Local Government Reorganisation

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise those issues. We want to ensure that we get this right and work with local leaders; I am sure that she will have the opportunity to speak with Ministers and my officials as we look at the review.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

North Norfolk has more than 2,000 people waiting for housing, a coastline that we are trying to prevent falling into the North sea and endless challenges from being an underfunded rural authority. Now it has been made to waste £600,000 on a local government reorganisation programme that the Secretary of State demanded and has now gone back on. One question will be about the future of devolution for Norfolk, but what people in North Norfolk will be thinking first is, “We want our money back.” Will she give it to us?

[Angela Rayner]

I would push back a little on that, because I do not think that money has been wasted. I have said that I want a review, and I have put a pause in place to carry out that review and ensure that I get it absolutely right as the Secretary of State. I do not think that money is wasted. I have been really clear that the Government have committed to providing transitional funding. I want to continue to work with the hon. Gentleman’s local leaders so that we can get local government reform on track, but I want to be confident that I am making the correct decisions for his local area and with his local area, delivering what it wants.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that question and for being a clear, consistent and passionate advocate of town and parish councils. I will pick up her point, but I want to start with her forceful and effective contribution about coastal communities and the amendments that we are proposing.

The Government have heard the concerns that rural affairs will be marginalised with our new devolution framework. As we extend devolution beyond the urban centres of England, it is absolutely right that strategic authorities look to use the powers and funding at their disposal to support communities across a wide range of geographies, whether they are urban, rural or indeed coastal communities.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am grateful for the steps that the Government have taken today in recognising the importance of rural and coastal communities. The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) made reference to my constituency earlier in this regard, and I thank her for doing so. The Government clearly realise how important it is to recognise a rural and coastal communities in this Bill. Has the Minister now had her mind changed such that we should recognise rural and coastal communities with their own Cabinet position?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

This relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Polly Billington) made about commissioners and the governance arrangements. We are clear that strategic authorities absolutely must think about how they drive the prosperity and wellbeing of their rural and coastal communities. The structures—and, indeed, the policy framework—that they put in place to do that will be in the gift of local leaders and the mayor. That is right, and that is the basis of devolution. What we are trying to do through the Bill—I think we have achieved it through the amendments and the existing provisions—is to ensure that there is a clear framework that strategic authorities and mayors are working towards.

We as a Government absolutely recognise the important role that coastal and rural communities play. We are committed to doing our part to support strategic authorities, to ensure that they are dealing with issues from housing through to transport and the infrastructure that we need, in order to ensure that our rural communities thrive. Members across the House have our commitment that we will do that, so that local plans reflect the composition of different parts of the country, and that we are putting in place the building blocks to ensure that none of our coastal or rural communities are left behind.

Local Government Reorganisation

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us back to the most important people in this—the people who are the future of this country, our children. I was very pleased to meet her and representatives of Blackpool only recently to hear about the work that they are doing.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I draw Members’ attention to my interest as a serving county councillor. May I thank the Minister for seeing through Norfolk Conservatives’ self-serving scheme for a mega-council for Norfolk? The three-unitary model will ensure that my residents get the efficiencies of joined-up services, and that decisions are still made as locally as possible. The Conservative county council will throw yet another strop, but the Conservatives will be gone in May, and the transition work needs to start now. Can the Minister confirm that adequate funds will be made available to cover the cost of authorities transitioning, and will she rule out expecting them to make cuts to services to fund the transition?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting on the record his point of view, which is different from others that we have heard this morning. I can confirm that we are supporting councils through the transition. If he has any specific concerns, he knows that he can come straight to me.

Proposed Visitor Levy

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. North Norfolk has many things to be proud of, and our half-a-billion-pound tourism industry is high on that list. However, that can bring its challenges: a seasonal economy leads to insecure employment and makes it hard for businesses to plan for the future. We also know that an oversaturation of second homes and holiday lets in some areas has carved the soul out of communities. We have to take steps to balance that out.

That is why I remain firmly open to seeing how a visitor contribution levy could bring more money to North Norfolk. If levied at a similar rate to Wales, it could raise more than £2 million a year for my area. That could make a huge difference if it was invested into the towns and villages that are the tourism hotspots, by supporting our tourism businesses and by investing in skills and apprenticeships for our young people.

Much of the devil of such a policy will, however, be in the detail, so I am pleased that it is devolved to local areas to decide for themselves. I am keen to see the evidence from the policy in Wales to understand, for example, whether this can work and how it could be applied to Norfolk.

It will be vital for any income to be fully reinvested in the communities where it is gathered. Local Lib Dems fought similar battles with the Conservatives over the second home levy, to prevent them from taking the vast majority of that tax increase to plaster over their financial mismanagement of Norfolk county council and leaving us with less than 10p in the pound. The strong leadership of the Lib Dem district council ensured that North Norfolk got its fair share. Getting local investment is a red line for me in supporting any future visitor levy in our area.

I am also quite shocked by the posturing of local Conservatives, who have said that this would be the death of the tourism industry. They seem to be struggling with the fundamentals of geography and human behaviour: the Norfolk broads cannot be picked up and moved somewhere else with a different tax bracket; Blakeney’s grey seals—which make up 90% of England’s population—will not swim up the coast to somewhere cheaper; and Cromer pier is not going to be sawn off and reattached to a different coastal town.

It is frankly quite offensive to North Norfolk to suggest that a mere £1 a day extra is the difference that would make tourists think, “Well, Norfolk’s really not all that; we’ll go somewhere else instead.” Have those opposing this measure thought that a €7 fee in Barcelona makes the Sagrada Família a bit too pricey? Maybe Gaudí was not that good after all. The broads, the pier, the seals, the shops, the museums, the historic houses and our natural environment: that is our Sagrada Família, our wonder of the world. If people think so little of our area that they want to stand here today and tell tourists that it is not worth £1 a night, they do North Norfolk down.

There are many discussions still to have about this policy, and I look forward to engaging with residents and stakeholders. If we do this, we must get it right, co-designed with our tourism industry. If the proposal is not right for North Norfolk, I will not support it—it is as simple as that. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Norfolk county councillor.

Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a Norfolk county councillor. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing the debate. Might I say how welcome it is that, unlike the Norfolk Conservatives, he is a Conservative who thinks that local government reorganisation requires more democracy, not less?

The Labour Government’s novel approach of centralised devolution has put an enormous strain on local authorities and caused a great deal of concern for my local residents. North Norfolk is an area with unique characteristics, and we have been well served in recent years by a Liberal Democrat-led district council that is well armed with local knowledge to deliver for my constituents.

We have the oldest population in the country, an economy that relies heavily on tourism, and unique environmental factors ranging from England’s largest seal colony to the fastest-eroding coastline in north-west Europe. It beggars belief that the Government, and Norfolk county council’s Conservatives, think that all that could be easily handled by one local authority that also has to contend with the needs of a further 800,000 people and 1,700 square miles of county. Whitehall’s demand to arbitrarily find populations of 500,000 or more for authorities proves that they have not taken the reality of rural areas into account.

Across the Government’s programme for local government reorganisation, little consideration has been given to the specific needs and characteristics of rural and coastal communities. Trying to bundle us together with inland areas completely misunderstands the unique challenges and opportunities we face, and risks worsening both. Furthermore, lumping in our rural economy to compete for funding and resources with an urban economic centre in Norwich and the surrounding area risks pulling support from our local businesses and preventing us from unleashing the rural powerhouse that North Norfolk can be. That is why I, and the vast majority of Norfolk’s councils and MPs, support the Future Norfolk proposal for three local authorities, and I strongly urge the Minister’s Department to go ahead with that.

I know that similar concerns and challenges are felt across the country, with Whitehall trying to dictate devolution and fundamentally misunderstanding much of how the world works outside SW1. It was deeply disappointing to see the Government delay our mayoral election for two further years. Devolution is important in Norfolk and Suffolk to deliver a brighter future for both counties and seize upon the new powers and funding from Government to drive change forward. We are left behind yet again.

I am concerned about the financial black hole that the decision has left, not only in Norfolk but for many authorities with delayed elections. We have heard today about the end of the shared prosperity fund, which was set to coincide with the arrival of combined authority funding and allow for a smooth transition to continue funding for important work done by local authorities. However, the delay means that we now see a cliff edge in September this year, with no support until we elect our mayors in May 2028. Will the Minister confirm what consideration the Department gave to that issue when it delayed our elections? What support is she going to provide for the stretched local authorities that have seen their balance sheets take yet another hit from the Government?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Our mayoral election in Sussex has been postponed until 2028, but the statutory instrument for the creation of combined authorities is still going ahead, and two elected representatives from each local authority are going to form the combined authority. That means Conservative councillors who have not had a democratic mandate since 2021 will create the combined authority; does my hon. Friend agree that that is the reason why they are holding on and delaying elections?

[Steff Aquarone]

Not only do I cynically agree with my hon. Friend, but I think that is precisely why it is so important to have local elections, because of not just the time that will have elapsed but the very important the decisions that authorities will make as part of the local government reorganisation that, as she pointed out, has already been legislated for.

I thank the Minister’s colleague in the Lords, Baroness Taylor, who made the picturesque journey all the way to Cromer to meet local leaders in North Norfolk, and who also made time to meet me and hear my concerns. Frustratingly, her considered approach does not seem to be reflected across Government. On much of the devolution agenda, the left hand does not seem to know what the right hand is doing. The Government are giving councils new statutory responsibilities and costs, which must be delivered ahead of LGR, but without providing any certainty about how to ensure that capital investment and budgetary decisions will be well suited to the set-up in a couple of years’ time.

There are valid reasons for, and drawbacks to, having referendums around the programme of local government reorganisation. I can understand sympathetic arguments from both sides. However, I fully understand why, given the track record of Norfolk Conservatives, my constituents are very worried about the blank cheque that the Government handed to them to work on LGR and devolution. Our devolution was delayed for years under the last Government, while the Tories in Norfolk fought among themselves as to who would be coronated as the elected leader. Our devolution was then pulled entirely, before being redrawn by the Labour Government.

When we look at how the Conservatives have run Norfolk since 2017, is it any wonder that my constituents might find the prospect of a referendum on their work appealing? The Conservatives rode roughshod over the views of local residents, threatened to evict people with bailiffs, and acted like playground bullies because people in Sheringham dared to oppose their plans to bulldoze the bus shelter. They are denying children in Holt a long-promised primary school, despite being given the money by the Government and the site being there to build on, and they have allowed our transport system to crumble, spending millions on shiny new buses in Norwich rather than embarking on a much-needed rural transport overhaul.

The Conservatives in Norfolk are also allowing the loss of vital convalescence care beds in Cromer and Cossey, which is worsening our healthcare crisis. They have driven our council to the brink of bankruptcy and are now having to go cap in hand to the Government to get bailed out after blowing £50 million on the white elephant that is the Norwich western link road, without an inch of road to show for it.

Now, to the shock of nobody, the Conservatives in Norfolk want to chicken out of elections for a second year running. They do not even have the guts to admit it: the letter from their administration to the Government was so unclear that they were asked to write it again and explain what they meant. Their assessment of whether our election should be cancelled read like a letter from Vicky Pollard: “Yeah, but no, but—”.

I made the point to a previous Secretary of State that the Conservative administration in Norfolk is totally unfit to preside over Norfolk’s future, and I remain steadfast in that opinion. Failing Conservative administrations have been propped up by the Government and allowed to do this across the country—[Interruption.] Sorry, Ms McVey.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I just wanted you to get to the end of your sentence.

[Steff Aquarone]

Oh—I haven’t.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Well, we will leave it there anyway. There is a Division, so we will suspend the debate for 15 minutes—unless Members are back sooner. If you all leg it back, we will start again sooner.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Steff Aquarone]

As I said, I remain steadfast in the view that failing Conservative administrations have been propped up by the Government and allowed to do this across the country. It is simply not right—they should be facing the voters in their areas and held accountable for their years of failure. Although referendums are one of the means for getting democratic legitimacy for local government reorganisation, I would far prefer for that legitimacy to be sought by councillors facing their electorate. I apologise for being out of breath—I ran back here quickly on your instructions, Ms McVey.

Local government reorganisation is too important for the Government to get wrong. It cannot be done to people; it must be done with them. A more collaborative approach from the Government that fully considers local character and issues and does not do this work at the expense of democratic legitimacy would be greatly welcomed.

I finish with a straightforward challenge to the Norfolk Conservatives running scared of an election: we are ready to face the ballot box in May. Are you?

Local Government Reorganisation

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

Of course those things are taken into consideration. We have set out some criteria by which the decisions on reorganisation are taken, and I refer my hon. Friend to those, but effective local government is built out of a strong sense of community. I am sure that will be reflected in his constituency, as elsewhere.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a serving county councillor. Why has the Minister given Norfolk Conservatives a route to chicken out of their impending electoral doom? Will she tell me why the Government did not support my amendment to the English Devolution and Empowerment Bill, which would require her to win a vote in this place in order to stop elections? Does she not believe that elected Members here have a right to stand up for their constituents?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are following the precedent for dealing with situations like this. This happened under the previous Government, too, and we support that process. Council leaders will have heard what he said. I am not sure what the politics are of the situation that he alluded to. None the less, local leaders will have heard what he said, and I am sure that they will consider that when they take their decision.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

I will leave it at that. Maybe I am lost in appealing for rational and reasonable government, but I will continue to pursue that, as I have for the last three decades.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am pleased to speak today in full support of Lords amendments 38 and 40. I would also like to take the opportunity to press the Minister on the Government’s response in the other place to Lords amendment 32, which I will come to shortly.

First, on Lords amendment 40, I am pleased that the Lords altered the uses of environmental delivery plans to better protect species. North Norfolk is proudly biodiverse, and it must be protected. We should all see the shocking decline in our rare swallowtail butterflies—an icon of the Norfolk broads—as an indicator of the nature emergency we face. Protections for wildlife and biodiversity are crucial, and I hope the Government will retain this amendment.

On Lords amendment 38, I welcome the Minister’s statement of future intent, but I am nevertheless in full support of protecting North Norfolk’s chalk streams. I thank my local bishop, the Bishop of Norwich, for tabling that amendment in the other place and for his admirable support for and defence of chalk streams in Norfolk and across the country. He is a great champion for the environment and I thank him for it. Over the summer I went to Letheringsett in my constituency, with volunteers from the River Glaven Conservation Group. The Glaven is a much loved chalk stream locally, and one of many in North Norfolk that we hold dear. As one local councillor told me, in North Norfolk, “we cherish our chalkies.”

I saw the work undertaken to renew and revitalise the river and its floodplain, made as part of the Norfolk Wildlife Trust’s nine chalk rivers project. A 1.2 km man-made channel was dug to reconnect the river to its original path and restore its natural flow after years of human interference. A new wetland near Glandford ford has also been created, generating a vital new habitat for the native crayfish and water vole that can be found there. I also heard of the challenges, from construction silt run-off to sewage discharges. Allowing a unique and precious natural environment to be treated this way in recent years is nothing short of scandalous.

Sadly, this is the situation not only for the Glaven or even Norfolk’s chalk streams; we have heard shameful tales of those historic habitats across the country being trashed and abused by profiteering water companies, without a shred of care for the environment that they are damaging. That is why I believe that Lords amendment 38 is a perfectly sensible and much-needed addition to the Bill. Of course those of us with chalk streams in our local areas want spatial development strategies to take account of them and ensure their ongoing protection. I am yet to hear a convincing argument from the Government as to why this amendment is being so strongly opposed.

Clearly, the status quo is not working, and we cannot embark on a new age of development and infrastructure building without making sure that those aspects of our environment that are already being failed are not damaged beyond saving. There has been a lot of talk in recent months about national pride and the St George’s cross. Well, I am proud that the St George’s cross flies over 85% of the world’s chalk streams. Out of only 200 in the world, the majority are right here in England. We are the custodians and guardians of the vast majority of this special habitat. We have to take that responsibility seriously, and Lords amendment 38 is an important step towards proving that we will.

I have been critical of much of what is included in the Bill, but almost equal amounts of criticism can be levelled against it because of what it lacks. Today we can plug one more gap in it by agreeing with the Lords in their amendment.

I said that I wanted to press the Minister on Lords amendment 32, which may have been unfortunately worded with a slightly predetermined outcome when it was tabled in the other place. In North Norfolk, we have real issues with water abstraction licences. Food processors and farmers need water, and attenuation is the answer. The current permitted development regulation is clearly not working. The Government responded in the other place by saying that they needed to look at PDRs and would return to them. I wonder if I can press the Minister to indicate a few more steps and some timelines.

[Matthew Pennycook]

indicated dissent.

[Steff Aquarone]

I am getting an indication that he will not do so, which is a shame.

I support the development of more homes in North Norfolk; there are 2,400 households on our housing waiting list who demand that provision. I am delighted that new residents in Walcott and Bacton will be moving into dozens of new affordable homes in the coming months, supported by our Lib Dem-led council. I want everyone living in North Norfolk, though—in new homes or in old—to be able to cherish our ancient chalk streams for the decades and centuries to come, and I urge colleagues across the House to vote to protect them.

[Ruth Cadbury]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), a fellow Transport Committee member. We do not have any chalk streams running through Brentford and Isleworth, but we are beside the Thames, which I know is fed by many chalk streams.

Supporting High Streets

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

The Liberal Democrat plan aims to halve energy bills within the decade by scrapping the link between gas and electricity prices. We have a positive plan to make a real difference to energy prices for households and businesses.

I wonder whether the Conservatives have really learned the lesson from their time in government. I listened with interest when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) asked the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), about how their plans for business rate cuts would impact on local government finances, and he had nothing to say. To me, that is an indicator that the Conservatives have not yet learned the lessons of the mini-Budget, and that they plan to repeat all those errors again if they ever get back into government.

However, many of the challenges that businesses face are being compounded by decisions taken by this Government, from their damaging national insurance rise to continued uncertainty about Ministers’ approach to the Employment Rights Bill. The economy is practically stagnant, with business confidence down and unemployment up. The Government must act more urgently to support our high streets, which are vital to our local economies and provide the jobs that so many rely on.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Stalham, a beautiful market town in North Norfolk, is one of the places receiving support from the high streets taskforce to revitalise its high street, and local businesses are enthusiastically getting involved. However, to support businesses to thrive, we have to equip them with skills and expertise. Will she join me in praising the work of my local councils in providing training for small businesses, and does she agree that we need more ways to upskill and support business owners and managers so they can run the most successful businesses possible?

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend represents his constituents and their businesses in North Norfolk so admirably. He is absolutely right about skills, which neither Conservative nor Labour Members have yet mentioned, but which are fundamental to powering the growth we really need in our economy.

Providing the support that our high streets need should not and cannot be done by cutting public expenditure, as the Conservative motion calls for, but by taking bold action: implementing the industrial strategy with more urgency, addressing the workforce crisis and negotiating a new bespoke UK-EU customs union to grow our economy.

In 2019, the previous Conservative Government made a manifesto pledge to fundamentally review the business rates system, and the Liberal Democrats agree that we need a fundamental overhaul of this broken system. However, throughout their tenure, they failed to keep that promise to businesses and local communities, so we will continue to call on this Government to reimagine business rates, and not just by tinkering around the edges and putting in place sticking-plaster solutions.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore]

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

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

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

In my constituency, we have seen the consequences of house building without the infrastructure to match. This Bill is such a missed opportunity: the Government are repeating the same top-down, developer-led approach that has already failed, sidelining communities, undermining local plans and cutting local councillors out of key decisions. That is why I rise today to speak in support of some amendments.

The current system often sees vital infrastructure lagging or not being delivered for years after houses have been occupied because the delivery of infrastructure is left to developers that submit viability studies and variations of conditions. We need a planning system that puts people and places first, and that includes high-quality active travel infrastructure.

We are lucky in Stratford-on-Avon to have the much cherished Greenway, a traffic-free five-mile cycle path and bridleway, but we also need cycling and pedestrian infrastructure in high-volume streets in our towns so that children and young people can travel to school safely and families can access services, while reducing car journeys and keeping people fit and healthy.

In the rural areas of my constituency, the Two Shires Greenway group is campaigning for an ambitious cycling route along a disused railway. These will link villages to the towns of Stratford and Alcester in my constituency and then further afield to Evesham. But beyond the feasibility studies, the fragmentation of land ownership is an issue. That is why I support new clause 22, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), which strengthens powers to compulsorily purchase land for active travel routes.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George]

It is clear that we are today debating methodologies, rather than values. Certainly, I do not dispute the Minister’s values at all; we all want to see the growing need met, and the environment protected. The question that we are debating today is the best methodologies for achieving those outcomes. I have submitted a number of amendments covering three areas, which I will rattle through as quickly as I can, all of which support the themes that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) advanced today, and indeed that he has pursued in Committee in previous weeks.

Amendment 148 relates to housing targets. It proposes allowing local authorities to adopt targets that reduce housing need, rather than simply targets to build homes. House building targets are in many areas part of the problem, rather than the solution to housing need. For example, since the 1960s, Cornwall’s housing stock has been among the fastest growing in the United Kingdom. It has almost trebled, yet housing problems for local people have got significantly worse over that time.

Simply setting house building targets results in massive hope value being attached to every single community around Cornwall. Having worked as a chief executive of a charity that tries to build affordable homes, I can say that establishing house building targets makes it more difficult to address the housing needs of local people. Targets that are about reducing need would change the dynamics of the planning system in places that face these problems.

Unfortunately, the approach to house building targets that has been adopted by parties over the previous decade is built on the delusion that private developers will collude with Governments to drive down the price of their finished product. We can no longer carry on in that delusion. We cannot and should not pursue counterproductive methodologies. Amendment 149 and new clause 108 are consequential on the fundamental change proposed in amendment 148.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington has spoken about introducing a new class order to address the prevalence of non-permanent occupancy in some areas. The previous Government were looking at bringing in a new class order for holiday lets, but that should be extended to second homes and all homes of non-permanent occupancy. New clause 92, which is consequential on new clause 91, proposes introducing a sunset clause for planning permission to ensure that there is not a perverse incentive for people to apply to change a property’s use in order to enhance the value of their property when they sell it. This is not about the politics of envy but the politics of social justice. I think those who represent areas or constituencies with large numbers of second homes properly understand how these things operate.

Finally, I tabled a number of amendments relating to affordability, including new clause 89 on affordable development and new clause 90. New clause 89 would prohibit cross-subsidy—or at least open-market development—on rural exception sites. Those sites should not be called rural exception sites; they should be called rural norm sites. That should be the methodology for delivering affordable homes in rural areas. It should be driven by wanting to have affordable homes in such locations.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. In North Norfolk, people want house building that genuinely meets local need and helps address the housing crisis, which is affecting everyone in my constituency. On affordability, does he agree that we need to empower local authorities to define what “affordable” means in their areas?

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend is right about that. Affordability is defined for rented accommodation—either 80% of market rent or the local housing allowance, whichever is lower—but it is not sufficiently defined for the intermediate market in rural areas, which includes shared ownership and discounted sale. There are ways that affordability can be achieved, and that should be done within local planning. We should give local authorities the power to define, for the purposes of their communities, what is and is not affordable, and we should strengthen the role of neighbourhood development plans in that respect as well.

New clause 90 would put a cap on developer profit. A lot of people do not understand how planning authorities make their viability assessment when developments are brought forward. There is an assumption of a developer profit of 20%, but when developers ask for amendments to the way that their planning applications are viewed, they will often have undertaken two different valuations, and will come with both. One they present to the planning authority, and one they keep in their back pocket. One of the valuations comes with violins, and a sob story about how they will lose out because of the development, and how they are doing it only for the community. The other valuation is the reality. We know that they are making a killing out of other people’s poverty.