Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will take this one last intervention because these are not matters relating to the Bill, and then I want to move on.

[Sir Roger Gale]

This relates directly to the Bill. Not only does it relate directly to the Bill, but there are dozens of amendments all relating to this one single issue. The fact of the matter is that, under the proposals as they stand, we will lose vast swathes of prime agricultural land because planning consent will effectively be driven straight through. That is simply not satisfactory.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard the point I just made. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, less than 1% of agricultural land will be turned over to solar farm use. Some of the hyperbole that has been associated with the issue over recent months is unwarranted. I say directly to him, because I want to move on and speak to the Bill, that these are matters that relate to the national planning policy framework, rather than to any proposals in this piece of legislation. I am more than happy to sit down with him and talk about them outside of the context of this debate, but I do want to make some progress.

We made a number of improvements to the Bill in Committee to ensure that it operates as intended and that its expected benefits are fully realised. In many cases, the changes were a direct result of constructive feedback from key stakeholders and parliamentarians. The result is the stronger and more impactful Bill before us. I will briefly outline the more substantive changes made to the Bill in Committee, including in relation to the nationally significant infrastructure projects, statutory consultee funding and the nature restoration fund, before turning to further amendments that the Government tabled last week.

Disadvantaged Communities

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Colleagues can look around the room and see how many people are seeking to participate in this debate. I am giving you warning that after the opening speech, there will be a time limit of two minutes. I am sorry that it is so short, but we have the alternative of not accommodating everybody, and Mr Speaker likes everybody to be accommodated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Brackenridge]

I will.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady is quite entitled to give way, but where Members choose to intervene, it will affect my judgment on where in the batting order they are called.

[Luke Akehurst]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree that we should pay tribute to the work of the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods, led by Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top? Based on its detailed statistical research, the commission has identified 613 of the most left-behind neighbourhoods around the country—one of which is South Stanley in my constituency—where funding is essential if we are to achieve the Government’s five missions. If investment is not made in those neighbourhoods, we can never achieve our national targets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. If hon. Members intervene, injury time is added, which means that not all Members will get called. If you look at the clock and the number of Members who want to intervene, you can do the sums for yourselves. It is up to you whether everybody gets called or not. If we stick to two minutes, we should be able to get everybody in. I hope that is clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jodie Gosling]

I thank my hon. Friend for her valuable intervention, and I absolutely agree. One challenge is under-skilled children who have left school without the right qualifications. As a result, they experience a lag in getting qualified and being able to access opportunities.

In one of my wards, Chilvers Coton, over 65% of households—two out of three—live with one marker of deprivation. The majority of them are defined as living in deep poverty and destitution, and they are not able to meet basic needs. That is not my understanding of the word “eradicate”, and it appears that the strategy that was laid out over a decade ago actually perpetuated significant poverty, rather than eradicating it.

Poverty eats into every corner of people’s lives. It drains people and grinds them down, and it makes every aspect of life harder. The physiological and psychological impacts are profound. As poverty has soared, we have seen healthy life expectancy fall by over four years, with cardiopulmonary conditions, diabetes and preventable death statistics among those affected by poverty well above the national average. Poverty strips people of their dignity and their power to shape their lives and livelihoods and those of the people they love.

Living in poverty is a full-time job, as people juggle making sure that they can pay their debts, get their kids out, do the daily shopping—which involves having to look for the yellow stickers in the aisles—and deal with the chaos of managing arrears, evictions and sleepless nights, as they worry about how to just get through tomorrow. Despite that, the vast majority of Nuneaton households in poverty still work, with over 60% of affected households having at least one working adult.

Poverty is also wasteful. It is expensive; it costs more to live in poverty because people cannot access cheaper supermarkets and might not have the data to order online—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I call David Chadwick.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I notice that the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) is standing. Under the rules, I am afraid we are not allowed to call Members who were not here at the start of the debate. That is not a criticism; I fully understand that Members quite frequently have good reason for coming in late. Now the hon. Member has been here for long enough, I am more than prepared to allow him to intervene on another Member, should he choose to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for securing this debate. I will focus specifically on the urgent need for more social housing and on the duty of both national and local government to ensure that there are safe, decent homes for vulnerable people in deprived communities, such as those in Cann Hall and Cathall in my constituency.

Far too many of my constituents live in unsafe, overcrowded and unsuitable conditions. One family—a father, his wife, their four children and a baby on the way—are stuck in a one-bedroom flat riddled with mould. The children sleep on the floor. The family have been bidding for a home for years, but in Waltham Forest the wait for suitable housing can stretch for over 14 years.

A single mother in my constituency, who is caring for neurodivergent children, lives in a flat with no safety locks on the windows or the front door. Her youngest once tried to climb out of the window and was hospitalised. The mother is now suffering with exhaustion; the stress is relentless. Another family, raising a disabled child, are dealing with persistent mould, noise and antisocial behaviour in temporary accommodation. There is no outdoor space, no stability and no long-term solution.

These are not isolated cases; they are the result of a chronic failure to build and maintain decent housing, especially for those who need it most. I welcome the Government’s commitment to raising standards through the Renters’ Rights Bill and the decent homes standard, but without proper funding our councils cannot meet their statutory duties. Outdated funding formulas fail to reflect multiple occupancy or the real population pressures in outer London.

We all want to see the biggest expansion of social and affordable housing in a generation, so let us start with communities such as Avenue Road and Montague Road in Waltham Forest, where 465 new social homes have been promised and not yet delivered. The upcoming spending review must prioritise housing as critical national infrastructure. Behind the statistics are real people and real families who have been failed by a decade of inaction.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Congratulations. As a result of everyone’s self-discipline, we have accommodated 19 Members and an additional eight interventions. That must be something of a record. It also means that the Front Benchers now have adequate time to respond properly to the debate. Well done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Welsh]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. No.

[David Simmonds]

I note your look, Sir Roger.

Much was made in last year’s Budget of a supposed £22 billion funding gap, which was swiftly debunked by those more expert in that field than I am. That is about 1.6% of total spending by the British Government; it is a very small amount in the national figures. I am sure Government Members will have noted that the Government borrowed £20 billion last month alone, to fund the amount by which their spending is exceeding their capacity to raise money. That is £20 billion added to debt by this Government in a single month. I am sure Members will accept, having seen the impact that debt has in local communities, that that is not taking our country in a positive direction.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

We are working with local authorities, and the Bill includes provision for strategic authorities so that we can look at where we have sites and ensure that people are accommodated. It is for local authorities to be able to do that.

The Bill starts with a quicker and more certain system for big ticket infrastructure projects. It will slice through the bureaucracy and speed up transport projects. It will overhaul how Government decisions on major infrastructure projects can be challenged, so that meritless cases will have one, rather than three, attempts at a legal challenge, stopping cases from being dragged endlessly and needlessly through the courts.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Somewhere knocking around in the system is a Government press release that says that the National Grid Sea Link project is being obstructed by too many objections. The reason that it is being objected to is that the National Grid wants to build a 90-foot-high converter station the size of five football pitches on the Minster marshes in Kent. We must have the right to object to that kind of project.

[Angela Rayner]

I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that there is not a loss of the right to object. In fact, we are strengthening and clarifying those processes as part of the Bill. I will say it again: there will be a quicker and more certain system for big ticket infrastructure projects. The Bill will slice through bureaucracy and speed up transport projects. What it will not do is allow meritless cases to have three attempts at a legal challenge. It will stop cases from being dragged endlessly and needlessly through the courts. It will begin to strip away the unnecessary consultation requirements that do nothing to improve applications and do not meaningfully engage communities, but slow down the delivery of infrastructure that will benefit communities in the future. It will create greater flexibility so that projects can go through a more appropriate and faster planning route.

English Devolution and Local Government

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Some of us have been around the local government reform circus on a number of occasions in the past, and I fear that the Secretary of State will find that this piecemeal approach will be disastrous. One of the oldest local government unions in the country, the Federation of Cinque Ports, may heave a sigh of relief, but I suspect that the district, city and county councils in Kent will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. We have one unitary authority—Medway—and two that we thought were going to be unitary authorities, which it now seems will not be unitary authorities, so how can the Secretary of State reassure me that we will not be left with a lot of lame duck local authorities for the foreseeable future?

[Angela Rayner]

First, the right hon. Gentleman cannot be old enough—surely not. I say to him gently that he also cannot have it both ways: he suggests that the reform is piecemeal, but his Front Benchers are suggesting that I am tearing down local democracy, which is just not true. Local areas are coming forward, and we are working with local councils and local areas. I have talked about the real-terms cash injection, which my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution will set out in detail later this afternoon, and about the collaborative way we want to work with local authorities. I do not see any lame duck local authorities out there; I see local authorities, of all political persuasions, delivering vital public services, that have felt absolutely pillared by the previous Government, and now we see a Government determined to change that.

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on his good fortune in securing a place in the ballot in order to introduce what is, without doubt, a very important Bill. I am, however, concerned about the scope of the Bill, and I will come to that in a moment, if I may—I do not propose to take very long. For many years, I have consistently opposed the installation of solar farms—of course, they are not farms at all—on agricultural land.

In east Kent, we are losing grade 1 agricultural land far too frequently, both to development and to be used for solar power generation. It is completely unnecessary. As I have said many times, both in this House and outside it, we have acres and acres of rooftops in public ownership, on public buildings—schools, hospitals and prisons—in addition to acres of car park space, which the French would be covering in solar panels. If we use all of that, I can see no need whatsoever to use for these purposes fine agricultural land that should be used for growing crops for feeding people. That is why I think that the scope of the Bill, good though it may be, does not go far enough. We must look, not just at new build, but at what exists and what can and should be done.

By the bye, I would go a stage further and say that we should not only be looking at solar panels, but at grey water systems. We waste gallons and gallons of water off the rooftops of this country, which of course cannot then soak into the land because we have covered it in tarmac, so it is not replenishing the aquifers. That water ought to be used for flushing lavatories and matters that do not require potable water. Again, I think there is a trick that may have been missed.

Quite clearly, what is going to happen is that the developers and the builders will scream like stuck pigs. For why? Let us take a development in Herne Bay in my constituency. I will not name the developer, because I would hate to upset Taylor Wimpey, but it has avoided installing electric vehicle charging points because there is a bit of wriggle room—the amount that it would add to the cost of the property—that allows it to get off the hook. I do not doubt that installing solar panels initially would add to the first purchase price of the property, which of course might eat into profit, and we would hate to see that. But this is essential. We have to do this, and it is long past time. I notice that the Bill gives 2026 as the start date; I can see no reason whatsoever why we should not start immediately and say that, from now on, every new build should be fitted with photovoltaic panels.

There is another issue, which is the design of the technology. We all know that retrofitted solar panels are pretty unattractive—hideous, to be blunt about it. It surprises me that, in this day and age, those developing this technology have not gone far enough and fast enough to develop attractive panels that are simply roofs like any other roof. It has got to be possible to develop a photovoltaic tile that could be used on listed buildings, but that has not happened.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

I just want to advise the right hon. Member that several products of the type he is referencing are available on the market at the moment.

[Sir Roger Gale]

If the hon. Gentleman can tell me of a photovoltaic tile that is acceptable to the people who are enforcing regulations relating to listed buildings, I would be delighted to hear it. That is what I was trying to come on to before I was interrupted.

Kent, a wonderful county, has very many grade II listed buildings, and at present, it is not permitted to use solar panels—or solar tiles, as I would like to see them—on those listed buildings. It is not even permitted on other buildings, outbuildings, cottages or whatever within the curtilage of a listed building. That rules out a considerable quantity of property that can and should accommodate solar panels.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

King’s College in Cambridge, one of the oldest and most prestigious heritage buildings, now has a fine array of solar panels that it managed to get through planning permission. Does the right hon. Member agree that what we need in planning terms is for material weight to be given to climate change, as well as conservation status? That is where the crux of the matter is. It would allow all those who are responsible for listed homes or who have homes in conservation areas to do energy efficiency in the right way.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Up to a point, I agree with the hon. Lady, but only up to a point. I do not want to see the fine buildings of Kent smothered in hideous installations, so we have to find a way technically of making the panels acceptable. I accept entirely that retrofitting is much harder than new build. It is possible to inset photovoltaic panels into a new roof on a new build, but it is much harder to retrofit it attractively. I would like to see us make much more effort to go down that road, so that we come up with products that are acceptable across the board—not just for new build, but for existing buildings.

It is essential that this Bill has a Second Reading, and I will be supporting it today. There are flaws in it, but that is what the Committee stage is about, and we should allow the Bill to go into Committee. If I may say to the hon. Member for Cheltenham, there is rather too much wriggle room. I can see canny developers finding ways of exploiting some of the exemptions, if we are not careful, that he has written into the Bill.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that an unintended consequences of this Bill could be that it is no longer possible to build a new thatched house? In Dorset and Hampshire, we welcome people who are developing new thatched houses. How will that work with this Bill?

[Sir Roger Gale]

The Bill does accommodate exemptions, and my hon. Friend makes a case in point. In the village I live in, we have thatched buildings, and I would like to see more of them. There may be cases where an exemption should be permitted, but looking at the Bill as it stands, it seems that these loopholes are wide open to exploitation, and they will have to be tightened up. That, however, is the purpose of the Committee. Let us give the Bill its Second Reading, get it into Committee, amend it and bring it back on Report and Third Reading, and then let us see it become law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for bringing this important issue to the House. It is good to see the Minister in his place—I know he and Ministers in his Department have had a busy week.

Solar energy has an essential role to play in decarbonising our power sector by putting otherwise unused roof space to good use. Solar panels are an effective technology for reducing carbon emissions, and the Bill proposes a forward-looking measure that would require the installation of solar PV generation equipment on new homes. Its Second Reading offers us an opportunity to debate the merits of the proposal and its potential contribution to our shared goal of reaching net zero by 2050.

While welcoming the Bill and its aims outlined this morning, I would like to add to the debate some possible unintended consequences of the Bill in its present form. I want to be a genuinely constructive voice in ensuring that the Bill gets to Committee—I hope the hon. Member sees that—but some areas could be strengthened. I appreciated his sunny disposition in bringing the legislation to the House today. I will try to be a ray of sunshine as I get through this speech. [Interruption.] I am in danger of misleading the House there. I hope to be a sunny ray of light in Committee should the Bill get through and we table amendments to it.

The previous Government supported solar energy generation where it was appropriate. Our efforts included a £50 million fund aimed at supporting rooftop solar installations to enhance on-farm energy security. The responsibility for advancing solar and renewable energy now rests with this Government, and we wish them luck in doing so while remaining sceptical about the abilities of GB Energy to see that through. Under the last Government’s leadership, we delivered 2.5 million homes since 2010, including 1 million homes during our final term in office. That provided more people with the opportunity to own their homes and expanded options for renters.

Additionally, in November 2023, as has been outlined, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announced expanded development rights, making it easier for homeowners and businesses to install rooftop solar panels without the need for planning permission in most cases. That was a positive step, and I hope to see such support continue. As the Government pledge to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, we must ask ourselves what impact the Bill would have on house building. Building costs are already high and projected to rise further. Even the chief executive of Homes England has admitted that delivering Labour’s housing target may require two parliamentary terms, not one as the Minister outlined.

I also note that the implementation date of 1 October 2026 in clause 1 provides little time for the industry to adapt to the significant challenges the Bill introduces. Given the growing pressures on the industry, it is necessary to question whether the Government have considered and worked on the potential skills shortage, as an hon. Member raised earlier, and the feasibility of implementing the standards in this well-intentioned Bill.

We know that the UK has one of the oldest housing stocks among developed countries, with a particularly complex system of housing tenure. Buildings owned by freeholders and occupied by a mix of leaseholders and tenants present ongoing challenges for successive Governments when implementing necessary updates and retrofits. Meanwhile, in the realm of housing development, where 1.4 million new units already have planning consent, developers continue to highlight issues, such as the cost of solar panels, as a significant obstacle to advancing new housing projects. We must therefore consider whether the additional costs imposed by the Bill could hinder progress in delivering housing. Could it add restrictions to house building plans, particularly when it comes into effect in 2026? We are open to the timescale that the Bill would implement.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Does my hon. Friend not accept that, while it is not remotely surprising that some developers are resistant on the grounds that the Bill will add to the costs of building property—it indubitably will—we should recognise the flipside of that coin, which is that it will enhance the value of the property and make its management and running much more affordable?

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. If he will allow me, I will elaborate on that further on in my oration this morning, when I will look at the other side of the coin. While absolutely taking into account that house builders will have concerns over costs and will claim concerns over costs, as we have seen various organisations do, we also have concerns about the ongoing maintenance costs of these technologies for those who buy the properties in the first place. There is a balance to strike, which we can look at further if the Bill goes into Committee.

Maintaining solar panels, as my right hon. Friend was tempting me to say, is not without challenges. Repairs often require scaffolding, which can be expensive. We worry that an unintended consequence of the Bill could be increased costs for residents, home owners and property owners. How will we support home owners facing frequent and costly repairs?

The updates to the national planning policy framework present an opportunity to consider how such requirements can be better embedded in planning law. I recognise that administrators face a challenging task. The framework contains approximately 19 chapters of guidance, which each local authority must reflect in its local plan after public examination, ensuring full alignment with those chapters. The complexity of the process, combined with consideration of local environmental factors, such as surface water run-off, and the need for materials to align with established practices, creates a considerable challenge.

To translate the aspirations outlined by Members into real-world outcomes, we must simplify the process for local authorities to enable them to fulfil their role as community leaders. Instead of requiring lengthy and costly procedures to prove compliance with planning law, we need to ensure that the relevant standards can be implemented efficiently. The previous Government consulted on a future homes standard to ensure that all new homes would be zero carbon-ready. That included provisions for solar panels where appropriate. We must also ensure that brownfield sites are prioritised for housing development and stand-alone solar power, rather than sacrificing valuable agricultural land, as we risk seeing under the Government’s proposals. I sincerely hope that they will build on the progress we saw as a result of the previous Government’s consultation and the feedback gathered.

As we consider the Bill, it is important to recognise that not all buildings are suitable for solar panels. Factors such as structural strength, the direction and orientation of buildings and challenges with maintenance access must be taken into account. As I believe the hon. Member for Cheltenham has recognised, a one-size-fits-all mandate might lead to unintended consequences or inefficiencies. What discussions has he or the Government had and what consultations have taken place with the building industry during the drafting of this legislation? Collaboration with developers and stakeholders is critical to ensuring the successful implementation of such a policy. Consumer and local choice must also play a role in these decisions. I am concerned about the Labour Government’s apparent intent to reduce the influence of local representatives on planning committees. Local people should have a say on what is built in their area—we have heard some examples from local council leadership across the country this morning.

If this Bill receives passes its Second Reading today, we will scrutinise it thoroughly to ensure that it balances the need to build more homes with the imperative of increasing energy efficiency and production. I welcome the proposed exemptions for buildings that cannot support solar due to roof positioning or other factors. Those exemptions need further scrutiny in Committee to ensure that they are comprehensive. Sensibly, the Bill allows for other renewable energy systems to be used where solar is not feasible; that is practical. However, the list of exemptions should not allow developers to adapt their designs in order to avoid installing solar panels, so that they can avoid what they claim are increased costs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and a number of colleagues on the Labour Benches mentioned, there remains a risk that house builders or developers will identify loopholes in the legislation that they can use to say, “We can’t build solar on that, so we will do either a cheaper alternative or none at all.” However, if Members in all parts of the House work together in Committee, we can strengthen the legislation to ensure that developers put these technologies on buildings across the country.

Building Homes

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. He is right: we have made a number of changes to the framework to further strengthen references to climate mitigation and adaptation. We have made a number of other changes relating to flood risk and sustainable drainage systems, and how we can support those through the planning system. On BNG specifically, I am more than happy to have a detailed conversation about our thinking on how to successfully roll out BNG across the country and ensure that it works not just on large sites, but on small sites in particular.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

In his statement, the Minister referred to the undermining of the capacity of our great towns and cities to realise their economic potential. Does he not realise that by effectively absolving the Mayor of London of his housing responsibilities, he is exacerbating the problem of inner-London boroughs, such as Lewisham and, dare I say, Greenwich and Woolwich, using the green fields of Kent as a dumping ground for their housing problems? We are fighting a rearguard action to protect our farmland from development, in the interests of our countryside and, more importantly perhaps, of sustainability. He refers to brownfield sites. What he has announced today is the undermining of the Secretary of State’s right to rule finally on planning issues after they have been to the Planning Inspectorate. She will now have no credibility at all.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that sort of hyperbole is beneath him, if I may say so. We are not absolving the Mayor of London of his responsibilities. The previous Government put in place a system whereby the arbitrary 35% urban uplift applied not merely to the core of a city region—as it does in every other part of the country—but to every London borough. That produced a fantastical figure that was completely divorced from reality. We have abolished that urban uplift and reset the standard method. That still leaves London with an incredibly stretching target of 88,000 homes per year, which is more than double recent delivery. We want to work in partnership with the Mayor of London, but we will be pushing him to increase his ambition for what can be achieved in London, and his delivery.

We place great importance on agricultural land and food production. The national planning policy framework remains clear that where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land should be preferred to those of higher quality. Those protections remain in the framework.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the housing crisis in Scotland, where too many families are waiting for too long for a safe and secure home. I completely back all the brilliant work that my friend the Scottish Labour leader is doing, and I know that the choice will be stark for people in Scotland in May 2026; it will be between a national Labour Government delivering for the working people of this country, and a clapped-out and failing SNP Government north of the border.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Given that the Secretary of State’s avowed goal is to create more social housing, can she explain to the House why Labour-controlled Thanet district council is seeking to build a large housing estate on the outskirts of Birchington-on-Sea, on prime agricultural land? There is little demand for those houses, and little provision of social housing. Can she have a word with the leader of Thanet council?

[Angela Rayner]

In our new national planning policy framework, we have set out how we are protecting agricultural land, but we have also set out the fact that our country faces a housing crisis. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency does not have a crisis, because it is everywhere.

City and Town Centres: Regeneration

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Despite successive challenges from devastating local government cuts, the impact of lockdowns during the covid pandemic, and 14 years of under-investment from the last Government, we are fighting back in Derby. We have turned a corner, and I would say that we are actually on the up. We now have a Labour Government, a Labour East Midlands Mayor—who is key to this solution—and a Labour council.

Importantly, we have a really strong private-public sector partnership trying to deliver a cleaner, safer and more prosperous Derby, but there is lots more to do. Does the Minister agree that there is more scope to regenerate our city centres with a forward-thinking, collaborative Government who work with the private sector, but put working people at the forefront?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister has a very limited amount of time to wind up. I appreciate that there will be hon. Members who have not said everything that they want to, but I ask them to resist the temptation of doing so if the Minister is to respond to the debate.

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), and praise his work as leader of the council. This is politics-blind: we want to see a real alignment of national, regional or sub-regional government with the local authority and the local community, all working together in the shared interest and using tools and resources in the best way. That speaks to the new model that I talked about, as invited to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey). We want to bring resources together across Government—a theme mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin)—to get the best of it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) made a good point about local events. I am conscious that the biggest personal and professional embarrassment of my life took place in Crewe town centre 16 and a half years ago—it is a matter of public record—but nevertheless, I know it to be a vibrant town centre. The point made by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) about investment portfolios is exactly right, understanding that there should be, as the shadow Minister said, a global reach even to the most local communities. That is the environment we need to create.

Regarding the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I had a chance to talk to some business owners from Newtownards when I presented at the High Street Heroes awards for Retail NI, which does excellent work in this space. I am afraid that Ballymena won on that day, but I know the creativity is there. The key is—this is different, as he said, in a devolved sense—to get the tools and resources to the experts, who are the local community.

It is no secret that growth is at the centre of our mission and at the core of the new Government’s activity, especially local growth in towns and city centres, and the businesses in our communities that make our high streets successful. There is no one vision for that—it will look different everywhere, and that is a good thing—but there are common themes around safety, accessibility and the types and mix of businesses and services we want to see. I will refer briefly to a couple of those themes and to some of the work that has be done so far.

Prior to the election, we committed to our five-point plan on anti-social behaviour and shoplifting; banking hubs; late payments; revamping empty shops, pubs and community spaces; and business rates. That work is under way.

My hon. Friends the Members for Derby North, for Portsmouth North, and for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) mentioned vacancy. We will be bringing in high street rental auctions very soon—as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North said, we need only secondary legislation—to give local communities the power, through their council, to bring vacant units back into use. I am really looking forward to that. We have also committed, as part of the English devolution Bill process, to go further with the community right to buy. I know there is a lot of interest in that; it is on its way. Those are real tools to help communities to shape place.

The theme of safety has come up frequently, and was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba). Combating violence in retail is a personal passion of mine. We know that that type of crime and violence in communities is a doom loop, because it creates more vacancies and makes people less likely to go out, which in turn creates an environment where such behaviour thrives.

As part of our safer streets mission, we have committed to a neighbourhood policing guarantee that includes returning patrols to town centres; 13,000 more police and police community support officers; and a named officer in every community for people to turn to. We want communities to have their say in how they are used and, most of all, to know who to talk to. To be clear, there will be tools to tackle people who persistently harm their local community—for example, new respect orders that have growing penalties and a specific offence of violence against retail workers. Those measures will make our communities safer to live in, work in and visit.

I am conscious that I am very near the end of the debate, which I think is at 4.14 pm. Is that right, Sir Roger?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Given injury time for the Division, the debate will end at 4.18 pm, but the mover of the motion will need a couple of minutes to wind up.

[Alex Norris]

I might move my 1.5 speed down to 1.4 speed, then!

Hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) and the shadow Minister, mentioned business rates, which we are very mindful of. As we have said, we intend to level the playing field between the high street and online giants to incentivise investment, tackle empty properties and support entrepreneurs in that venture. However, that measure has to be revenue-neutral because of the important work that business rates do.

Hon. Members invite me to make a slightly more fulsome commitment than I can today, because we are two weeks away from a major fiscal event. As they would expect, any significant tax announcement will be made then by the Chancellor, so I have to hold a little bit back. We have made the commitment we have made, however, and I have said what I have said today. We understand how important the issue of business rates is.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) talked about the loss of the final bank in Beccles, how that is a totemic moment for a high street or town, and the impact it has on footfall, which is at the heart of the viability and safety of businesses. We are very keen on and committed to banking hubs: we have committed to rolling out 350 by the end of the Parliament, and we expect 100 to already be in place by Christmas. I have no doubt that she will be an advocate for her community in that regard. Banking hubs could become not only important in arresting one of the major sources of decline we have seen over the years, but a very attractive anchor on a high street, helping to bring in other businesses. There is a lot to go for in the banking hubs space.

Hon. Members have mentioned planning. We do not have time to talk about the whole planning system, but we want an environment that promotes the new mix. The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, talked about not wanting to go back to the past, but it will not be, because we could order a book in two clicks on our phone—in this debate, heaven forfend. Instead, we know that the future will look different. Whether it is banking hubs, a mix of retail and leisure or, as the shadow Minister said, housing in the right conditions, it is about that new mix, and we want to ensure that communities have the tools and resources to shape place to ensure that they have that.

I will draw my remarks to a close so that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North has time to sum up, and I will end where I started by congratulating her on introducing the debate. We have heard from hon. Members across the nations and regions of the UK. There are many common challenges, but there is a real enthusiasm for the powers and resources to shape place locally, and that is what this Government will deliver.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I share my hon. Friend’s anger that promises that did not have a strong financial backing were made to communities—promises that the Government are having to work their way through. As I said, we want to move away from the broken competitive model, but we know that promises have been made, and we are working on them. Hon. Members will hear further answers from us before the Budget on 30 October.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

The national planning policy framework clearly militates against building on agricultural land. Notwithstanding the Minister’s desire not to interfere in local democracy, will he write to the leader of Thanet district council to remind him that agricultural land is the stuff that we grow food on, and cannot be for housing if we are to remain sustainable?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are maintaining the existing strong protection for the best and most versatile agricultural land that is most important for food production. The line that we are removing from the NPPF was added in December 2023, and does not provide clear and meaningful guidance to authorities about what they should do, in addition to having that strong protection in place.

Building Homes

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. She is absolutely right, and her question builds on one that I answered previously. We have to protect our green belt, and the proposals we are putting forward do that. They also mean that we will have the right type of homes and the infrastructure. As part of this process, there will be nature considerations and rules around that. There will also be the infrastructure that people need, as well as access to the countryside and healthy living. My hon. Friend can look at a number of parts of the consultation that refer to how we are delivering better, greener areas for people. Hopefully, her constituents will be able to get behind that.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

It is good to see you in that Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State has discussed her proposals with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the National Farmers Union, but the answer she gave on food production was risible. What she has announced today is effectively a recipe for disposing of the land that will be needed to feed our children and grandchildren. Just before she goes ahead with that, will she tell the House how many planning consents that have been granted are sitting there unbuilt-out? Should we not use those first?

[Angela Rayner]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman with absolute respect that he should please read the consultation. We think that we do support our agriculture, which accounts for just over 10% of land—the best and most versatile land. I talked before about protecting the best-value land, and we will do that. The land we are talking about—grey belt, which we define in the NPPF consultation—is not agricultural land; it is disused garages and things of that nature and not, as the right hon. Gentleman wants people to believe, the land we need for food.