is about straw men. Parts of this debate have generated more heat than light, if I am honest, and many allegations have been thrown around. Some said that this measure rides roughshod over local democracy, and the hon. Member for Broxbourne alleged that the Government are saying that once a local plan is in place, every decision will just be shoved through. That is obviously not the case, so let me be very clear about what we are talking about.

Local schemes of delegation are in place across the country. In lots of those, lots of decisions are delegated to planning officers. In principle, we all agree that expert planning officers should be allowed to make decisions on certain applications—I do not think that is contested—so let us put what we are discussing in proportion. We are not changing the consultation rules on planning applications. Representations are and will continue to be considered by the decision maker, whether that is the planning committee or the planning officer. In that sense, I will continue to argue that the proposed change does not remove democratic oversight.

My third point is about what is decided. There are understandably a lot of assumptions about what the national scheme of delegation will suggest. I would wager that in a couple of years’ time, when we look back at this, a lot of the concerns raised will seem to have been unfounded. I hope the Government allay those concerns when we bring forward the precise proposals about what we want the national scheme of delegation to entail. It is not the case that the controversial and significant applications that several hon. Members have raised, which we agree should absolutely come before committees, will be ruled out in the national scheme of delegation. The assumption about the amount that we are removing from the system will prove to be unfounded.

[Paul Holmes]

I would say to the Minister that significance is in the eye of the beholder, but may I bring him back to something that he said? I do not want to do him a disservice, but I believe he said that planning officers’ decisions, rather than local committee decisions, would not change under a national scheme of delegation; they will still be there. Can he assure us that any ability that currently exists within local schemes to call in a decision made by a planning officer will not be affected by the national scheme of delegation that he proposes?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I understand why the hon. Gentleman is doing so, but he tempts me to announce the proposals that we will bring forward. I would like to do that as a package so the House can see what the Government are proposing. As I said, at that point I think some of the concerns will have been assuaged.

My fourth and final point, which is the crux of this debate, is that we can have a very sensible discussion about the type of things that should or should not be in a national scheme of delegation. The shadow Minister just inadvertently went down that route, and I am happy to have that conversation. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington gave the game away, in a sense, when he argued that if we were just talking about a scheme of standardisation across the country, that would be fine, but a national scheme of delegation is not. We are, in a sense, talking about a standardised scheme that will ensure consistency in the system about what comes forward.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Paul Holmes and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reasonable questions. If I have understood him, he makes a separate point about the statutory consultee system. As he will know—I refer him to my relevant written ministerial statement—we are seeking to reform that system in a number of ways.

On clause 8 specifically, the changes will not affect the ability to challenge the lawfulness of Government decisions in court. They are simply designed to reduce delays. We are not preventing anyone from challenging our planning decisions. Obviously, Government do not control how many of those challenges are made. We are tightening up the process so that if a challenge is judged to be meritless by the court—not by Government—it cannot be dragged on for years through numerous further appeals.

Only cases deemed totally without merit in the oral permission hearing in the High Court will be prevented from appealing to the Court of Appeal. Other cases will continue to be able to appeal the refusal of permission to the Court of Appeal. That will ensure that there is no possibility of meritless claims holding up nationally significant infrastructure projects, while maintaining access to justice in line with our domestic and international obligations.

I hope that the hon. Member is reassured that we are not removing wholesale the ability to mount judicial review challenges. Some have called for us to go further, but we think the proposals strike the right balance between addressing the removal of the paper permission stage and dealing with the issue of meritless claims. On that basis, I hope that he is reassured and may even feel inclined to support the measure.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Notwith-standing the comments from my fellow shadow Minister, who made an excellent contribution, can I press the Minister on one question? My hon. Friend outlined the Opposition’s concern over removing wholesale—we are not saying that the Minister is doing this—the checks and balances relating to somebody being able to challenge a decision that they deem has not been taken in the right way.

However, it would be remiss of us as a party not to acknowledge that there are cases where JR is used vexatiously. To use an example from my constituency, I waited for 12 years to get a 300-foot extension to Southampton airport’s runway. It took three judicial reviews before we finally got that through. There was unmitigated support from the local authority and me as the Member of Parliament at the time, and it was taken to JR for what I would say were very dubious reasons, just to try to delay the project.

I understand why the Minister is bringing in the measures, notwithstanding some of the concerns that my hon. Friend mentioned about the balance. However, I am reassured by what the Minister said about not removing the ability to challenge and tightening the process around what can be accepted as being without merit.

I have one question for the Minister, which he may not be able to answer today—I would not necessarily expect him to—but perhaps he could write to me about it. Following Lord Banner’s work, which was a thoughtful examination of how legal challenges could be streamlined, has the Minister made any assessments, through officials or the Department, of how much time or cost on average the changes to clause 8 might mean for the system overall? I am not expecting him to get his abacus out and look at that now, but I wonder whether he could outline to the Committee, through an impact assessment, the effect of some of the changes.

We will not push this clause to a Division. We understand the principled reason why the Minister is bringing it forward, even if we have some concern about the detail of the measure.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Paul Holmes and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Before I speak to clause 1 stand part and respond to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I put on the record my thanks to the large number of witnesses who gave up their time last week to give evidence to the Committee and inform our deliberations.

Sustained economic growth is the only route to delivering the improved prosperity that our country needs and the high living standards that working people deserve; that is why it is this Government’s No. 1 mission. The failure to build enough critical infrastructure, from electricity networks and clean energy sources to public transport links and water supplies, has constrained economic growth and undermined our energy security. That is why the Government’s plan for change commits us to fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament.

While nationally significant infrastructure project applications are already being processed 50 days quicker on average than in the last Parliament, achieving that milestone will require the planning regime for NSIPs to fire on all cylinders—yet we know that the system as it stands is too slow and that its performance has deteriorated sharply in recent years. The Government are determined to improve it and to deliver a faster and more consenting process for critical infrastructure that will drive down costs for industry, bill payers and taxpayers.

Key to an effective NSIP regime is ensuring that national policy statements are fit for purpose. To be clear, those statements are the primary policy framework within which the examining authority makes its recommendations to Ministers on individual development consent order applications and against which the relevant Secretary of State is required to determine an application. However, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington just noted, despite their importance many national policy statements are outdated, with some having not been refreshed for over a decade.

Clause 1 addresses that problem by establishing, on enactment, a new requirement for every national policy statement to be subjected to a full review and updated at least every five years. NPSs can be reviewed at any point within that five-year timeframe, at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Additionally, any statement that has currently not been updated for over five years must be brought up to date within two years of the clause’s enactment.

Having taken on board the views of consenting Departments, a wide range of industry stakeholders and the recommendations of the National Infrastructure Commission, we believe that a five-year timeframe strikes the right balance between ensuring that statements are kept up to date, while avoiding rapid change and the consequential uncertainty for the infrastructure sectors that would be caused by a more rapid review timeframe.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The Minister may come to this later, but he will also be aware that clause 1 will make provisions for the Secretary of State to update an NPS later than required when there are exceptional circumstances, including laying a statement to Parliament. We will discuss in relation to later clauses our concern about transparency and engagement with the House. Will he outline how the Secretary of State will be able to consult the House, once she has laid that statement, to help to form her view and the Government’s view going forward?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for his question, and I look forward to what I know will be constructive debates over the days and weeks to come. He makes a fair point, which I am just coming to, in relation to the clause also providing for the ability to delay a mandatory update when there are exceptional circumstances that the relevant Secretary of State considers make the delay unavoidable.

I stress to the hon. Gentleman that those circumstances must be exceptional. We have in mind an extremely high bar: for example, if Parliament was suspended and could not sit. He will know that in instances where a national policy statement, for example, does not need to undergo a material change, a rapid update can take place on that basis. It does not have to go through consultation or the necessary parliamentary scrutiny requirements. The vision is that this particular part of the clause will be used with an exceptionally high bar, in very limited circumstances. If he wishes, I am happy to provide the Committee with further examples, but I think they will be extremely limited.

In such circumstances, as the shadow Minister said, the Secretary of State must, before the five-year deadline expires, lay a statement before Parliament explaining the reasons for the sought-after extension and when they expect to update the national policy statement, with the delay lasting only as long as the exceptional circumstances exist.

In summary, the changes give Ministers the power to ensure that national policy statements are kept up to date so that they can effectively support the delivery of the critical infrastructure that our country needs and the economic growth that its provision will deliver. I commend the clause to the Committee.

I turn to amendment 32, which, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington set out, seeks to insert a requirement for the land use framework—on which the Government consulted between January and April this year—to be complied with whenever a national policy statement is reviewed. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary because the Secretary of State is already obliged to take into account all relevant material considerations when reviewing national policy statements as a matter of law, under sections 104 and 105 of the Planning Act 2008.

If a future Secretary of State considers the final land use framework to be relevant in the circumstances of the specific national policy statement being reviewed, it must therefore be taken into account. The Secretary of State will, in those circumstances, give the land use framework the weight that they consider appropriate in their planning judgment, but their assessment of relevance cannot and should not be prejudged by writing such a requirement on to the face of the Bill.

The majority of national policy statements are not site or project-specific. For national policy statements that do identify locations as suitable or potentially suitable for a particular development, those locations will already have been the subject of strategic level environmental assessments and appraisals for inclusion in the national policy statement.

When deciding whether to grant development consent for a nationally significant infrastructure project, sections 104 and 105 of the 2008 Act require the Secretary of State to have regard to any matter that they think “both important and relevant” to the decision of whether to grant consent. Once published, the land use framework could be given such weight as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, where they consider it “both important and relevant” to the particular consenting decision that is in front of them.

For those reasons, the Government cannot accept amendment 32, which seeks to introduce an unnecessary layer of regulatory complexity, undermining our ambitions to streamline the NSIP planning system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I will adhere to your guidance and orders on this Committee, Mrs Hobhouse. I intend to speak to clause 2 first, and then I will address amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. We welcome the premise of parliamentary scrutiny of the national policy statements, but we understand that although the usual steps for publishing and consulting on material changes—21 days under the legislation—still apply, the Secretary of State is no longer required to respond to feedback from Parliament or its Committees during that process.

That is a step back on the democratic checks and balances that the House has under current legislation. We are concerned about whether the Secretary of State will have increased power to make decisions without that scrutiny. All Ministers, including the two sitting opposite me, try to make good decisions and do their best by the country, but it is unacceptable that the legislation includes a retrograde step whereby Parliament is unable to feed back on changes proposed by the Secretary of State. We see that as a retrograde step for scrutiny.

We have seen in legislation for other Departments a centralising move into the hands of officials and Ministers. What is the benefit of this provision in the Bill? What is the benefit of taking away a very simple and usual step of Parliament being able to give its views on the Secretary of State’s movements and proposals? It does not make a tangible difference to the process. It just seems to be a power grab—that may be unfair on the Minister—or at least a movement of power away from the ability of Parliament to have traditional checks and balances.

[Matthew Pennycook]

In the interest of focusing the debate on the actual changes that we are making in the clause, when a national policy statement has been reviewed and is to be updated, and involves material changes, all the assessments and consultation that need to take place, including laying the NPS before the House of Commons, will remain in place. We are talking about a specific set of categories of reflective, small changes that, as I will make clear in my remarks later, have already been debated by Parliament in their own terms.

[Paul Holmes]

I understand that, but the fact of the matter is that the Secretary of State will no longer be required, under the Bill, to respond to feedback from Parliament. That is what the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is trying to sort out with his amendment. We very much support that amendment, because it would require the Secretary of State to provide a response to the House on amendments to national policy statements.

I have no disagreement on the provision of NPSs and what we discussed in the debate on the last clause. What tangible difference does it make to the Bill if Parliament is taken note of by being able to respond, and the Secretary of State is required to respond to that feedback? The Select Committee has a right to issue its views. Why is the Secretary of State no longer required to respond to that feedback from Parliament? To us, it seems slightly undemocratic to remove transparency and the ability of elected Members of this House, of all parties, to be able to scrutinise the movements of the Secretary of State and Ministers in national policy statements. Perhaps the Minister can explain in his comments what tangible difference it makes to his life or that of his Department that the Secretary of State no longer has to respond to feedback from elected Members of this House.

As I said, we agree with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. It would encourage greater accountability as part of the process outlined in the Bill and would enhance parliamentary scrutiny over crucial development policies that the Secretary of State has oversight of.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I say gently to the hon. Lady that she has ignored everything I have said. Every one of the changes that will be able to be made through this process will have already been subject to relevant consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. There is the example of changes to the national planning policy framework, which underwent a huge amount of parliamentary scrutiny through a Select Committee and a statement on the Floor of the House. It is not particularly problematic that we should be able to quickly, in a timely manner—with Select Committee input if it is able to respond in the necessary timeframe—make that change to a national policy statement to ensure that it is up to date and effective.

It is worth considering what the current arrangements require. Currently, the consultation, publicity and parliamentary scrutiny appeal that the Government must follow when updating an NPS, even for a minor change of the kind I have spoken about, is exactly the same as designating an entirely new NPS. There is no ability at the moment for timely and often minor reflective updates that will only reflect policy changes that have already been made subject to scrutiny, and court decisions that have been issued—there is not process for that. We think the system would work far better in most cases if there were.

Although it is a matter for the House, we would hope that in nearly every instance the relevant Select Committee would be able to respond in time, and that those views would be taken into account to help the NPS be updated in a more proportionate and effective manner.

[Paul Holmes]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister mid-flow, but if the utopian vision that he has outlined is the case—if a Select Committee comes to them within the right amount of time they will listen to its views, but the timescales are currently too long—and the Minister genuinely wanted to allow parliamentary scrutiny and responses to be taken into account by his Department, he would have come to the Committee today outlining a number of steps contained in the legislation setting standard response times for Select Committees and the processes of this House, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said.

The Minister could have clearly outlined in the legislation an aspiration for the amount of time that he would want the changes to be worked through with Parliament. I understand that there are Standing Orders of the House, but I remind the Minister that the Leader of the House is currently a Minister under his Government, and he could have got a workaround instead of taking out the scrutiny powers of the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am struggling to follow what the hon. Gentleman’s specific concern is. He keeps throwing out the after-dinner speech example; that would not meet the threshold for a reflective amendment through this route. If the Government have made a policy change that has been subject to consultation and scrutiny in this House—

[Paul Holmes]

If it suits you.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Well, it would have to have been subject to consultation and scrutiny in this House in order to meet the criteria. We think that it is therefore reasonable to take it through in this manner. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is suggesting that there will be a complete absence of parliamentary scrutiny, and in that way is misleading the Committee regarding the effect of the clause.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Paul Holmes and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is very useful. Thank you.

[Paul Holmes]

I will come back again, although I know you are under the cosh at the moment.

Rachel Hallos: It’s fine; that is why I am here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Yes.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Nationally significant infrastructure projects, which I do not think you have chosen to talk about.

Councillor Hug: No—they are coming through very quickly. From a local authority perspective, I think the point is making sure that, if they are not formal consultees, there is some other mechanism for local authorities and others to feed into the process in a structured way to make sure that their voices are heard, even if formal statutory consultees are being reformed.

[Paul Holmes]

We are removing statutory consultees.

Councillor Hug: There is significant concern about that removal. That process is how you identify some of the specific issues on the ground that need significant further investigation. I do not think you will save any time by removing that, because the investigation will turn up at the planning stage. You will just delay planning, because these will be areas around statutory consultees. What it will do is give the public the impression that things are just being rubber stamped and railroaded through. That will be catastrophic. NSIPs are such contested spaces already. We have to give people the chance to raise concerns to identify issues on the ground at local level that need further work and further attention. If we do not do that, people will lose all faith in that process, and they are already sceptical enough.

Councillor Clewer: I have the same concerns. NSIPs are decided by the Secretary of State. I have five in my district at the moment, including battery farms, solar farms and a reservoir. It is not about objection—consultation can bring forth some really good ideas, some solutions and some changes. It is massively important. For instance, even if there will be an impact on your community, the community benefit could be discussed right at the start. All sorts of improvements could be put in place through consultation before it gets to the formal stage. It is also about the appearance of removing that consultation. At a time when LGR devolution is meant to be bringing decentralisation, to just say that this is all going to be decided centrally is not a good picture.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Could I ask you about the reforms in the Bill relating to planning decisions, and specifically our intention to take powers to introduce a national scheme of delegation? How do you think that could be best designed? What are the types of applications that you think should always be taken by planning committees, and which types of applications could be appropriately delegated to expert planning officers?

Councillor Wright: For a start, the vast majority of planning permissions or planning applications are already decided by officers anyway in many councils—something like 97% in my authority were decided—so what exactly do you think we are now going to pass when under more pressure?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Q Thank you, Catherine. The Minister and I have regularly been on Committees in the House where we—the Conservative party—agree with the Government’s proposals over planning fees. We have been on many Committees together where we have not contested those. Could you elaborate on how helpful you think the Government’s proposals on ring-fencing and planning fees are, how prescriptive you find them and whether they could be improved?

Could you also outline how you think the proposal could help the speediness of planning applications, but also have a greater impact on local government’s workforce challenges in recruiting and holding on to planning experts? Do you think the legislation will allow local authorities to have enough funding to keep town planners in local authority town halls and not going off to private companies?

Catherine Howard: The way the legislation is drafted, it looks to me like it is highly prescriptive and will be very effective at ringfencing. It talks about the need to secure that the income from the fees or charges is applied towards the carrying out of the functions that are listed. Those are functions such as dealing with planning applications, certificates of lawfulness, tree applications and listed buildings. There are things it does not deal with—that is presumably deliberate—such as general enforcement and plan making. It seems to me that, the way it is drafted, you could not use the money from all of those developer application fees and just apply it to plan making and those kind of functions. If that is the intention, that is what it appears to achieve.

Regarding recruitment, I know that fee recovery has been put into law in a number of different planning regimes. I am more of a specialist in the national infrastructure regime, where those provisions have been added quite liberally. It will be interesting to see how effective a pay-as-you-go system is. My concern still, in terms of how effective that will be at recruitment and retention, is that I do not know how much flexibility statutory authorities will have to set public pay scales. I would have thought—I am not an expert in this area—that if you want to attract and keep people who are otherwise tempted to go off to the private sector where pay seems to be higher, particularly with supply and demand the way that it is, you will need to make the applicable pay scales higher.

I am not sure that the fees that are attracted by a developer can just be used to give people bonuses or higher salaries within the private sector. That is my concern. If the fees can somehow be used to recruit and retain more people within planning authorities, that must be a good thing. It seems to me that there has been more of a drain of talent out of the local authorities and all of the public sector authorities and regulators post Covid in particular, now that people can work from home. Some of the benefits of working with slightly more flexibility, which the public sector was always better at than the private sector, have slightly gone. I imagine there is more of an inducement for people to move across if they are being offered more money, so I recognise the problem.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Thank you, Catherine, for giving up your time this afternoon. I have two questions on the NSIP regime and development consent orders, which is your specialism. First, you will have seen that the Government tabled a series of amendments yesterday to remove the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage. Could you give us your sense of the impact you think that will have on the speed of the consenting process overall? What do you broadly expect applicants to do now that those requirements have been removed, but new statutory guidance will be introduced setting out what we expect? Is it a mature enough system now that we can expect most applicants to still consult and engage meaningfully, and what are the incentives at play there to ensure that they will?

Secondly, on the broad ambition to provide for a faster and more certain consenting NSIP process, do you think there is anything that we are missing here that we should still look at?

Catherine Howard: I hugely welcome the change that was made yesterday, in terms of speeding up and cutting out unnecessary bureaucracy that helped no one, except for helping professionals like me to spend more time and gain more fees out of our clients. There is, as we just talked about, a lack of enough professionals in the whole industry to staff the system. The Government’s ambition is to triple the rate of DCO consenting to get 150 DCOs through in this Parliament. We cannot magic up more comms consultants, lawyers, environmental impact assessment consultants and planning consultants in that period, so we desperately need a way to apply those professionals most efficiently in a really focused way across all the projects we need.

I have seen it in my career, having consented a number of projects since 2008, when the regime came in. Without the law changing at all, custom and practice has built up gold plating and precedent to slow the system down hugely. That is particularly true for the pre-app process, which I think the Government’s stats say has gone from an average of 14 months in 2008 to 27 months a few years ago—I suspect it is even longer now. I have seen more and more rounds of consultation on small changes. I have seen developers not putting through other changes that would be really beneficial and that communities or statutory consultees want, because they would have to have a three, four or six-month delay to do more consultation on the change.

I think the cart is before the horse. It has become a very clunky and bureaucratic legalistic process, rather than what planning should be and is in all other regimes—town and country planning, and even hybrid bills—where you have more latitude to change your mind, do some lighter-touch consultation if appropriate and do some focused consultation with the key statutory consultees on the key issues, rather than producing these huge preliminary environmental information reports, which are incredibly daunting and time-consuming for everyone to read. The public sector, local authorities, regulators and the public are feeling overwhelmed by the amount of information that is put out there, which is ultimately just a form of legal box-ticking without the laser focus that you really need on key issues, so I hugely welcome the change.

I was with an international investor yesterday who is interested in investing in a big portfolio of solar projects in the UK that have not yet been consented, and I was asked to explain the regime. The pre-app is always something I feel I have to apologise for and explain, and give the best story about how quick it might be, but it was great yesterday. They really welcome this change. I can see it being highly beneficial for investors who can shop around Europe and elsewhere, in terms of bringing development here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Q Fine. One very quick question; I am afraid it is to you again, Mr Benwell. I apologise to the other witnesses; it is no reflection at all on your character or expertise. I hope you do not think I am being cheeky by asking this, but a lot of today’s questions from myself, my colleagues and Liberal Democrat colleagues on the Committee have been about the resourcing and the ability of Natural England to undertake the responsibilities that the Secretary of State is proposing.

Given your previous role within the Department, working with a Secretary of State, and given your expertise from your current role, do you think that in its current guise Natural England is capable of undertaking the responsibilities outlined in the legislation? Are you worried about the resourcing of that organisation going forward, considering that it will have quite new, detailed and complicated responsibilities?

Richard Benwell: There is no doubt that Natural England will need a significant uplift in resourcing to enable it to do this job properly. Natural England was subject to some pretty serious cuts over the last decade, and the last settlement was not very positive for Natural England either, with more job losses coming. When you look into the statistics of Natural England’s funding, some of the increases in recent years have been on capital fund rather than day-to-day spend on the kind of experts we need to do this work out on the ground. Part of the problem sometimes, with the risk aversion surrounding the current incarnation of the habitats regulations, is the lack of expertise from advisers, to give it the confidence to go out and suggest where strategic solutions can happen and to implement the law well.

Natural England will definitely need a boost. It is worth noting that it is not even able to fulfil all its current duties to the standard that we would expect. Only half of sites of special scientific interest have been visited in something like the last decade, and Natural England is already having to focus its work on statutory advice for planning applications. It will need more of that expertise, but we have confidence in the organisation and its leadership. We hope that the Government will properly resource Natural England and other agencies to help to make this work if it goes ahead, as amended.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Thank you all for coming to give evidence. This is a question for Richard, but I am sure the other two witnesses have views, assuming that you share some of the concerns that have just been outlined.

Richard, you will know that we do not accept that development has to come at the expense of nature. We are very much targeting a win-win solution when it comes to development and the environment. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I have had a huge amount of engagement with you and others in the sector to try to develop a solution that achieves that. I therefore want to drill into some of the concerns you have outlined, in two ways.

First, on the introduction, you welcomed the

“legal guarantee that the Nature Restoration Fund must not only compensate for damage but actually benefit protected wildlife.”

But the claim today is that the Bill leaves us open to regression. Could you elaborate on how those two square together?

Secondly, you have just said that you have confidence in Natural England and its leadership. Marian Spain, the chief executive officer, gave evidence earlier today. She said that the Bill effectively maintains the mitigation hierarchy, but you have just said that the Bill undermines the mitigation hierarchy. Can you clarify why you have a difference of opinion with Marian on that particular issue?

Richard Benwell: Of course. On the first question, we were grateful for engagement ahead of the Bill’s publication, and we were really pleased to hear your aspirations to achieve a win-win. The question is whether the overall improvement test in clause 55(4) does what it is meant to do.

The legal drafting suggests that a Secretary of State can agree an environmental delivery plan only if he is satisfied that the benefits for a protected feature “are likely” to outweigh the harm to that protected feature. That comes some way short of the high bar of legal certainty that is expected in the current habitats regulations.

If you dig further into the Bill, you find that once an environmental delivery plan is in place, if there is evidence that it is not meeting the standards expected, it is up to the Secretary of State whether to withdraw the EDP and then only to take measures that he considers appropriate to remediate for any shortfall in environmental benefits that are supposed to be derived from the measures in the Bill.

Both of those points leave far more leeway for a Secretary of State to undercut nature restoration compared with the current situation, especially when it can happen up to 10 years after the initial harm to nature. We have all heard of circumstances where promised offsets for supposed harm to nature never materialise or die a couple of years down the line.

We think this can be fixed. We think that if you were to strengthen that requirement so that it matches the kind of legal certainty that we see in the habitats regulations, you would be in a much better position. On the positive side of the scale, if that promise to outweigh harm were a more substantive requirement to go beyond just about offsetting into real nature restoration, you start to get to the territory where this really could be a win-win.

We know you will be advised by Government lawyers to minimise risk. That is what always happens, which is why Governments like to have these subjective tests. But as it stands, the level of certainty of environmental benefit that is required of an EDP up front, and that is then required of proof of delivery along the way, is less than under the current law.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Paul Holmes and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Q Sir John and Mr Owen, thank you very much for coming this morning. As you know, this is a huge piece of legislation, and we want to scrutinise it to the best of our ability. Thank you for the work that you do in your occupations.

We remain consistent in our concern about democratic accountability and processes, and about the balance between speeding up planning delivery and retaining the power of local people to make differences and have their say on nationally important critical infrastructure. First, do you think that these proposals strike the right balance between speeding up the delivery of national infrastructure projects and public accountability? Do you think that democratic and public accountability will remain at the heart of the delivery of that national infrastructure under the Bill’s proposals?

Sir John Armitt: Yes. I think this is a reasonable attempt to address the fundamental question of getting the balance right between taking forward the critical national infrastructure that the country needs and local interest. Consultation has always been an essential part of that, and the ability of people to express their views is important. Having said that, it is and will continue to be a very complex area. People on the receiving end of new infrastructure will naturally seek every mechanism in their legal right to challenge where they feel that they will be adversely affected. The Bill seeks to set out a number of remedies for that, and I think one could reasonably expect to see some acceleration, but just how much acceleration there will be in the process only time will tell.

Robbie Owen: I broadly agree with that; I think the Bill largely strikes the right balance. Let us not forget that even in the light of the amendments tabled by the Minister yesterday in relation to consultation, there will still be an extensive amount of consultation required—justifiably so—in relation to these projects, involving, among others, the local community. The examination of applications for consent takes place over a maximum of six months, which is a very long time, within which the local community can express their views. The Government are retaining the ability for local impact reports to be produced, which I think is important. I have no fundamental concern that democratic and public accountability will be lost by these changes. I actually think they do not quite go far enough in some respects, but we may come on to that later.

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

Q Thank you both for your time this morning. I also wanted to ask you about the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime. As you know, the objective of the Bill in this area—chapter 1 of part 1—is to provide for a more certain regime, but also to speed up the process through which applications are taken, because we have seen, as you are both aware, a deterioration in the performance of the system over recent years. We have done a huge amount of consultation on this legislation—statutory consultations, working papers, calls for evidence—but we are still very much in listening mode on whether any further changes are required. I want to get your views, picking up on the comments that you just made. In terms of the critical barriers to bringing forward major economic infrastructure, where do you think the Bill gets things right, and where does it not go far enough?

Sir John Armitt: The Bill seeks, to a large extent, to provide a regime of compensation to offset where people are going to be affected. That, in a sense, is no different from what we have seen in the housing sector in section 106, for example, for a very long time. The real challenge here is the ability of the process to actually slow things down. We know that judicial review is one of the big difficulties in this area. You could argue that the recent recommendations made for judicial review do not go that far. The only way in which it can be held back is where the court decides that the issue being raised is, perhaps not frivolous, but immaterial. But I would imagine that the nature of the legal system is such that people will find ways around that.

Judicial review constantly acts as a brake, and influences those who are developing projects to try to cross that bridge before they get there: you put in more mitigation than ideally you would wish, which raises the cost, and you potentially finish up with a more expensive project than ideally you would have had. That is the nature of people trying to second-guess what is going to be raised and how the judicial review will be handled.

I am not sure that the recommendations will go far enough to have a serious impact on that aspect, which is one of the central aspects of what has been holding up these schemes quite significantly. Each year of judicial review is likely to potentially add a year to the process, and that is why it is difficult to see that these changes will benefit the overall process by more than six to 12 months, at the end of the day. Robbie and I were talking about this before we came in; he is more of an expert in it, so I will turn to him for any other observations.

Robbie Owen: Minister, I absolutely support what is already in the Bill. I think that every provision on national infrastructure planning is appropriate, including what I hope will be added to the Bill through the amendments that you tabled yesterday, in relation to pre-application consultation and some other measures. As you say, those are all good measures that have followed extensive consultation and engagement.

There are two areas where I believe the Bill needs to go further, be bolder and be strengthened. The first relates to the further streamlining of the development consent order process. That should focus on allowing the standard process to be varied, on a case-by-case basis, where there is justification for doing so. That was trailed in your planning working paper in January; I encourage you and your officials to have another look at that, because there is a justification for giving some degree of flexibility to reflect the nature and requirements of individual projects and how the standard process might need to be adapted to them.

Secondly, we need to look again at the ability of the DCO process to be a one-stop shop for all the consents you need for construction of these big projects—that was the original intention back in 2008. All the discussions around that have yet to fully come to a conclusion. I note the review by Dan Corry, published a couple of weeks ago, but I do not think that it provides a full answer to allowing development consent orders to do more than they have been doing in practice, in terms of all these subsidiary consents, which, beyond the development consent order itself, are quite important for some of these big projects.

The other area where the Bill should and could go further relates to the whole area of judicial review. The changes that were announced in January, following the call for evidence off the back of the Banner review, are not particularly significant. They are really quite modest, and relate largely to the permission stage of judicial review. Approximately 70% of judicial review applications get permission and go forward, therefore we need to focus beyond the permission stage.

There are two other areas where the Bill could make some worthwhile changes. The first relates to the interaction between judicial review and national policy statements. As you will know, national policy statements are approved by Parliament, and the Bill contains some proposals to change that process. It has always struck me as strange that national policy statements can nevertheless still be, and are, judicially reviewed.

The final point on judicial review is that Parliament should be able, if it wishes, to use a simple one-clause Bill to confirm decisions to give development consent for projects of a critical national priority. This used to be the case: we used to have lots of provisional order confirmation Bills. I think that is a very good way for Parliament, where it wishes, to express its support for a big, critical project. That could easily be done through some amendments to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Q Preparatory work on EDPs. Where are you on that?

Marian Spain: Work is under way now. As I mentioned earlier, we are doing two main things. We are thinking about the first two environmental delivery plans. This is an opportunity to mention that they are almost certain to be improving the existing nutrient mitigation scheme and turning that into a full-blown EDP and NRF system, and also consolidating the district level licensing scheme—the scheme for great crested newts that we set up five or six years ago. Those can be relatively quick wins, done within this calendar year we believe.

We are then looking at what the next EDPs are likely to be. That conversation is live at the moment with our colleagues. We are looking at three issues. We are looking at where development will most need it. Where are the development pressures? That might be major infrastructure or the new towns. Where are the places that are going to most need it? Where is it going to be most feasible—where do we believe we have sufficient evidence to have robust plans that will work and where is the meeting of those two points? That thinking about the EDPs is under way.

We are also using this year’s Government investment to set up the systems and the digital systems we will need. The systems developers will need to test their impact and decide if they want to participate. That is the systems we will use to handle the money and to do the essential transparency reporting and monitoring. That will be in place this financial year.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Marian, thank you for giving your time today and for the work that you and the organisation are doing to ensure that the new system will be operational shortly after the Bill gets Royal Assent.

Can I get you on the record in terms of the objectives of part 3 of the Bill? Is Natural England confident that the nature restoration fund will deliver better outcomes for the environment than the status quo? Specifically on the powers that will be available to Natural England in bringing forth EDPs, do you think the Bill gives you enough flexibility to consider a wide enough range of conservation measures to deliver those plans?

Marian Spain: We are confident that this will be an improvement on the current system. We have already run versions of the nature recovery fund for recreational impact, for great crested newts and for nutrient mitigation, so we have seen enough that these schemes can work. We are confident that they will work.

We are also clear that it is an improvement because at the moment the current arrangements are sub-optimal for developers and for nature. We see that developers are investing disproportionate amounts of time on data gathering that could be better done once and centrally. We see that investment in mitigation and compensation in the sequential scheme slows things down and does not always create the biggest impact. We also see that there is less transparency than the public and indeed developers themselves sometimes want about how the money is being spent. We are confident this will be an improvement.

The other important point to note is that many of the pressures nature is facing now, particularly water quality, air quality and recreation, are diffuse. They are not specific. They are widespread. They are cumulative. It is impossible for an individual developer to adequately consider, mitigate and compensate. We need to do that at much more of a scale. We think the measures in the Bill and the associated measures of having more robust spatial development strategies that look at nature and development together, and of having the plan up front that tells us what the impact will be and how to mitigate it, and then the fund to allow that discharge, is a major step forward.

It is unknown—well, it is not unknown, forgive me. It is a risk, of course, and people will be concerned that it will not be regressive and that it will not be a step back, but we think there are enough measures in the Bill that are clear that this is about improvements to nature—maintaining the current protections, but also allowing development to make its adequate contribution to restoration of nature.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Holmes and Matthew Pennycook

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The Government’s much-lauded policy of building 1.5 million new sustainable homes has been doomed from the start of this Parliament, and we now have that confirmed, with the Chancellor saying last week that only 1.3 million homes will be delivered by the end of this Parliament. But it is worse than that. Office for Budget Responsibility figures show that only 1.06 million homes will be built in England, which is 500,000 fewer than the Government’s target, and around 200,000 fewer than the last Conservative Government built in the past five years. Will the Minister confirm that the goalposts have moved, and that Labour will not meet its target for housing in this country?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am very fond of the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that, characteristically, he has got this one completely wrong. The 1.3—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) give me time to answer? The OBR estimated that our changes to the national planning policy framework alone will increase house building to 1.3 million. That does not take into account the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and the other changes coming forward. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) is simply wrong. We are on course for 1.5 million homes in this Parliament.