Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting)

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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?

[Rachel Taylor]

I acted for developers before coming into the House, and I know their biggest concern was always delays, not the fees that the local authority charged for doing these things. As a result of the lack of capacity in local authorities, there has been a move to more unadopted roads on small estates, which has its own problems for property owners going forward. I really welcome this provision, because it lays sensible steps toward making it easier for developers to complete their projects sooner, which enables them to make more money.

I think that the offset in costs will be welcomed by small developers. This provision is particularly important in the small authorities that cover large geographical areas, because it will enable them to go out and make visits. To give an example, my client was required to build a pavement but could not do so while there was a vaccination centre up the road. The local authority could not, under the fee structure, find the time to come out and visit the site, which would have enabled it to make a more sensible decision. In general terms, this provision is really welcome and developers, both small and large, will see this as a very positive step forward.

[Lewis Cocking]

I have a few comments, although I support the principle of this provision. There is not enough capacity in some planning departments, so I agree that fee cost recovery and some of the additional fees, particularly those relating to highways matters, are really important for local authorities, but I have a few questions. When will the money be paid? Will it be paid before the development has started, so there is capacity in the system? People sometimes make planning applications and get planning permissions but do not actually build out the development, so will the fees still need to be paid in those cases?

I have some concerns that I would like the Minister to comment on. Some authorities still have section 106 agreements, and I am concerned that developers will just move money from those section 106 agreements—money that is to be put into education or healthcare, for example—by saying in a viability assessment that they now have to pay these fees to the local authorities, particularly around highways. How can we stop it being the same money, just moved around? These fees should be additional to the money from section 106 agreements that the council was already getting, as they are going directly into capacity issues within planning departments. I am worried that developers will try to play games by just moving the same money around the system or cutting the same pie in a different way, which will not help local authorities. I would like to hear the Minister’s response to those comments, but I wholeheartedly support what the Government are trying to do in this specific case.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting)

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the Minister for speaking to this clause, and I am pleased to say that the Liberal Democrat Benches are keen to support it. I am also pleased to agree with the Conservative spokesperson on this, although I was disappointed to hear that his preferred method of transport involves hydrogen, rather than joining me on my bicycle, which I very much enjoyed riding in his constituency a couple of months ago.

It is important that we do everything we can to support the roll-out of electric vehicles, which is essential to our goals on air quality and climate change. The United Kingdom has a long way to go, with just 20% of vehicle sales last year being electric, compared with 90% in Norway. Hopefully, these measures will help us to close the gap.

I also welcome the Minister’s assurance that this will not undermine the requirements to make sure that street works are done professionally and repaired with full competence. For any Members with an interest in the subject, the Transport Committee is doing a detailed inquiry into it. Hon. Members are right to point out that that is often a major source of frustration for our constituents. I am very pleased to support this clause.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Jardine. I strongly support the clause and was really glad to see that the Electric Vehicle Association England welcomes the change. It will make it easier, cheaper and faster to install public chargers for EVs.

There is a battery assembly plant run by JLR in my constituency. We are making more components for electric vehicles, but my constituents find it really difficult to make the jump to invest in an electric vehicle, because there are just not enough electric vehicle charging points in the town centres around my constituency. Anything that makes it easier and removes the blockages will be extremely helpful.

I echo some of the points made by the Opposition spokespeople. We must make sure that the charging points are installed carefully and thoughtfully, which means taking into account the pavement requirements of pedestrians, particularly those with pushchairs or using wheelchairs. Will the Minister explain how that will be taken into account?

I definitely welcome this change, and it is a huge step forward. Particularly in more rural constituencies like mine, people need to be able to drive their electric vehicles in and out of town centres for work, and to be able to charge them.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I support giving consumers choice and making it easier to install electric car charging points. This will be a massive help for people in flats—if they want to make the switch to an EV and cannot charge their vehicle at home, the more public charging points there are, the better—but we need to think about it carefully.

My constituents are fed up with multiple utility companies digging up the roads willy-nilly—sometimes, the same stretch of road. There does not seem to be any logic behind where roadworks will be, and multiple roadworks happen at the same time.

We need to issue guidance. If utility companies, councils and other authorities are going to install loads of charging points, it needs to be done in a logical way. What work are the Government doing with all the different companies and operators in this space? We do not want to see consumers turning up to different charge points that all have different connectors. We need to make this as easy as possible for the consumer, no matter what car they drive.

I reiterate that we cannot just dig up roads willy-nilly. What discussions are the Government having with the companies in this space to make it as easy as possible for consumers to access charge points?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley wants to raise some points, but I want to ask a couple of slightly technical questions.

The first relates to clause 44(6), on directions in relation to planning fees. The publication of a schedule of planning fees is part of the statutory council tax-fixing process, which every local authority is required to undertake. As we hear from our residents, that generally takes place in February and comes into effect at the start of the following financial year. If a local authority publishes its proposals, as the Minister described in respect of cost recovery, it needs to be confident that any change—in the form of a direction from the Secretary of State—will come in a timely manner that enables further consultation so that the lawful council tax fixing can occur. What provisions will be in place to ensure that any objection from the Secretary of State will come in a timely manner?

My second slightly technical question is this. My experience of planning authorities is that there is huge variation in their cost bases. That partly reflects a shortage of staff, but it also reflects different local arrangements. An authority with large numbers of householder applications may use an outsourced service to process them at a relatively low cost. However, if senior, experienced, in-house planning officers are responsible for managing all planning applications, that will significantly increase the cost. Neither of those things is illegitimate; each is a manifestation of the democratic decision making of elected politicians about what is appropriate for their community.

It would be helpful to understand what process the Secretary of State will go through in determining what a reasonable level of planning fees is. For example, will she consider the requirement for specialist input at a technical level because there is a significant amount of radon gas, which is found in certain challenging sites because of their topographical nature? Whether there is a requirement for remediation and specialist consultancy will be critical to a proper assessment of that planning application. Other local authorities may have development opportunities of a different nature. Will the Minister set out his thinking on that? That would be enormously helpful.

[Rachel Taylor]

When the Committee met the witnesses a week or so ago, we touched on section 106 agreements and the role of planning authority lawyers in that process. I think that the fees for processing and determining applications include the process for agreeing a section 106 agreement. Is it the Government’s intention to include costs arising from the legal department’s time and efforts in determining those applications in the ringfenced planning application fees? I am aware that there is a severe shortage of qualified and experienced property lawyers in both local authorities in my constituency, as well as a shortage of planning officers.

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to support the thrust of clause 44. For a very long time, we Liberal Democrats have called for local authorities to be free to set their own fees for planning applications, so we welcome the approach.

I seek a couple of clarifications from the Minister. Does clause 44 refer to planning applications and not to listed building consent? I think we all share a desire to keep listed building applications free of charge, so will the Minister let us know about that in due course? Local authorities are struggling for funding. In my own Somerset council, £2 out of every £3 of council funding is spent on care for adults and children, leaving £1 out of every £3 provided by council tax for everything else, including planning, housing, enforcement and environment, so funding is crucially needed.

Somerset council has asked for the freedom and flexibility to set its own planning fees. One challenge it faces, in common with other planning authorities and planning departments, is the market rate paid to professional town planners, who frequently find that the level of remuneration in councils is worse. Will the Minister confirm that local authorities will be free to set salaries above the market rate to attract planning officers in circumstances when the market conditions make that necessary? The Minister may not wish to answer all my questions now, but I hope that he can address them at some point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine.

I have a few questions for the Minister. I am pleased to see this clause. When I was leader of Broxbourne council, we changed the council constitution to do exactly what the Government are trying to do here. I want to know how many local authorities will be affected, because I know that many of them already have mandatory training for planning committees in their constitution.

What I have not seen in the Bill is how often council officers will be required to carry out the training—will it be once per term of office, which means once every four years, or annually? I cannot seem to find any detail on when elected councillors will be required to do the training. I would like the Minister to comment on what he envisages as a workable interval. Obviously the training has to be timely, because there are always changes to the national planning policy framework and local plans, but not too exhaustive, so that councils can still make planning decisions.

The Minister speaks about speeding up planning decisions. I would not want councils to fall into the trap of not having enough people with the right certificate, and the right training at the right time, to carry on their quasi-judicial function of planning. I should be grateful for the Minister’s comments.

[Rachel Taylor]

Amendment 152 is well intentioned and sets out a number of matters that planning authorities should take into account when organising training. There are also other aspects of the planning process to consider, including how we make better provision for electric vehicles. The last major piece of planning legislation from 1990—it has endured for 35 years—is very prescriptive about the content of training for members and officers, but it will be extremely difficult to encapsulate everything that is needed.

I certainly think that the requirements for people with disabilities and for climate and nature are sometimes conflicting. I have seen a number of planning schemes where trees are put in the middle of the road or pavement. Although those environments look nice, they do not accommodate people with disabilities, such as sight or mobility problems.

We have to adapt as things move on, and this is exactly the sort of thing that I would ask the Minister to consider in guidance that could be regularly updated, as opposed to it forming part of the Bill. I certainly support the amendment’s intention, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for tabling it.

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to support amendment 152. The Liberal Democrats have a similar measure on the amendment paper, new clause 11, which also refers to the accessibility of housing. We are pleased to support this amendment, and we support training for planning authorities in general. In the Minister’s summing up, can he address the concern of some organisations that, as well as accessibility, the training needs to include conservation and heritage?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I refer back to my point: the hon. Gentleman may take the view, which is a perfectly coherent and respectable view, that a national scheme of delegation is wrong in principle. That is not the Government’s view, because we think there are significant advantages to be had from introducing greater consistency and certainty about what decisions go to a committee, so we can have a uniform approach across the country.

[Rachel Taylor]

Does the Minister agree that very often the controversial decisions that go to planning committees and are declined by them, leading to an appeal, result in higher council tax for residents, because of the huge cost of appeals, reviews and so on? A national scheme of delegation, where it is clear which decisions can be made under delegated authorities and which cannot, will therefore simplify the process for developers, remove the delays and costs for them, and keep costs down for local residents.

[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.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Lewis Cocking]

Q Sorry; yes. We have spoken about local plans and outline planning permission, and I will link those two together. There is a lot of consultation around development that comes forward, and the public in the area buy into it, because it is almost like it is painted in gold. The developers say that they can deliver all the amenities and everything the residents want, and then when they come forward for full planning permission, the proposal is completely changed. The residents have bought into something that they want, in the form of the fantastic development that the developers proposed. But when the developers come for full planning, it is completely different, so the residents are up in arms because they have not really bought into that. Would you make some comments on the differentials there?

Faraz Baber: The outline, as you say, is an outline, but the reality is that any full application that comes forward should be aligned with the agreement on social infrastructure and all the other elements that are required, whether that is the affordable housing, social infrastructure, civil payments or whatever. There was an earlier question: what is planning for? Well, planning is for that—to ensure that those community benefits are derived from development and to ensure that it is inclusive, not just for new residents but for existing residents as well.

I think that is a guardianship point, where the planning team or the local authority have to ensure that what they said they wanted to see from the plan is ultimately delivered. People will go into viability discussions and say, “I can’t afford that and I can’t afford this.” That is a judgment that has to be made about what can be delivered in the public interest. In answer to your question, that is very much where planning sits at the fore, to ensure that the right development with the right social infrastructure comes forward, and that it is fitting for the place it is sitting in.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

Q I would like to focus again on local planning authorities. I am acutely aware, from my constituency in North Warwickshire and Bedworth, of the under-resourcing of planning authorities, and this Bill enables us to charge increased fees, but I am also aware of the frustration from local developers and businesses about delays in the planning system. Do you think that the ability to charge extra fees will strike the right balance, and should they be ringfenced to make sure that decisions are made in a timely manner?

Victoria Hills: We have been advocating for the ringfencing of fees since time began. It is absolutely essential, and—I am sure that Faraz will pick this point up in a moment for his clients—I have not met a single developer that is not willing to pay for more for a service. The problem is that they are paying more but not getting the service. In some places, they are, but not in others. The opportunity, through this Bill, to strengthen the ringfencing and ensure that the money stays within the planning team to deliver the service cannot come soon enough to help to reduce some of those delays.

Having the opportunity for local areas to work out what good looks like for them is absolutely a sensible way forward within that. Again, we do feel that having the right level of seniority within the department to ensure that the money stays there is going to be a key part of it.

Faraz Baber: Moving towards this ringfencing idea within the planning service is hugely positive, although when I say the planning service, it may extend slightly to the legal side as well, because you have to get those section 106 agreements signed off to make things happen. The key, though, is that it has to stay ringfenced for that resource to happen. We often see that PPAs—planning performance agreements—are paid up front for meetings, and that there is a very uneven balance in how well those deliver, in terms of the service that the clients receive when they pay those large chunks of change for that service. So, developers are right—applicants are right—to get frustrated when they think they are getting a premier service to help facilitate the bringing forward of an application, then find that it does not move the dial one iota.

I think the very basic premise is that instead of the chief executive or the finance director of the council saying, “I’ll take that because I need to put it into social care or into education,” the money actually stays there. Remember, if we keep that money inside the planning service, it will drive the growth that the Government have said that they want to achieve. The devil is in the detail, and we need to see that more, but it is the right direction to take.

Hugh Ellis: I would say that it would stabilise issues for development management, but, for the policy officers who we work with, it would not necessarily support their work.

Also, a piece of heresy, if it is okay: the private sector complains a lot about delays, despite getting 86% of all its applications approved, but I think that there needs to be more debate about competence in the private sector. When a private sector developer applies for a category 3a floodplain development and then complains that the Environment Agency wants it to go through a flood risk assessment process, my blood boils. Planners are doing life-and-death stuff. For example, no house built after 2009 is part of the insurance compact, so if we get this wrong, negative equity will look like a picnic. Planning is trying to do really complicated stuff and it needs time to do that. Statutory consultees are also crucial to that, and they need to be resourced properly to play that role as well.

[The Chair]

We are coming to the last few seconds so I am going to call an end to the session. Sorry that we did not get everybody in. As it is the end of the time allocated to the Committee to ask questions, on behalf of the Committee I thank our witnesses for their evidence.

Examination of Witnesses

Jack Airey and Sam Richards gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Rachel Taylor, you have about a minute and a half; maybe you will get a quick answer.

[Rachel Taylor]

Q I am interested to hear your quite controversial views on the role of local councillors in the planning process. I am sure that a lot of developers might agree with you. We heard from the previous panel that planning with consent is key to securing good communities. How do you feel it is best to consult the public? Should it be via their elected representatives, or should there be something in the local planning framework to do so?

[The Chair]

You have less than a minute.

Sam Richards: This has been more Jack’s point than mine, so I will let him come back to it, but I think it is reasonable that that is handled through the local plan.

Jack Airey: Sorry, another controversial opinion: I do not think development necessarily has to have consent. Lots of development happens that does not have consent—for example, things that go through the permitted development rights regime. I lived in a home that was built through the PDR regime, and it was perfectly nice—it was really nice. You see lots of homes that are built that way. There is no democratic engagement because MPs grant national planning permission for that through the general permitted development order. I get what people are saying and I am not trying to question it entirely, but you can have nice homes that are delivered outside that system.

To answer your second question on whether consultation should be done through representatives, the most important thing is that you go and ask people what they think.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

Q May I ask a supplementary of James? We hear a lot from the federation about the viability challenge of sites. Without rehearsing the whole system and the pressures on development value, what is the HBF’s approach to resolving that issue so that there are fewer schemes going back to appeal, with 106s renegotiated and affordable housing targets reduced? That is something that we see in all our constituencies.

James Stevens: We think that affordable housing, as part of section 106, is probably one of the most important planning obligations, and our members generally support that, because they know how to build houses. Capturing an element of development gain is a real feeding frenzy, particularly among every public agency. They are all attempting to finance their policy objectives off the back of capturing an element of the developed land value. That can result in very difficult competing claims over viability. I have looked at viability plans supporting lots of spatial strategies and local plans up and down the country, and very often large elements of a local authority area are unviable because they just cannot afford the cumulative claims upon that development value. Greater scrutiny at the examination level, and perhaps a stronger steer from the Government that affordable housing and public contributions to public transport are the foremost claims upon development value, would be a major step forward.

Savills has identified that the viability system—section 106 and the community infrastructure levy—is fairly successful. It is pretty successful at capturing the majority of development value that is out there. The Government could go further by being very clear that these are the requirements in local plans, they are not negotiable and schemes are expected to be policy compliant, but that would need to be underpinned by a more rigorous system of assessing viability of the local plan stage. That would provide the Government with the certainty.

[Rachel Taylor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Olly Glover]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I am surprised to hear the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) trashing hard-working local builders in his constituency and calling the homes that his constituents live in dreadful trashy houses. Before I came to this place—

[Lewis Cocking]

rose—

[Rachel Taylor]

I am not going to give way; you have had your time. Before I came to this place—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Rachel Taylor.

[Rachel Taylor]

Before I came to this place—

[Lewis Cocking]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to seek your advice. I have just been cited as saying something in my speech that I did not say. I was merely talking about developers and my time on the planning committee, when developers would come forward and propose utter rubbish. I did not say the houses my residents live in are rubbish.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Member has made his point. It is a matter of debate, but his point is now on the record.

[Rachel Taylor]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Hon. Members: “Withdraw!”]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I have made my ruling clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Taylor]

Before I came to this place, I was a property solicitor, and I cannot say how many times I had developers in my office, swearing and cursing at yet another of their projects having been put on hold because of an arcane planning system. Bat tunnels are only the half of it.

I will never forget the day a developer told me that Warwickshire county council had asked him to build a pavement outside his new development but had then refused to let him put up traffic lights to enable the works because there was a vaccination centre a mile up the road. After months of legal wrangling, which delayed the home buyers moving in, the county council eventually gave in, but not before wasting everyone’s time and resources.

There are already half a million fewer young homeowners since 2010, and millions are stuck in expensive, poor-quality and insecure rented housing. Despite that, planning permissions dropped to their lowest number on record under the last Government, because the planning system is outdated and no longer fit for purpose. I want my constituency to be a place where young people feel they can put down roots, whether in our towns or our villages, and I want to ensure that there is the necessary infrastructure for them and their young families to create a life in our towns and villages.

I welcome this Bill to fix our broken planning system and get Britain building again. As a solicitor, on many occasions I saw unacceptable delays in determining planning applications, which cost developers money. There were insufficient resources to deal with complex legal agreements or to consult in a meaningful way about necessary infrastructure. All too often, developers then bypassed the correct processes, only to end up with whole estates being built without key approvals, which have sat empty for more than 12 months because access on to the road has not yet been sorted. This Bill will properly fund planning departments, and I hope that that will extend to the associated legal work. It is rare that developers even go down the route of getting new roads adopted, because for them the delays that that causes are financial risks they cannot take, but that leads to more and more residents paying freehold management charges, which new homeowners can ill afford.

I am glad that the National Infrastructure Commission has welcomed the provisions in this Bill, calling them a

“bold and broad-ranging package of measures”.

After years of the Conservative party letting the planning system crumble, a bold approach is exactly what is needed. Just last week, I met those from National Grid in my constituency. They welcomed the Bill and said that this sort of sensible approach could not come soon enough.

Of course, it is crucial for us to get the balance right. Most people I have spoken to understand that if they want their kids to be able to afford a home and live nearby, we need to build more houses. I agree with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which has said that the Bill

“provides a necessary balance between the need to boost building developments, whilst protecting the natural world through a nature restoration fund, driving green initiatives.”

It is vital we get this balance right. Every person should have access to an affordable home, and green and natural spaces they can use and enjoy.

[Paul Holmes]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I appreciate being able to make this point of order. I would like to seek your guidance on the speech from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), in which she defended developers and also solicitors. Did she have to declare her interest as a practising solicitor, for which privilege she was paid £7,500 this quarter?

[Rachel Taylor]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I no longer have a practising certificate as a solicitor, and I gave up practising as soon as I came into this House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I thank the hon. Lady for putting her clarification on the record.

Coastal Communities

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered coastal communities.

I am delighted to be leading my first ever debate in this Chamber, on the vital topic of coastal communities. I am very grateful to Members from across the House who supported my application for the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

This is the first debate on coastal communities of this new Parliament, and it could not come soon enough. There are a number of traditional divides into which people break our country: rural versus urban; affluent versus deprived; industrial versus agrarian. However, the divide between coastal and inland communities is often overlooked, yet this divide has wide-ranging impacts and leads to a unique situation for these areas.

In fact, many of my constituents in North Norfolk may share far more similar experiences with our coastal siblings in Cornwall, almost eight hours away, than with those just half-an-hour down the road in Norwich. What coastal communities across the country often feel is that, despite the incredible contribution they make to our country economically, culturally and environmentally, the system is not working for them. Our health and economic outcomes are poorer than those of our inland neighbours. Our environment is battling the challenges of climate change, coastal erosion and the sewage dumping scandal. But, despite that, the Government do not seem to think that we are worthy of proper representation in the form of a dedicated coastal communities Minister.

I turn now to the health challenges faced by our coastal communities. In 2021, Professor Sir Chris Whitty published a landmark report into the health outcomes in seaside towns and coastal communities. What he uncovered was shocking. We have higher rates of poor health and disease. The rates of cardiovascular diseases and cancer are higher, and those diagnosed with these diseases have poorer outcomes. They also suffer with them for longer.

Data shows that, on average, residents in Hull live more than 25% of their lives in poor health—around a quarter more than the national average. That results in a lower quality of life and wellbeing, a greater reliance on the health service, and shorter lives overall. The work of Hull’s public health department, under the leadership of Mike Ross and the Liberal Democrat-led council there, to tackle these challenging statistics is commendable, but coastal health inequalities need to receive more direct Government attention.

The disparities in life expectancy that were found are particularly shocking. I want to take Members on a brief tour of my Norfolk neighbours to outline this point for them. To the east of my constituency is Great Yarmouth, and to the south is Broadland. These areas are very nearby, they share similar amenities in many situations, and they have shared frustrations with the A47. However, a baby born in Great Yarmouth has a life expectancy four years shorter than that of one born just over the border in Broadland. Both these babies would be proud Norfolk residents, both live within touching distance of our Broads national park, both may even grow up sitting in adjacent seats at Carrow Road football ground, but the challenges that we face in coastal towns and communities means that there would be a disparity in their health, in their wellbeing and even in how long they live. For communities so nearby, so similar, this cannot be seen as an acceptable status quo. Our coastal communities deserve to live longer, better, healthier lives than they do now.

North Norfolk faces its own coastal health challenges. We have lost the Blakeney surgery, which served many coastal villages with otherwise poor transport links. Benjamin Court reablement centre has been closed down—for now—removing a vital asset that allowed local people to recover outside of hospital and nearer their families. Cromer hospital also needs the support and funding to provide more services closer to our coastal communities, preventing them from having to travel to Norwich for vital healthcare.

Professor Whitty points out that coastal communities share many more of these challenges with each other than with their inland neighbours. It was clear to him that action needed to be taken. We all listened to him when he was on our TV screens during the pandemic, and I hope that the Government will take his advice just as seriously now.

Our coastal communities are major economic drivers. We have a thriving tourism industry, which contributed £17 billion a year to our economy before the pandemic struck. It supports hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country. Our hospitality industry plays host to talented hoteliers, chefs, publicans, chip shop owners and many more. A visit to the Blakeney hotel, enjoying lobster and crab at Rocky Bottoms in West Runton, a pint at the Hill House in Happisburgh, or some dessert at Crumble Crib in Sheringham, are all excellent ideas for anyone taking a trip to our part of the world. Tourists have been doing this for centuries. Jane Austen sang the praises of Cromer in my constituency in “Emma”, describing it as

“the best of all the sea-bathing places”,

although I must say that the whole of North Norfolk qualifies for that level of praise.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

My constituency could not be further from the sea. However, I have spent many happy holidays in Cromer and Sheringham, and I am delighted that he has been returned to the House as the representative of those wonderful communities. Will he tell me how wonderful Cromer, Sheringham and the North Norfolk coast are? I prefer to swim in the sea in Sheringham rather than Cromer—does he agree?

[Steff Aquarone]

I make absolutely no comment on the latter question, but I welcome the hon. Member’s contribution—no advance sight was given of my speech. Her presence here serves to remind us all that it is not just MPs representing coastal communities who have a stake in their prosperity. I thank her for her almost perfectly timed words.

In more recent times we had the 2024 pier of the year in Cromer. The excellent North Cottage in Cromer, run by Andrea and Jerry, was recently awarded self-catering accommodation of the year at the Suffolk and Norfolk tourism awards. Cromer also plays host to a Banksy artwork from his 2021 tour of the east coast. The artwork, of a queue of hermit crabs looking on at empty shells, highlights one of our greatest challenges in coastal communities: second homes and the wider housing crisis.

In North Norfolk we have been plagued by huge numbers of second homes and empty homes. Outside the City of London, we have the highest number of empty or infrequently used homes in all of England. These properties are carving the core out of many small and historical communities, and in too many cases contribute very little back. Our poorest are sitting on ever growing waiting lists, while the rich treat our coastal villages as a setting for a Jane Austen-era summer jaunt, leaving them to suffer for the rest of the year.

In Wells-next-the-Sea, 40% of the town is second homes and holiday lets. In some parts, only one in 10 homes is someone’s main residence. I am delighted that, after years of lobbying, we are able to levy a 100% council tax increase on those second homes. That will bring in £1.7 million for the district council, allowing it to support more affordable housing and provide homelessness services.

Affordable Rural Housing

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Olivia Bailey]

I am delighted that the hon. Member has had an opportunity to congratulate her council, and I thank her for her intervention.

With a lack of supply come skyrocketing house prices. In the five years to 2022, house prices in the countryside increased at close to twice the rate of those in urban areas. We need only look at the nine houses currently for sale in Upper Basildon in my constituency: four are on the market for more than £1.25 million and only one at under half a million pounds. Across the villages in my constituency, there are very few properties available for private rent, and the small number that are available are simply unaffordable for many.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Twigg. In North Warwickshire, private rents grew to an average of £898 in January this year—an increase of 11% from the previous year. Young people are prevented from starting their careers in North Warwickshire because those rent increases are unaffordable, and many of my young constituents are having to move away because of the lack of affordable housing. Does my hon. Friend agree that increased rental costs and a lack of social housing in rural areas prevent local economic growth and pose insurmountable challenges for young families in our rural areas?

[Olivia Bailey]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. Simply put, these costs price people out of the community. One constituent in Bradfield shared her story with me. Her daughter would love to be able to stay in the village that she grew up in, but there are no affordable houses that are the right size for her young family. Eventually, she is likely to have to move away—a story repeated across my constituency.

Without affordable housing, schools close because there are not enough children to fill a class; pubs shut their doors because there are not enough punters to buy pints; and services for the elderly stop operating because there is nobody to volunteer. We simply cannot have a community without people, and those people need affordable homes.

I am delighted that the Government are committed to building the housing we need and to boosting home ownership, providing over £5 billion total housing investment in 2025-26 and a £500 million top-up to the affordable homes programme, and building an ambitious 1.5 million homes with the infrastructure that they need. I am also pleased that the Government are paying particular attention to housing in rural communities, giving local authorities flexible but ambitious targets for affordable housing development, recognising the value of rural exception sites and community-led development, and committing to look at how national policy can promote affordable rural housing.

Coalfield Communities

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for arranging this debate. We share an office so I know how important this issue is to him and how frequently he speaks about the need for regeneration in coalfield communities—that is, when he is not arguing with my staff about how old he looks. [Laughter.]

Newdigate, Keresley, Baddesley, Birch Coppice and Daw Mill collieries provided jobs for many in my community until they closed. I am proud to have grown up and lived in a coalfield community that retains many reminders of its mining history. For many years I played tennis at the Grove in Atherstone, which was a former miners’ welfare club. I have also walked through the Miners’ Welfare Park in Bedworth and taken part in the weekly parkrun.

My grandfather was a miner and like many other mineworkers in the constituency, he lived in Dordon, which started off as just a row of houses until Birch Coppice pit opened. Coal mines brought opportunity to countless people, and many of my constituents worked hard underground in dangerous conditions throughout their lives. It was therefore crucial they got the pension they were entitled to. Dealing with the injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme means that 1,043 former mineworkers in my constituency now have the pensions they deserve. We must do the same for those members of the BCSSS, such as the 93-year-old former miner who called my office today.

Like many other coalfield communities, my constituency is still suffering from deprivation that was intensified by the mines closing. The “State of the Coalfields” report reveals that there are substantially fewer jobs in former coalfields than in most other parts of the country. Unfortunately, that is true in my constituency too, with only 63 jobs per 100 residents of working age. The problems that causes cannot be overstated. One in 16 people are in bad or very bad health, one in five are economically inactive due to long-term sickness and one in four have no qualifications.

By working with local businesses and schools, I am determined to break that cycle and to ensure that people in my area have local employment opportunities and leave school with qualifications that allow them to take up those opportunities. Otherwise, my constituency will continue to follow the same pattern that many other coalfield communities face, where people must leave the constituency for work and our towns and high streets suffer as a result. I am therefore here today to urge the Government to take further action to tackle the disadvantages and worklessness faced by coalfield communities, and to ensure that we hold ourselves to our promise to deliver the opportunities that our young people desperately need.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I am sure that all those former Members of Parliament, and, indeed, some of their Labour predecessors, would also be happy to answer for the work they did, some of which was successful and some of which was not, to bring new jobs, opportunities and educational chances to those communities. There are many things we can debate that have brought benefits to those communities. If we examine the statistics in the Library briefing on the impact and legacy in different coalfields around the UK, we see quite a different picture. There are some places where those interventions—based on the statistics—appear to have been effective because there are few, if any, super output areas listed that remain affected by those issues of poverty and ill health today, and there are other areas that have struggled to move on. We all know and understand why that is in some places. If the economy of an area has long been based on mining and natural resource, and there is no other direct employment opportunity there, something different needs to be found, and many Members have referred to the impact of that. I have touched on infra- structure as one element.

[Rachel Taylor]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[David Simmonds]

I will, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Rachel Taylor]

An observation I have made as I have listened to the hon. Gentleman is that not one single Member of his party stood up for the thousands of pensioners who were not given the justice they deserve in the mineworkers pension scheme or the BCSSS. His party claims to stand up for pensioners, and yet it did nothing and said nothing for those mining pensioners who deserved a better deal.

[David Simmonds]

If the hon. Lady refers to Hansard for debates on these matters in previous Parliaments, she will find those points being raised by Members from across the House—rightly so—with a view to moving the debate on to the decisions that have been made today.

The Clapham review of the effectiveness of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust was a key opportunity to consider the role that local government in particular plays in the regeneration of our coalfields. Clearly, that challenge exists at a number of levels. The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) referenced the large number of spoil heaps—some of which I can see from the garden of my parents’ house. A number of local authorities—and Governments, through local authorities —have sought to address that through planting and remediation to stabilise their spoil tips, for example, but there is still a job to do. As the years go by and the industries that produce those spoil tips become historical, we know that we must effectively address the risks that they continue to pose.

To conclude my remarks, I turn to the importance of learning from the work that the Coalfields Regeneration Trust undertook and from the points that many Members of all parties have made in debates about these issues over many years. We know that we are about to embark on a process. The UK has made progress in the decarbonisation of our economy since the early 1990s, when, as a leading nation, we began the major shift away from coal. In the 1950s, coal produced most of our energy; today, it contributes to none—our last coal-fired power station recently closed.

The Trades Union Congress recently passed a motion highlighting that 30,000 jobs were at risk in the oil and gas industry. We talk about the just transition—Labour Members are, in my view, justified in raising the problems that process has created—but we must lay the groundwork for it. I remember interventions during the miners’ strike, such as the distribution at my school of the EEC butter mountain. That is not an example of an effective economic intervention to address the needs of people in difficulty. If we are to have a just transition away from fossil fuels in the future, we must learn from the past mistakes of all Governments in respect of coalfields, and incorporate the lessons into effective policy for a better future for all affected communities.

English Devolution and Local Government

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

Again, we are working with local areas to deliver devolution. This is about pushing power down to local areas and about reorganisation, and we are working with local authorities to deliver for their local area. I have been clear on the terms to which there was a 12-month delay to those elections to facilitate reorganisation and devolution in those areas. This is not a new phenomenon; it happened under the previous Government. We are turbocharging devolution so that we can deliver for local areas.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend. I also draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In North Warwickshire and Bedworth, my constituents can see the benefits of devolution just over the boundary in the West Midlands combined authority, and I am sure that they want to see those benefits for themselves. I ask her why Conservative-run Warwickshire county council asked to have their elections postponed. Was it because they wanted to avoid public scrutiny of their appalling record on SEND education, on fixing our rural roads and on rural transport? Does she agree that it is better that districts and counties work together to come up with the best solution for residents on devolution, and will she set out the timetable for the second stage of that devolution, so that I can tell my constituents when they can feel the benefits of investment, growth and better transport?

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have set out the routes to redress that are already available and our intention to switch on the measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act, but I am more than happy to sit down and have a conversation with my hon. Friend about what more protection leaseholders in this space require.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

17. What steps her Department is taking to allocate local growth funding according to need.

[Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)]

18. What steps her Department is taking to allocate local growth funding according to need.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)]

We are intent on moving towards allocated, multi-year funding settlements targeted at need. We will set out this refreshed vision for local growth funding in the multi-year spending review, working with local leaders to drive growth in the areas that need it most, and ending the plethora of competitive pots.

[Rachel Taylor]

I am very pleased to hear the Minister’s reply. The last Government wasted local authorities’ time and money by making them bid for handouts from central Government. In North Warwickshire, so much time was spent preparing numerous bids for the new swimming pool and leisure centre that our community desperately needed, only for vital funds to go to places without such high levels of need. Under this Labour Government, will the Minister ensure that local authorities receive the fair funding they require to deliver the local services they know their communities need?

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the harm done by that “beauty parade” funding model, which was inefficient and created so much disappointment. What follows will be much better.