Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Roz Savage Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Interestingly, he may or may not recall that when I was a Westminster councillor, we had a project in Westminster called “Hidden Rivers”, which signposted where those rivers were. If any Members find themselves on the platform at Sloane Square station, for example—just a couple of stops away—and look upwards, they will see a socking great big pipe going across the top of the platforms carrying the River Tyburn. It rises at Marble Arch, where Tyburn convent is, and where the Tyburn tree used to stand for hanging people. It flows down, across the platform and into the Thames. The same is true, I think in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, where the Fleet flows down towards Fleet Street and into the Thames. People value and treasure such rivers, and they should be protected. I want to hear a little more on that from the Minister.

For those of us who would support new settlements, for example, SDSs might be important for the protection of chalk streams, because they can point towards the areas where new settlements should be and protect such things as river catchments. For chalk downland constituencies like mine, that is key. While I accept that the Minister will get his way and get his party to vote for the second time against protection for chalk streams in this Bill, I would like to hear a bit more detail on what he is minded to do—I take him at his word—how firm that mindedness is, and when we can expect some of the protection to come forward, because this is an urgent matter on which many of us have campaigned for many years.

The second thing I lament about the Bill, and ask the Minister to clarify, is its impact on neighbourhood plans. I have asked him this question in the past, particularly in the light of new housing targets. Both my borough councils, Basingstoke and Deane, and Test Valley, have had significant increases to their housing targets. I do not mind that necessarily, but the question is where those houses go. I have encouraged villagers and communities across my constituency to take advantage of neighbourhood plans and to put them in place. The significant alarm now is that some of the local plan implications from the new housing targets that are flowing through are riding roughshod over those neighbourhood plans, some of which took years to put in place.

The Minister has given me an undertaking in the past that extant neighbourhood plans would not have to be varied in the light of those new housing targets, until they came up for refresh, and that constraints, such as protected landscape, would pertain. I would be pleased if he could reassure us on that point when he sums up.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about the impacts on neighbourhood development plans of the new housing targets. In my constituency, those plans were blown out of the water by the new targets. In the Cotswold district, 80% is protected landscape and of the remaining 20%, half is floodplain. Does he therefore share my disappointment that the Government are opposing Lords amendment 39, which would have forced developers to prioritise brownfield sites and save our countryside?

[Kit Malthouse]

I sort of agree. We should be pushing developers towards brownfield—that is absolutely right. Brownfield first was the policy of the previous Government, and it makes lots of sense. The key thing, which I am sure the Minister accepts, is that if we are to overcome this problem with the generational contract—that we who are housed will build houses for those who are not—there has to be a compromise. For me, that compromise has always been neighbourhood planning. Far too often in my constituency, villages and towns feel as if planning is something that is done to them. They dread the land promoter showing up to ram some inappropriate planning through. Some of that compromise can be about beauty, and I lament the fact that the design standards were taken out of the NPPF and that that word is not used. [Interruption.] I welcome the Minister’s nodding—that is great.

I have often said that in my constituency—for Members who do not know, it is 220 square miles of beautiful chalk downland—if developers would build thatched cottages, we would have thousands of them. People would be more than happy for developers to build villages such as St Mary Bourne all over the place, if they look beautiful and fit in. Unfortunately, we get the same ersatz development that everybody else gets around the country. We need to crack that. The other thing is putting planning in the hands of local people, and I hope the Minister will try to preserve that principle in the Bill.

My third point, briefly, is about an omission in the Bill that the Minister and I have discussed before, which is the problem of undeveloped consents. My concern is that the Bill will stimulate the land promotion industry and stimulate lots of applications. However, as the shadow Minister pointed out, when the housing market is flat, stamp duty is at penal rates, when interest rates remain stubbornly high because of Government borrowing, and when the development industry is crippled by taxes, we will not get the level of development that the Minister aspires to—certainly not towards the 300,000 a year target and 1.5 million by the end of the Parliament. Instead, we will see a stacking up of consents, as we have seen in some parts of the country already, where there are thousands and thousands of undeveloped consents. The industry will bank them. In the absence of a market into which it can sell, it will occupy itself by banking the land for times when hopefully things will come good.

Similarly, I am afraid that we will see some of the large infrastructure projects going through the process—the Minister and I are keen to see them accelerated—but people waiting for more propitious economic times to bring them forward, notwithstanding the lack, therefore, of the facility to the British public. I urge him to consider, as he looks to the next stage of his planning reforms, what he will do on undeveloped consents. I think I have said to him before that the Government should force local plans to have a 10-year housing supply that also takes into account granted consents. Then, developers can see a 10-year horizon, as can local authorities, but they also can see that if they want a life beyond 10 years, they will have to start developing that which they already have. If we deal with that issue, we will also deal with quite a lot of the resentment people feel when they see particularly large-scale planning applications coming forward. They ask, “We’ve already got 400 down the road that haven’t been built. Why do we have to take another 400?” Of course, the local council has to put huge amounts of work into the local plan, notwithstanding the fact that it might already have a five-year supply that has been consented but does not count toward the future target.

This is a problem that Governments, including my own, have struggled with for some time, and it is one I struggled with when I was Housing Minister, but I hope the Minister will give some thought to at least giving councils the option of having a 10-year supply in which granted consents count. He might well find that he gets a lot more houses built.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

The natural environment in my constituency is fantastic. It is of huge value to my constituents and it underpins Norfolk’s greatest economic driver, tourism, which is fundamental to rural areas like mine. I am especially proud that we have so many beautiful chalk streams and rivers, the most impressive of which, the River Nar, forms the northern boundary of my constituency and lends its name to the villages of Narborough and Narford. Because of its national importance, this river is designated a site of special scientific interest—one of only 11 chalk streams in the UK with that status.

The Nar is well known for its populations of brown trout and the globally threatened European eel, but even this river, protected by its designation since 1992, has a history of damage and ongoing degradation through pollution from farmland, sewage treatment works and road drainage, as well as man-made modification of its channel and floodplain, and abstraction both from the river itself and from the chalk aquifer that supplies the calcium-rich, clean water on which these systems rely. Natural England reports that 50% of the River Nar SSSI is “not healthy” and “not getting better”, which it classifies as “unfavourable—no change”.

Last year, at South Acre in my constituency, I had the pleasure of visiting part of the Nar that has been restored by landowners, with the help of the brilliant Norfolk Rivers Trust. I am so pleased that landowners and this Norfolk charity are working hard to restore the river to better health. Thanks to their efforts, the other 50% of the river is in “unfavourable—recovering” condition, or “unhealthy, but getting better”. Sadly, none of the river is classified as in “favourable condition”. Other chalk streams and rivers in my constituency include the Rivers Wissey and Little Ouse and their tributaries, such as the River Thet, which runs through my home town, Thetford. All are important features of our local natural environment, but none is healthy enough to be considered an SSSI.

Just two weeks ago, I visited the Little Ouse and met the Little Ouse Headwaters Project—another small, local charity that is trying to restore the river and the fens in its catchment. I also visited Blo’ Norton fen. Blo’ Norton is a small village at the southern edge of my constituency, near Garboldisham, which we in Norfolk pronounce “Garbisham”. The story at this location is a familiar one: the Little Ouse has been canalised—straightened, over-deepened and embanked, separating it from its floodplain. It is polluted by phosphates, nitrates, silt and pesticides running off agricultural land, and by sewage treatment works and poultry units adjacent to the river.

Local volunteers have been working hard to restore the catchment for the past 23 years. I pay tribute to the chair of trustees, Dr Rob Robinson, trustees Reg and Rowena Langston, and conservation manager Ellie Beach, all of whom I was pleased to meet recently. They gave me a tour of the fen, for which I sincerely thank them and all the other volunteers involved in the Little Ouse Headwaters Project. We as a nation owe so much to volunteers like them, who safeguard our natural heritage for future generations. It is disgraceful that previous Governments have left small charities like this and others struggling to restore these globally rare habitats, 85% of which are in England, many in my constituency.

This Government are rightly proud of their efforts to improve our rivers by holding water companies and other polluters to account, delivering an ambitious programme of reforms to fix the water system, and managing and resetting the water sector. I am pleased that water companies will invest £2 billion over the next five years to deliver more than 1,000 targeted actions for chalk stream restoration, as part of our plan for change, and that the Government are investing £1.8 million through the water restoration fund and the water environment improvement fund for chalk stream clean-up projects. As a new member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I am keen to see the effect of this Government’s improved funding for environmental land management schemes, including six landscape recovery projects in chalk stream catchments. One of those awaiting a decision on funding from DEFRA is in the headwaters of the Little Ouse. I hope it gets the funding it deserves.

I believe it is time we legislated to put chalk stream protection on a permanent footing, buffered from the vagaries of policies and funding by future Governments, so that we leave a permanent legacy of environmental protection of a globally rare resource. We must do more to protect and restore chalk streams. I urge the Minister, whose opening speech I listened to carefully, and others to take up opportunities now or in future policy considerations to protect precious environments like those in Norfolk. They are irreplaceable, and they are, in their own right, crucial to our local economies and to growth.

[Dr Savage]

On behalf of many of my constituents, I rise to speak in strong support of Lords amendment 40. Nature unites us in a way that few other things can. Even the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) told me of his love for nature after the Second Reading of my Climate and Nature Bill. Our love for the fields, woods and waterways that shape our lives can cut across deep political divisions, ages and backgrounds. We all want future generations to walk the same landscapes, hear the same birdsong and feel the same sense of belonging to the natural world that so many of us have known.

Lords amendment 40 recognises that truth. It would ensure that nature is treated not as an optional extra but as an essential—something that must be protected and restored alongside meeting our urgent housing need. It would limit environmental delivery plans to areas where a broad, strategic approach genuinely works, as the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) mentioned; examples include nutrient neutrality, and water and air quality.

Without this safeguard, the Bill risks undoing decades of progress in protections for our most vulnerable species. A big-picture approach cannot replace the precise protections that bats, dormice and great crested newts depend on. One cannot ask a dormouse to move house, or offset repeated local losses somewhere else. If we allow that pattern to continue, national extinction becomes a real possibility. This is how nature, the web of life, works. We cannot dismiss small snails simply because they are small. It is the smallest creatures that inhabit our topsoil that form the foundation of the entire ecosystem.

In South Cotswolds, the bond between people and nature is strong, but our area is one of the most environmentally constrained: about 80% of the Cotswolds district lies within the Cotswolds national landscape, and with much of the remainder already developed or at flood risk, we will struggle to meet our target of more than 1,000 new homes every year. Constituents who cherish our wildlife and landscapes have written to me expressing heartfelt concerns about what that level of development will mean for the places that have defined their lives.

The Labour manifesto promised planning reform that “increases climate resilience” and “promotes nature recovery”, yet the Secretary of State recently rejected amendments that would do exactly that. His “Build, baby, build” slogan suggests that we must choose between growth and nature, but that is not true: wildlife protections are not blocking new homes. Councillors and developers alike point to land availability, infrastructure and delivery capacity as the constraining factors. There is no justification for weakening nature protections when it is entirely possible to build in ways that benefit both people and planet.

Lords amendment 40 reflects a real cross-party consensus and is backed by the Wildlife Trusts, the RSPB and the Better Planning Coalition. It would offer clarity, reduce legal risk and support sustainable development while strengthening genuine nature recovery—which, incidentally, will also help in climate change mitigation. Above all, the amendment recognises that we are not, and do not need to be, in conflict with nature; we are part of it. This is our chance to show that good planning can be both responsible and ambitious, and that we can deliver the homes that people so urgently need while safeguarding the natural world that sustains us all.

I urge Members and the Government to support Lords amendment 40. I urge this House to choose clarity over confusion, evidence over ideology, and long-term stewardship over short-term slogans. Today we have the chance to choose a planning system that is efficient and fair, that is good for business and for communities and, above all, that is good for the wildlife and landscapes that define our country. We can choose to honour our responsibility to future generations, who will judge us not so much by how fast we built, but by what we protected and what we passed on.

[Mr Perkins]

Building 1.5 million homes to tackle the housing crisis at the same time as protecting British wildlife is an issue that the general public are rightly passionate about, and one that Government must get right for people, for nature and for the economy. The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, initiated an inquiry to explore that exact question last November, and we will shortly be able to share our conclusions and recommendations to Government. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a central plank of the Government’s plan to unlock the planning system in order to deliver the housing and infrastructure that Britain needs.

I was interested in the contribution of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who rightly identified the issue of developers sitting on land. I have to say, as someone who has been in local and parliamentary politics for 23 years, that that has always been the case, so it was unconvincing that, having identified the issue, he did not seem to have any solutions. He listed a number of things that the Government might consider, without enlightening us as to whether he supported any of them, so it is clear that the Government will have to crack on alone if they wish to address this important issue.

The Bill has been significantly improved during its passage, and my original concerns about part 3—which were shared by many others—have been allayed. I have been through enough debates on legislation in this Chamber where people have accused Ministers of not listening to give credit to my hon. Friend the Housing Minister for having listened to criticisms and skilfully clarified how the Government will respond. I thank him for that.

Unfortunately, the Minister’s work has been made more difficult by briefings that characterise nature as a blocker to development. In fact, research from the Wildlife Trusts found that bats and great crested newts were a factor in just 3% of planning appeal decisions. I think these anti-nature narratives are at best lazy, and often unhelpful; they distract from some of the more significant challenges in the planning system, such as the lack of resources and skills in local authorities to support good planning applications. Tackling those genuine planning barriers, alongside this Bill, will be essential to building the homes that we need.

Lords amendment 40 would limit environmental delivery plans to only certain environmental impacts, including water pollution, water availability and air pollution. Addressing environmental impacts at a strategic level, as enabled by the EDPs introduced by the Bill, has the potential in some circumstances to deliver more benefits for the environment and faster planning outcomes. In some circumstances, this strategic approach would absolutely not be appropriate—for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) alluded to, harm to a site-loyal species would often be impossible to redress in a different location.

I do believe, though, that it is reasonable to steer clear of stipulating on the face of the Bill which environmental issues EDPs could be developed for in future, as Lords amendment 40 would do. If guided by current robust scientific evidence, or evidence that might come to light in future, it is possible to imagine that a strategic approach for addressing environmental impacts could be found to be appropriate for issues beyond only water and air pollution.

Social Housing: South Cotswolds

Roz Savage Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of social housing in the South Cotswolds, and I thank the Minister for being here this evening.

Across our towns and villages, from Biddestone to Barnsley and Hullavington to Hillesley, the story is the same. The need for genuinely affordable, safe and well-maintained housing has never been greater, yet precisely when the need is most acute, the supply of such homes is being allowed to dwindle away. In Wiltshire today, more than 3,600 households wait on the council’s housing register. Families and individuals are waiting for a secure, affordable home. Many are in the higher-priority bands, recognised as being in significant need.

Local parish surveys tell the same story. Biddestone and Slaughterford parish council has undertaken two surveys in recent years, both confirming a clear and continuing demand for affordable housing. There is also a growing need among older residents for smaller, adapted homes so that they can downsize locally, which will free up family houses for the next generation, yet in many villages that option simply does not exist.

I want to make it clear that I am not advocating arbitrary housing targets. I am talking about ensuring that the right kind of homes are built—homes that local families, key workers and older residents can actually afford to live in and want to live in, and homes that have the infrastructure that they need. While the Government have set new national housing targets that will more than double the number of homes expected in areas such as the Cotswolds, those figures risk doing more harm than good if they ignore our local realities.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that schemes such as the new social housing in Minehead—the first social housing for a generation—coupled with more social housing in Mid Devon specifically for elderly people to downsize from their own social housing are the way forward? Does she also agree that the Liberal Democrats in both institutions should be recognised for doing a jolly good job?

[Dr Savage]

That does indeed sound like an excellent idea.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. I spoke to her beforehand to get an idea of what she would be referring to. We had a debate in Westminster Hall this morning on homelessness, and one point that came through very clearly was affordability. House prices can sometimes be over 10 times the average of what people can afford from their earnings. In my constituency—I suspect it is the same in the hon. Lady’s—many young people want to buy for the first time but cannot get a mortgage because the houses are too expensive. Does the hon. Lady agree that to address the needs of those who want to buy a house or access social housing, the Government must build more houses to bring the prices down so that people can actually afford them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Savage]

I agree with the hon. Member about the financial impacts and even more so the social impacts of young people not being able to afford their first home and fly the nest of their parents. It is having a catastrophic impact on young people.

Returning to the South Cotswolds, around 80% of Cotswold district lies within a designated national landscape—the Cotswolds area of outstanding national beauty—and of the remaining 20%, roughly half is flood plain.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and highlights perfectly the pressure on the landscape in southern England. Does she agree that there is a great deal of scope in many towns and even some larger villages for building on brownfield land? In Reading there are a number of examples of this, and I am sure colleagues have examples from their own areas. Brownfield could provide a very valuable resource to help protect the countryside.

[Dr Savage]

I could not agree more that we should be prioritising brownfield sites as well as refurbishing existing housing. We could very nearly, if not completely, meet the housing target through those means without needing to take space away from nature or food production.

Imposing a target of over 1,000 homes a year in the Cotswold district may make a good headline, but in practice it encourages speculative development on greenfield sites, where services are often poor and flood risk high, rather than genuinely affordable homes for local people in more appropriate locations. But I want to be clear that the debate is not about opposing new housing; it is about ensuring that what we build reflects local need, protects our environment and natural heritage and strengthens our rural communities rather than undermining them.

Our infrastructure is already stretched thin. Many of our villages have limited public transport, ageing drainage systems and GP surgeries that are full to capacity. Broadband and mobile coverage remain unreliable in too many places, and with climate change flood risk is rising with every winter storm. We simply cannot add hundreds of new homes without first ensuring that the essential services of water, drainage, transport and healthcare can cope. Our infrastructure is fragile. Growth must be planned sensibly, sympathetically and in a logical order according to local constraints, not imposed from the top down and literally bulldozed through.

These homes must also be genuinely affordable. Over the years, many local authority homes have been transferred to housing associations under large-scale voluntary transfer. In North Wiltshire, that happened back in 1995. Those homes now belong legally to the housing associations, not to the council, but too many of those housing associations are now selling off rural homes rather than refurbishing and retaining them. In some villages, every remaining affordable home could be lost. Once they are sold into the private market, they are gone forever—they will never again be available at social rents. That result is devastating for rural communities. Young people who grew up in these villages find they can no longer afford to live in them. Teachers, carers and nurses are priced out, and older residents find nowhere to go when they want to downsize. If we want our villages to remain vibrant, living communities and not just be picture postcard backdrops, we must ensure that people of all incomes can afford to live and work in them.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

I am grateful to my friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. She is speaking with a huge amount of common sense. Of course, her problems in the South Cotswolds are replicated in the North Cotswolds. The problem with increasing the housing numbers—doubling them from 500 to 1,000 a year, as she said—is that the planning system is not delivering us the number of affordable houses. The developers will argue against building affordable housing, because they can make more money out of executive three, four or five-bedroom houses. We need to alter the planning system so that developers, through viability arguments, cannot exclude the building of social housing in some cases altogether.

[Dr Savage]

I thank my friend and neighbour for his intervention. We do not agree on everything, but we are definitely of like mind on this. I also defer to his experience as a surveyor with great knowledge of the building industry.

Moreover, those who remain in the existing housing stock are too often living in conditions that are simply unacceptable. One of my constituents lives in a flat with her two daughters. The elder daughter developed what was thought to be asthma, but doctors now believe that her breathing problems are caused by mould spores in their damp home. She describes nights spent in panic as her daughter coughs uncontrollably. The landlord’s response has been seasonal mould washes rather than a proper fix that would get to the root cause of the mould problem.

Some social housing providers have proved difficult for my team even to get a response from, let alone resolution. Other constituents tell me of homes left empty for months in villages where people are desperate for somewhere to live, of properties that could easily be brought up to modern energy standards just left to deteriorate and moulder, and of repairs delayed or done poorly. That is inefficient and frustrating. It borders on the inhumane.

To be fair, the Government have recognised the issue in principle, for which I thank them. The recent policy paper, “Delivering a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing”, calls on providers to work with the Government both to build new homes and to upgrade existing ones, but the reality on the ground is that policy is not being enforced. Associations continue to sell off rural stock while neglecting maintenance and retrofit. I urge Ministers to pause the disposal of rural affordable housing by GreenSquareAccord and similar providers until the new policy framework is clarified. It makes no sense at all to sell the very homes our communities so desperately need.

We also need stronger enforcement to ensure that housing associations meet their obligations both to build new homes and to maintain existing ones to a decent standard, and there must be consequences for failure to meet those obligations. I ask the Government to support councils in rebuilding their capacity to own housing stock directly. Wiltshire council has expressed that ambition and deserves the financial flexibility to make it a reality.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

On housing stock, I am proud to have been the leader of Teignbridge district council—I draw the House’s attention to the fact that I am still a member—which has built council houses for the first time in 30 years. There are a number of adjustments that can be made, including increasing the number of homes from 200 to 500 before needing a housing revenue account, and I had a meeting with the Housing Minister on making that easier. The Minister told me that he was going to announce that and make that happen, but I am not convinced that that has yet happened. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is one of several adjustments the Minister could easily make so that it is easier for councils to build more council houses?

[Dr Savage]

That seems like an eminently sensible plan that I wholeheartedly endorse.

Coming back to genuinely affordable housing across the South Cotswolds, there is a planning tool designed for exactly that purpose. Rural exception sites are small parcels of land on the edge of villages, released specifically for affordable housing for people with a strong local connection. They are protected by legal agreements so that the homes remain affordable in perpetuity. When properly supported and implemented, rural exception sites can deliver well-designed homes that keep communities alive. Alongside that, we also need to see community-led housing playing a bigger role, with schemes initiated and owned by local people, often through community land trusts. Such schemes build not just houses but communities.

The affordable homes programme, which is the Government’s main grant scheme for affordable housing, has real potential to help, but it too often works for large urban developments rather than smaller rural ones. It is an urban tool being implemented in a rural setting. It can provide vital funding for social rent and community-led schemes, yet the rules and deadlines are often too rigid for parish-level projects. I therefore urge the Minister to make the programme more flexible and to strengthen the rural uplift, so that building a dozen good-quality, energy-efficient homes in a Cotswold village is just as viable as building hundreds on the edge of a city.

I am inspired by the tradition of alms houses, which is one of Britain’s oldest and most dignified forms of social housing. I was encouraged to see an architecture award recently given to some alms houses in London that show how modern design can honour that alms house heritage: small, beautiful, and community-oriented, with shared gardens and growing spaces. I can just imagine developments in our market towns and villages similar to those we already have in Cirencester, although those are many hundreds of years old.

[Matt Rodda]

Does the hon. Lady have anything she wants to say about the value of good design principles and linking to the existing traditional architecture in specific communities? We have had a great deal of success in our community in preserving the historical brickwork of Reading and encouraging new developments to copy that style, colour and range of bricks. I see that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) is nodding. He has the same local architecture with the same wonderful array of bricks and sometimes use of flints as well. Would the hon. Lady like to see that highlighted and encouraged?

[Dr Savage]

This is what we all want to see. Modern housing can be beautiful and blend almost seamlessly with existing housing stock in a way that is pleasing to the eye. It also helps communities to meld together when housing melds together. There are many villages in my constituency, and obviously the Cotswolds are associated with beautiful architecture in that lovely, honey-coloured Cotswold stone. Where the development is sympathetic, it is welcome, but there are other places where it is has been less sympathetic, and that tends to have an impact on the relationship between the residents in the old village and those in the new development—so yes, I wholeheartedly encourage and endorse the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion.

I can imagine developments like almshouses in our market towns and villages: clusters of low-energy homes built with local materials and ideally by local building firms, surrounded by shared green space for fruit and vegetables. That is how we build not only homes but communities. To make this happen, planning policy must reward quality and community value, not just sheer quantity. Rural exception sites need to be protected and strengthened, and national targets must recognise environmental constraints. We cannot meet housing numbers by paving over flood plains and protected landscapes.

Public bodies should be required to release small sites near services and bus routes at fair value for social housing, for convenience. Councils must also be able to retain 100% of right-to-buy receipts, with longer timelines, so that they are able to replace lost homes on a like-for-like basis. We must also address the pressure from short-term lets and second homes. A distinct planning use class for short-term lets, coupled with local powers to limit numbers and apply fair premiums, would help to ensure that homes remain homes, not vehicles for investment. This would help to keep our villages alive. So many of them are being hollowed out, with half or more of the homes empty for much of the week, meaning that local pubs, shops and schools really struggle to remain viable.

Finally, I ask the Minister to consider, please, a South Cotswolds pilot, bringing together Homes England, local councils and housing associations to plan small-scale, sustainable, community-oriented social housing. This would showcase what can be achieved when we design for place, people and planet, not for spreadsheets. Social housing is not a statistic; it is a lifeline. It keeps the nurse in Tetbury, the teaching assistant in Fairford and the young electrician in Cirencester living in the communities they serve. It keeps our schools open, our shops busy and our bus routes viable. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and to working with her to ensure that every community in the South Cotswolds has the affordable, safe and sustainable homes it needs.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Roz Savage Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade]

I agree that there is opportunity to do much more as the Bill moves into Committee. Communities’ long struggles to save such assets is not because of a lack of passion or volunteers, but because the system feels stacked against them. “The Museum of Broken Dreams”, a display on the parliamentary estate, shows some good examples of where community groups have lost out to commercial developers who have demolished buildings and walked away, or where the groups cannot get support.

We are pleased to see sporting assets included in the right to buy and we welcome their indefinite inclusion on the register, but we want environmental assets to be included as well, so that we can protect our land for restoration and nature management. We also want restoration of the funding for neighbourhood plans, so that smaller authorities, which will now struggle to make such plans for their tiny communities, can do so without onerous costs to their residents.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

To pick up on my hon. Friend’s point about environmental concern, at the moment local authorities have a weak duty on biodiversity—to consider from time to time what they might do to conserve or enhance biodiversity—so does she agree that the Bill offers a real opportunity to strengthen such environmental protections, to get this country back on track?

[Vikki Slade]

I believe that the community right to buy has huge opportunities for councils. In Committee, I hope that we will be able to improve and enhance the Bill for everyone.

As a former retail business owner, I welcome the removal of upward-only rent reviews. Businesses should not be locked into rising costs when market conditions shift. This is a long-overdue reform that will help small businesses to adapt and survive. The Bill makes interesting and welcome changes on things such as pension schemes and transport devolution, but misses the opportunity to improve council standards and attendance, and it fails to establish in statute the promised council of regions and nations or the local authority leaders council, both of which would be important in giving local government a stronger voice in Whitehall.

In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats support the principle of devolution. We recognise the crisis in local government funding and we welcome the fair funding review promised later this autumn. The Bill, however, does not deliver the ambitious shift in power that our communities need. It risks disenfranchising places left at the back of the queue with no funding or timeline to work toward. We cannot support a Bill that centralises control, weakens local accountability and misses the chance truly to empower communities, as we laid out in our reasoned amendment. We urge the Government to think again, and to revise and recommit to genuine devolution and community empowerment so that we can support the Bill.

Residential Estate Management Companies

Roz Savage Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gideon Amos]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who is doing a great service to his constituents by exposing that problem.

In too many constituencies, residents are plagued by rogue developers who provide housing under a freehold tenure, but force residents to accept the estate managers or shared owners of public spaces within the developments. We have heard shocking examples from all over the country, which surely demonstrate the scale of the problem and the need to act. In one block of flats in my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, people have been unable to get repairs for a leaking roof from the owner of a building in Corporation Street—it has been leaking for nine years without being attended to.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

In my constituency of South Cotswolds, there are tragic stories, including about disabled residents being trapped in their flats due to a lift being out of order. Another constituent was informed that their charges had risen from £1,500 to £2,100 per six months. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need urgent action from the Government to end this daylight robbery?

[Gideon Amos]

“Daylight robbery” is a good way of putting it. Those staggering increases in charges, with very little notice or warning to residents, are experienced in many of our constituencies, including my own.

In my constituency, I am receiving complaints about FirstPort from residents of Parsonage Court in Wellington, and from those of Quantock House, Pavilion Gardens, St George’s Square and Firepool in Taunton. I am also receiving complaints about Cognatum Estates from residents of Cedar Gardens and Fullands Court. These issues are arising in a whole range of properties.

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Roz Savage Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for bringing the Bill before the House. As an environmental campaigner for the past 22 years, I very much support any Bill, including my own Climate and Nature Bill—a shameless plug—that encourages the shift away from fossil fuels. However, I do not support every measure that increases the use of renewables, which is why the sunshine Bill is so important.

There are good ways and less good ways to meet our international commitments on carbon emissions and climate change. A less good way, as has already been mentioned by many hon. Members, is to cover large tracts of our countryside in solar panels without the agreement or co-operation of local communities.

[Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Bill, but the choice between solar farms and rooftop solar installations is not a zero-sum game; they both have a distinct role to play. In our most ambitious plans, solar farms would account for less than 1% of land cover. Does the hon. Lady agree with Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers’ Union, that solar farms represent a diversification opportunity for farmers that will also be good for the British public?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Member for the good points she raises, but I would like to see more solar panel installations that are motivated not by profit, but by concern for people and planet. That is my concern about some of the very large solar installations we are seeing proposed across the country, including in my constituency of South Cotswolds. We are rightly proud of our beautiful countryside, so a proposal for a 2,000-acre solar farm has provoked outrage and objections from nearby communities. Some 88% of respondents to an early consultation are against the plans. Some might say that their sacrifice is necessary for the greater good, but when I put myself in the shoes of nearby residents, I cannot agree.

I love my morning walks, which help to keep me sane—well, relatively. We need to be encouraging people to spend more time enjoying the outdoors, with all its benefits for mental and physical health, as well as strengthening the relationship between humans and the rest of nature. When I consider how I would feel if my cherished morning walk, through green fields, was instead going to be a walk through fields of black, shiny solar panels, past humming battery storage facilities, I would not be happy. Let us keep our countryside beautiful. It adds insult to injury for the people of Hullavington, Luckington and Sherston to see massive new warehouses and new homes springing up with not a solar panel in sight.

We need to meet our environmental goals in collaboration with people, not in opposition to them. My Climate and Nature Bill, which I will introduce next week, emphasises the need for public engagement on our journey to net zero. That journey will not be easy and will only be made more difficult if people feel that net zero is something that is being imposed on them, by corporate interests or Government, without respect for the wishes of nearby residents. Where ground-mounted solar may be necessary, let us make it small scale and community led.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

The Government’s housing targets mean that my area needs 9,500 new homes over the next 20 years, which thousands of my constituents are very worried about. Many of them would be far happier if they knew that the properties being built would meet the needs of local people, by being affordable to buy and cheap to run. Does my hon. Friend agree that the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill is not only a no-brainer, but an essential part of gaining public support for house building?

[Dr Savage]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.

We also need to increase our national food security, decreasing our reliance on vulnerable international food supply chains and depending more on home-grown food, grown to trusted standards. Most farmers want to grow food, not solar panels. The need for a national land use framework is becoming ever more pressing.

We need a sensible long-term strategy for how we use our finite resource of land space in this country. I would like to see a much greater emphasis on multipurposing our land area. We need to get away from dividing up food production, housing and electricity generation. We can make much better use of our land when we take a multilayered approach. To that end, it makes sense to prioritise rooftop solar ahead of greenfield sites. Some 60% of UK solar targets could be delivered on rooftops by 2035. Generating energy at the source reduces the strain on the national grid, improves overall energy resilience and reduces the need for long, wasteful grid connections

Generating energy at the source reduces the strain on the national grid, improves overall energy resilience and reduces the need for long, wasteful grid connections or ranks of electricity pylons marching across our countryside. Retrofitting solar panels to houses is costly and disruptive; it is so much more efficient and effective to install solar at the time of building. In Europe, they get this. The EU solar standard requires solar panels on new and existing public, commercial and residential buildings. The EU’s goal is to increase the use of renewable energy and reduce dependence on Russian fossil fuels, and it is working.

To me, the sunshine Bill is a win-win-win. It is a win for the UK, reducing our need for imported energy sources and improving our resilience and self-reliance; it is a win for householders, who can reduce their energy bills by generating their own electricity; and it is a win for the planet, supporting our transition away from fossil fuels. I will wholeheartedly support the sunshine Bill.