Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs

Richard Holden Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). I thank him for his full tribute to his predecessor, Guy Opperman, who was loved on both sides of the House.

Very early in my political career, in 1999, when I was first elected as a councillor, my dad told me that nothing in politics is quite as vexed as the politics of the southern area planning committee of Test Valley borough council. He was right, but I reassure the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who is responding to this debate, that the council has already modernised its planning committee. It has already taken great strides and, until the nitrate issue in the Solent hit us, it was one of the councils delivering the highest number of houses in the country, but it has faced challenges. I welcome the announcement on compulsory purchase orders and the changes that might come, but we need detail. I seek reassurance that the detail will come and will give real powers to local authorities, because Test Valley borough council has faced a challenge since 1982, when the Romsey brewery started its last brew. I was at school at the local primary school and I remember the smell well.

That brewery site has an extant planning permission that has not been built out in the last 40 years. It is a phenomenal shame to the town that every time the local council has tried to put place in a successful compulsory purchase order, the developer has simply started work on one more unit of accommodation to delay that from happening. Given the part of the country that you are from, Mr Deputy Speaker, you may be familiar with Stanborough Developments, the company that brings that curse to Romsey. Its actions mean that we have a brownfield site in the middle of the town, with extant planning permission for a project that has never been finished, and that could be providing homes for local people.

I vividly remember a Westminster Hall debate on this subject back in 2019, brought forward by my former right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, the great Anne Milton. That was the first occasion on which I had the dubious honour of trying to both chair and speak in a debate. Alex Cunningham, the former Member for Stockton North, said that the Labour party would bring forward “penalties” for this sort of developer. I appreciate that it will require retrospective legislation, but I seek reassurance that the Labour Government will make good on the promises made by Mr Cunningham about extant planning permissions, and that we will see developers like Stanborough suitably punished.

I reassure colleagues that I will not bang on about green belt this afternoon, for the good reason that there is no green belt in Hampshire, save for a tiny corner in the very south-west, designed, as you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, to prevent the spread of the urban conurbation of Bournemouth, which is in an entirely different county. We would love some green belt, but we simply do not have any. What we do have is an area that is under extreme water stress.

We cannot take our foot off the brakes on building without also considering where the drinking water will come from. The Abbotswood development in my constituency frequently has to have water delivered by tankers because Southern Water repeatedly fails in its duty to provide water. It is not exclusively to blame, because although water companies can be consulted on development, they have no right to say no to it. They have no ability to say, “We simply cannot deliver water to this development.” In areas like the Solent, the situation will become increasingly challenging. I saw in the pages of the Daily Mail that the expectation is that southern Hampshire will take an enormous amount of development under this Government’s plans. It cannot do that if those homes cannot have a water supply.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend talks about the need for proper infrastructure alongside developments. In my Basildon and Billericay constituency, around Burstead, Billericay and Laindon, there is a lot of concern about huge infrastructure going in without local consent. Do her constituents face that issue as well?

[Caroline Nokes]

Absolutely. Infrastructure is key to making new developments work, but we need to take communities along with us, and to work hand in hand with them.

In the debate, we have heard about villages up and down the country; they are the heart of our rural communities. Many villages in Romsey and Southampton North have worked incredibly hard to get their neighbourhood development plans in place, and held local referendums to confirm them, but now they are scared that that work will go to waste. Yet again, I seek reassurance from the Minister that that work will be upheld and cherished, because it will give us the scale and type of communities that we wish to see. When local people have been involved in the process, the Government should not turn around and tell them that their views are now irrelevant, and that a development will be imposed on them anyway.

In the minute I have left, I wish to make a couple of further points. Over the last 48 hours, a number of issues have popped into my inbox. First and foremost, there is still a problem with the quality of new builds. When houses are thrown up at speed, people are sometimes left with significant build quality problems. One gentleman emailed me yesterday saying that he had to spend £350,000—fortunately, he had insurance covering that amount—to rectify the developer’s problems. In my constituency, we have sometimes seen houses torn down because the build quality was not good enough. Let us ensure that we do not see a repeat of that.

While we are talking about new-build estates, can we solve the issue of estate management companies ripping off homeowners and not bringing estates up to the quality needed if the estate is to be adopted? [Interruption.] I can see that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), is taking that on her shoulders. She should believe me. I will be beating a path to her door, because there is much that still needs to be done to ensure that the housing that is delivered is of good enough quality for people to live in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I welcome the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), who gave a wonderful speech. It was interesting to hear about her constituency; I confess that I did not know much about it before, but I certainly know a lot about it now. It was generous of the hon. Lady to pay rightful compliments to her predecessor, Chris Clarkson, who is much missed on this side of the House.

A couple of weeks ago, the Labour party won a mandate for the manifesto that it put before the British electorate. We respect that; it was part of the British parliamentary system and we respect the peaceful transfer of power. However, I say gently to the Labour Government that it is concerning that the King’s Speech and subsequent comments from Ministers have rejected the notion that local communities should be at the heart of developments in their areas.

One particular issue affects my constituency of South Leicestershire: the proposed Hinckley national rail freight interchange. On 8 July, the new Chancellor stated that she would ask the Secretary of State for Transport, who will make the decision on the interchange, and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to

“prioritise decisions on infrastructure projects that have been sitting unresolved for far too long.”

She did not, of course, explain what she meant by “sitting unresolved for far too long”, but let me help the new Chancellor and Government. “Sitting unresolved for far too long” is perhaps an unfortunate euphemism; what should actually be said is that in our system of laws we respect and listen to local communities. We listen to stakeholder groups and neighbourhood groups. Of course, in most instances local authorities—elected councillors—are, in most planning instances, the ones whose remit it is to make these decisions.

On the issue of the Hinckley national rail freight interchange, I should say that South Leicestershire already has its fair share of developments. It has one of the largest housing developments in Leicestershire, with New Lubbesthorpe; and Magna Park, one of the largest logistics parks in Europe, is to be doubled in size. It has Bruntingthorpe aerodrome, which plays host to many industrial activities, and it has the prospect of a new village—Whetstone Gorse or Whetstone Pastures.

It is not nimbyism in South Leicestershire that has led to the objections to the Hinckley national rail freight interchange; it is the fact that there are five other rail freight interchanges within a radius of 30 miles of South Leicestershire. I am glad the new Deputy Prime Minster has taken a seat to listen to my speech about this matter, but it is important that the Labour Government listen not just to me and my constituents, but to Leicestershire county council, to Warwickshire county council and even to Labour-led Rugby council, all of which have raised issues with the planning process for this unwelcome proposal.

[Mr Holden]

Can my hon. Friend confirm that that decision is now with a Labour Minister to make at a national level, overriding those local concerns?

[Alberto Costa]

My hon. Friend is quite right: the decision now rests with the new Labour Government to make. I am afraid that Labour councillors and other Labour activists who might have opposed the Hinckley national rail freight interchange should look now to their party colleagues in government, who will be making this decision within a matter of a few weeks.

I urge the Government to listen to the people of South Leicestershire and the stakeholders I have mentioned. I urge them to listen to the people of Elmesthorpe, Sapcote, Sharnford, Aston Flamville and Stoney Stanton, and to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who himself has made some valuable comments against the proposed rail freight interchange. It is a deeply unwelcome proposal.

I want to offer a solution to the new Labour Government. Before they recommend this unwelcome development for approval, I suggest the relevant Minister meets me and the stakeholders, including Labour-run Rugby council, to discuss the proposal. They could perhaps look at drafting a national planning framework for the proper location of rail freight interchanges, rather than just riding roughshod over the views of the people of South Leicestershire, as a constituent of mine emailed me two hours ago to say he fears, and as I fear, the Labour Government will do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I begin by congratulating the Secretary of State and the ministerial team on their appointments and wishing them well. I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), who did a lot of the hard yards in opposition and missed out on ministerial roles this time.

I pay tribute to the excellent maiden speeches we have heard on both sides of the House today. We started with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who I was delighted to hear has significant rural areas in his constituency and has an interest in this sector. We heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who gave the House an informed tour of his constituency. We had a fantastic speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), who brings real practical and professional experience to rural affairs and rightly focused on the need to tailor policies to the needs of rural communities.

We heard from the new hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), who was very generous in his tribute to his much-respected predecessor. We had a brilliant speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), who highlighted the importance of the rural economy and water quality—what an asset she will be in the House. We also heard from the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who talked about farming as the beating heart of his constituency, while the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) spoke about the radicalism of a former figure from Middleton—I hope that will inform her relationship with the Government Whips Office moving forward.

We had two outstanding closing speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) spoke about the importance of infrastructure in the rural economy, and focused particularly on planning. We also witnessed the huge experience, which is respected across the House, that the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) brings as a surgeon. I know he will be an important voice in health debates, among others. I am delighted that all those new Members chose to make their maiden speeches on the issue of rural affairs in the King’s Speech.

Labour campaigned on a slogan of change, but they are offering only uncertainty to farming and fishing communities. It is no surprise that, just last night, the president of the National Farmers Union said that farmers are facing a “cliff edge” and are

“being kept up at night”

by the uncertainty. That uncertainty is not because the Labour Government have not had time to prepare their policies for farming and fishing; it is because the issue is not a priority for a Labour Government. That is why the Labour manifesto had just 87 words on farming and nothing at all on fishing. It is why this King’s Speech has nothing for the farming and fishing communities. It is why the Government have not even given any dates for when this uncertainty will end. We should be clear in this House that that is an active choice. It is a point that the Government have chosen to prioritise, in contrast to the prioritisation we were willing to make with the additional funding that we committed.

Is it not all the more ironic that just a few years ago, the now Prime Minister went to the NFU and admitted that farming and rural affairs had for too long been an afterthought for the Labour party and promised to change that? That is an early example of promised change that is not then delivered. We can see that uncertainty in the farming budget. The Government have made no commitment to what the budget will be, or whether they are continuing it or increasing it. We were willing to make decisions to prioritise £1 billion of additional funding over this Parliament. There is nothing from Labour on that, leaving farmers uncertain. Can the Secretary of State confirm what his budget will be? Does he even know? Has the Chancellor told him? Can he even tell the House when he might know? We do not even know when the spending review will be. He is probably as much in the dark as the rest of us.

What about the uncertainty on food security? We made commitments with the food security index, the annual farm to fork summit, the food security duty, the biggest ever grants payment, and the additional funding to deal with the wet weather that farmers had recently faced. What is the commitment from the Labour Government on food security? There is nothing in the King’s Speech about legislating for that. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether they intend to legislate and it was just an omission that they did not get around to, or is it something that he is now ruling out?

What about the uncertainty about just how much farmland will be lost as a result of this Government? We know what their 2030 environmental targets are—to triple solar, to increase onshore wind and to increase the pylons connecting to offshore wind—so can the Secretary of State confirm to the House that he will publish before the summer recess an impact assessment on how much farmland will be lost as a result of delivering his 2030 environmental targets? Does he even know?

[Mr Holden]

One cornerstone of the Conservative manifesto was for an underground-first approach to new electricity pylons. That is an important matter for my constituents in Basildon and Billericay. Will my right hon. Friend also highlight to the Government exactly how important that is and try to seek an answer on what their proposals are in this space?

[Steve Barclay]

My right hon. Friend gets to the nub of the issue, because if a Government are promising change, they need to be able to say what the timelines are. They need to say what the budget is and what legislation they will pass to deliver that. On all those things, there is silence in this King’s Speech.

The Labour manifesto has lots of high-sounding things that are hard to disagree with. Labour wants more food security, and says that food security is national security, and we on the Opposition Benches agree. Labour says it wants to raise animal welfare, and we have done a huge amount to do so. That is fine. However, if the Government say they want to end the badger cull, when will they do that? There is nothing in the King’s Speech on that, so what are the timelines? Dairy farmers would like to know. Will the Secretary of State publish the analysis from the chief veterinary officer on what the impact of ending the cull would be on the trajectory? We know that the current approach has seen TB cases come down in England from 34,500 in 2018 to below 20,000. Certainly the advice that I had was that vaccinations would not be ready for some time. Will he publish the trajectory and tell us when the cull will end?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)]

It is a huge honour, on my first opportunity to speak from the Dispatch Box as the Secretary of State, to close today’s debate on His Majesty’s Gracious Speech. I welcome my predecessor, now the shadow Secretary of State, to his place and thank him for the way he has worked constructively with me. I look forward to that continuing, although I prefer it this way around.

It has been an honour to be present for maiden speeches from across the House. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to go through their excellent comments in much detail, but I would like to mention my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody), for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), for Hexham (Joe Morris), for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). Many of them represent rural constituencies, and they all showed what great assets they will be to this House and to the communities they represent.

I cannot respond to everyone who has spoken—I am sorry about that—but I will do my best to cover what I can in the limited time available. I will start with the subject of planning. This Government were elected on a mandate to get Britain building again. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, reforming the planning system is the key to unlocking our country’s economic growth. The existing planning system is too restrictive, slow and uncertain, which undermines investor confidence and means that the homes that we desperately need do not get built. We will overhaul the planning system to tackle the chronic shortage of homes and power up the economy.

Alongside that, we were elected on a platform to deliver for nature, and will take urgent action to meet the Environment Act targets that the previous Government missed. We will protect, create and improve spaces that increase climate resilience and promote nature’s recovery on land and at sea, recognising that ensuring a positive outcome for nature is fundamental to unlocking the housing and infrastructure that this country so urgently needs.

We must take tough action to tackle the housing emergency and build the 1.5 million homes that we need over this Parliament, but we remain committed to preserving the green belt. Our brownfield-first approach means that that authorities should prioritise brownfield sites. However, brownfield development alone will not be enough, so we will also transform lower-quality grey belt land, such as wasteland or old car parks, into housing, including affordable homes for those most in need.

[Mr Holden]

rose—