Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I am delighted to speak to this monumental piece of legislation, which is so necessary and so important. I cannot help but notice that many times in the debate a false dichotomy has been presented of a choice between nature and biodiversity net gain on the one hand and planning, infrastructure, housing and development on the other. As someone who comes from the most beautiful constituency and county in England—[Interruption.] You all know it’s true. I stress that that natural beauty is vital, but that the people of North Northumberland also want more development.

Too often the debate has been about nature versus development. I note, for example, that amendment 151 assumes that development corporations will come into conflict with the need to tackle climate change. I believe that the Bill will be good for our natural world in so far as it unlocks the “little and often” developments that will help Northumbrians to revitalise their rural communities and protect natural landscapes. As the MP for a constituency with a natural landscape, including a dozen sites of special scientific interest and half a national park, I cannot help but be awed by that beauty.

As amendment 151 acknowledges, our natural world faces an uncertain future, with climate change and other pressures. Organisations such as the Northumberland National Park Authority and the Northumberland Wildlife Trust do excellent work in stewarding Northumberland’s unique ecological inheritance. I encourage the Government to continue having a genuine dialogue with environmental groups as the Bill progresses and is implemented in due course. Our language and approach must honour our commitment to environmental stewardship, and we need to thread the needle of sustainable development together.

Perhaps the greatest threat to the ecological treasure trove that is my constituency is more straightforward: dwindling rural communities and the challenges that the next generation face in building a future for themselves in rural Britain. North Northumberland, for example, is ageing. Only 16% of its residents are children, while 30% are over 65—10% more than the national average.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

To bring the hon. Member back to the compulsory purchase measures in part 5 of the Bill, which we are discussing today, many residents along the A1 corridor have been severely impacted by the Government’s decision not to continue the development of the A1. Will he consider supporting our new clause 42, which would increase the occupier’s loss payment from 2.4% to 7.5%? That would help many of his constituents along the A1 corridor. With the new clause in place, they would receive bigger payments for compulsory purchase orders along the A1 corridor.

[David Smith]

All I can say is simply that I have been working with constituents who have been affected by the compulsory purchase orders, and I will continue to do so. The hon. Gentleman and I may disagree about whether that project should ever have gone ahead under the previous Government.

On rural development, where are the future rangers, conservationists and gamekeepers? Where is the next generation of farm hands to deliver environmental land management schemes?

--- Later in debate ---

New clause 128 would have required the Secretary of State to establish a community benefit scheme in relation to compulsory purchase, so that the equivalent of 20% of the sum for which a compulsory purchase is made would be paid into a community benefit fund. I am conscious of time, so will not detain the House for much longer. I know that there will not be a vote on my new clause tonight, but if there is any way in which the Government could improve the support provided to communities affected by these sorts of developments through a community benefit scheme, the Bill would be significantly improved.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about choices, but this is also about fairness. The compulsory purchase powers contained in part 5 of the Bill disregard any hope value over and above agricultural value, which is not fair at all for those landowners who are having their land compulsorily acquired. If my hon. Friend’s new clause were accepted, the 20% to which he refers would be 20% of the agricultural value rather than the market value, as the Government have stipulated, so less money would be going into the benefit scheme. Would it not be better if the Government were advocating market value for compulsory purchase, rather than disregarding it in favour of agricultural value?

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I agree with him. I am sure he will speak to those points further when he contributes later. We should be protecting the market value and not doing anything to interfere with the market—not least because if my new clause were accepted, it would improve the community benefit fund, which in turn would benefit the local residents who are directly affected by these types of projects. If the Bill could be improved in this way, it would be better for the people who live in rural communities, such as those in the Scottish Borders.

As we saw again yesterday, this UK Labour Government have U-turned a lot over the past few months. I hope they will take this opportunity to listen to right hon. and hon. Members from across the House so that we can protect our beautiful environment, protect nature, and do better for rural communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Robbie Moore]

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

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

[Wendy Morton]

I share my hon. Friend’s frustrations with Natural England. Does he agree that it is a bit strange that we have a Government who say they want to reduce the number of quangos, but who have reduced it by one and introduced 27? In this Bill, they are giving more powers to an unelected quango, which risks doing further untold damage to our green fields, our open spaces and our farmland.

[Robbie Moore]

That is exactly why I am so frustrated by the intent of the Government’s Bill. It gives Natural England more compulsory purchase powers, more funds through environmental delivery plans, and an ability to scrutinise and, indeed, to dictate to landowners how their land or farm may be utilised. That is wrong, especially when, as I say, a farmer farming in my constituency of Keighley could be subject to a CPO as a result of a development elsewhere in the country.

The Government and I absolutely disagree on the right to use CPO, and I really struggle with the expansion of section 14A orders, which will allow an acquiring authority to discount the hope value of a seized property. Property rights matter, because they are the foundation of our society. If the state chooses to use its powers to confiscate the property of a law-abiding person, stipulates how that land must be used, and then tells the landowner how much they are entitled to receive, that is wrong—in my view, it is an absolute theft of private property. So-called hope value is not a capitalist trick, a racket or unfair; it is simply the true market value of the property. That is why I fundamentally disagree with the purpose of the Bill, which entails the Government’s stipulating that hope value must be disregarded over and above the agricultural value that is to be paid. It should not be the law that decides the value of something; it should be down to negotiation and the market.

That brings me to fairness. Although I admire the Government’s aspiration to increase development, the Bill is fundamentally flawed on the issue of fairness, because it takes away the property rights of landowners—the very landowners who will have been encouraged by their local authorities to put forward their land to be zoned as part of a local plan, and encouraged through a service level agreement process to have their land zoned for housing, employment or whatever it may be. As a result of this piece of legislation, the local authority, or indeed Natural England, will have the ability to compulsorily acquire the land not at market value, but at agricultural value.

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

The powers to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and which his amendment seeks to remove— I will come on to speak about it in more detail—were set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he voted for that Act? He voted for these powers.

[Robbie Moore]

But the Government are going way beyond that and giving more powers to local authorities and, indeed, Natural England. If the Minister has gone out and spoken to anyone in the agricultural world, he will realise that trust in Natural England is shot, yet the Government are giving it more powers to compulsorily acquire land and then effectively dictate to our farmers and landowners how their land is to be managed. I am not in favour of that. That is why I urge the Government to consider my new clause 127 and amendment 153. It is frustrating that, despite this issue being raised in Committee, the Government have not given it due consideration, and I therefore urge them to rethink their position.

Section 14A orders represent an attempt to run roughshod over our landowners. We can debate the merits of that approach, but we must start by calling it out for what it is. This Bill extends the section 14A powers to parish councils and Natural England, and applies the cut valuation of occupier’s loss, which is a separate payment meant to reflect the disruption to the occupier, not the loss of an asset. That is exactly why I wholeheartedly support Opposition new clause 42, which would increase the occupier’s loss payment from 2.5% to 7.5% of what is paid for the land. It adds to my frustration that the valuation will be based on the agricultural value, not the market value.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that one of the flaws of the Bill, which his amendments attempt to address, is that it overreaches not only in attacking property rights in this country and interfering with the market, but in taking away key aspects of democratic accountability? That is why so many of our constituents across the United Kingdom are so concerned about what the Bill attempts to do.

[Robbie Moore]

That is exactly why I urge the Government, as I have throughout the passage of the Bill—I know this point was also raised in Committee—to realise the huge level of disenfranchisement it represents for landowners. This Bill is not introducing fairness into the system, because it does not enable the state to pay the market value that should be attributed to anything that is compulsorily acquired. That is why I do not support the Bill, and I will be proud to vote against it on Third Reading.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way during his speech against all the things he voted for under the last Government, but I am confused by Opposition Members. Is there no limit to the amount of taxpayers’ money they would give to landowners, rather than to councils so that they can build social housing, roads and the other public facilities we need?

[Robbie Moore]

Here we have the Liberal Democrats setting out their position, and it is a good that they are doing so because I fundamentally believe that if a farmer owns land and the state seizes control of it through compulsory purchase powers, it is absolutely right that that farmer should be rewarded with the market value, not the agricultural value. I know the Liberal Democrats have set out their position that they fully support just agricultural value being paid, not what the land is really worth at market value, and I hope all farmers across the country understand the Liberal Democrat position, which is to disregard that hope value.

I want to know whether the Government have undertaken an impact assessment on the Valuation Office Agency. As we go through the compulsory purchase process, there will be many a challenge—quite rightly—by land agents or valuers acting on behalf of those many landowners to understand the true value of their land. I fear that the Valuation Office Agency will not be able to cope with the level of scrutiny there will rightly be of the Government’s position.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend has set out some of the challenges the Bill presents for the farming community. Part 5 provides authorities with significant compulsory purchase powers, but with no definition or limits whatsoever. For our farming community, this all comes on top of the changes to agricultural property relief, business property relief and inheritance tax, and the increased national insurance for employers. What is it about the farming community that this Government do not like?

[Robbie Moore]

The farming community faces so much uncertainty not only as a result of the Bill, but because of all the additional pressures, whether it is the family farm tax or the increases in overheads, that are hitting cash flow this year.

That is why my new clause 127 and amendment 153 —and, indeed, Opposition new clause 42—are so important. It is frustrating that the Government are just throwing out these amendments and are not willing to consider them, because they have been put forward in the best interests of our farming community and our landowners, so that the state does not have the control that this Government are willing to give it. I urge the Government to consider these very practical, sensible amendments to the Bill.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am happy to speak today in support of amendment 151, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). Our planning system needs reform, but the approach the Government are taking in the Bill is sadly all wrong and desperately needs to be amended.

Amendment 151 would compel the Secretary of State to produce a report that addresses a key principle of my concern with the current house building regime, which is good design. I am pleased that in drafting clause 93, the Government have recognised that good design goes hand in hand with sustainable development, but we need to see evidence that the houses we are getting are actually being designed and built better if we are to be confident that we are not just getting more of the same from the big developers.

No one has ever told me that they want more energy-inefficient chocolate box homes, buried deep in rabbit warren estates and built to maximise developer profit. What we see too often in North Norfolk is homes that people do not like and cannot afford, but which they must queue up to buy because there is no other option. I was horrified recently to find that developers had put covenants on an entire estate to ban branded vehicles from parking on private driveways—they might as well have marketed those homes as for rich second home owners only. That is not how we want to design our communities of the future.

The Government are already taking steps towards good design by accepting the provisions of the sunshine Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), which mandates solar panels on new builds. It can sometimes seem that politicians ignore good ideas if they come from Opposition parties, so I am particularly pleased that the Government have come to share the Liberal Democrats’ view that having solar panels on new builds is just common sense.

It is not just about the homes themselves; good design is also about how and where we build new houses. People are growing tired, rightly, of estates that are designed around car use, rather than putting public transport or walking and cycling at the heart of design. We can encourage more people to walk or use public transport if we design developments in a way that makes it easy and attractive to do just that. When we use scheme design to encourage walking and cycling rather than car use, access to public transport rather than car parks, and routes that take people to town centres rather than bypasses, we see the benefits right across society: in reduced pressure on health services, in better natural environments and in more cohesive, resilient communities.

Good design will also support the second key aim that amendment 151 seeks to have the Government report on, which is tackling the climate emergency. It is simple: a development that means fewer fossil fuel-powered cars are required to be on the roads will be better for the planet than one that does not.

I do not think that people in North Norfolk are unreasonable in asking for developments to be affordable to buy or rent and sustainable and low cost to heat and power, and to feel connected to communities and not a burden on them. My constituents want to end the housing crisis, but they do not want it done through unaccountable, top-down targets. They want a design-led approach to planning and infrastructure development. I hope the Government hear our proposals to achieve that and support them today.