(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of neighbourhood plans in planning decisions.
When we come to this place as representatives of our communities, it is our job to hold the Government to account for things that really matter. I must admit that when I entered Parliament I never thought that planning would be something I would lead on, but for my community it is so important because it impacts their daily lives all the time. I do not go through a week without someone raising a planning concern with me, so I thought it would be useful to have a debate yet again on the importance of neighbourhood plans. First, I will say a little about the national context of neighbourhood plans and their roles and why they matter to me and my community.
As a country, we know we need to deliver more housing—both sides of the House believe that. The Conservatives and Labour pledged 150,000 houses in their manifestos and Liberal Democrats pledged 180,000. But the Liberal Democrats who campaigned against me locally have blamed the Government under both the Conservatives and now Labour for a build, build, build agenda, campaigning against local housing despite the figure in their manifesto being far higher. Here is where the national divides from the local, which is really important.
Before the Minister makes his prepared speech about 14 years of what the last Government could or should have done, I should say that since I was elected I have raised many planning issues, had debates on this topic and lobbied from the Back Benches to try to deliver change, because the planning system does need to change. Despite a change in Government, we are still struggling to deliver the houses—we have only to look at what the Chancellor said in her Budget speech:
“Changes to the national planning policy framework alone will help build over 1.3 million homes in the UK over the next five years, taking us within touching distance of…1.5 million homes in England in this Parliament.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 951.]
I am no mathematician, but that is 200,000 short and deals only with the UK when the Labour manifesto was to deliver in England.
On top of that, the Government have brought in changes, but they make my community feel hard done by. The national statistics and changes to the national planning policy framework show that Hinckley and Bosworth’s housing target has to rise by 59%. With the boundary changes, I take in some of north-west Leicestershire, which has to rise by 74%. We are prepared to build our fair share of houses, but it sticks in the throat when we see Leicester city dropping by 31%.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point because that is not just happening in his local community. Does he agree that we see the same thing right across the country? The same is happening in Birmingham, where the housing target is going down, yet in places such as Aldridge-Brownhills it is going up by some 27%, with no infrastructure and no brownfield remediation funding to support it.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that in the south-west the house building target for Somerset has risen by 41%, but in nearby Bristol, recently controlled by the Labour party, it has gone down by 11%?
Dr Evans
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising yet another point. I am sure we could go round the House and get examples of city areas having housing targets go down, whereas countryside areas have them go up. We know we need more houses, and everyone must take their fair share, but we have brownfield sites that need redevelopment and already have the infrastructure in place. The last Government chose to prioritise those sites for housing, because they are connected and have the amenities that the local population needs. That makes a lot of sense. I look forward to this Government explaining their decision.
Neighbourhood plans were brought in under the Localism Act 2011, to give local communities the chance to shape what their community looks like.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing such an important debate. Neighbourhood plans give local communities a voice. They know their areas better than anybody else. With this withdrawal of funding, the Government are basically saying that they know better. People will no longer have a voice or a say in their area, which is devastating for local communities.
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend is spot on. In the planning system, there is a constant feeling that things are being done to people, not with them. The idea of localism and neighbourhood plans was to fight that. We know that local plans deliver more housing with neighbourhood plans, because the neighbourhood chooses where it goes, so it is in keeping with what the local village or parish wants. I will come on to that, because that is the key point.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I told him beforehand that I am not speaking today and will only make an intervention because neighbourhood plans specifically apply to England. In Northern Ireland, community planning partnerships bring together public services, residents and businesses, but they do not directly determine specific planning decisions. Does he agree that planning applications could be passed quicker through greater integration with the public and that we should look at a UK-wide strategy? He has lots of wisdom and knowledge, and he has explained this issue for all our benefit today. Does he agree that that might be a way forward?
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Can I check the hon. Gentleman’s wellbeing, as he is not making a speech today? Is he fine and dandy? [Laughter.]
Dr Evans
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. For someone who is not speaking, he articulates his point very well. He makes a really important point: different parts of the UK have a different approach, and there should be shared learning. Joining up community hubs is really important, especially in rural areas, where there are limited numbers of sports fields, doctors, shops and schools. The ability to bring businesses and the community together is good not only for the Government, so that they can deliver the housing, but for the local populace, to better understand and buy into what is being delivered. That is the whole point of neighbourhood plans.
At the end of March 2025, the Government were aware of 1,800 neighbourhood plans being in place. The Locality website states that over 2,400 communities have initiated neighbourhood plans and over 1,000 plans have been successful at referendum. CPRE says that 5,800 local green spaces have been designated in neighbourhood plans, showing that local communities are deciding what is best for them. That is all well and good, but why are these plans important and are they making any tangible difference? An assessment of the impact of neighbourhood plans in England for the University of Reading in May 2020 showed that
“Neighbourhood planning’s contribution to housing supply can be significant. Neighbourhood plans which are allocating housing sites are providing sites for an average additional to local plan allocation 39 units per neighbourhood plan.”
I like to think of this in terms of percentage gains, as the Sky cycling team did. These are huge percentage gains in local communities, which go on to choose to have this housing. We know that these plans will deliver about 11% more houses, and they have community buy-in, which is fundamental to getting people on board to say they will take more housing. That is why we need these plans. However, the Government announced last month that the funding is stopping.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The village of London Colney in my constituency is under siege from top-down housing targets, with a huge development being dumped on the border by the neighbouring local authority and an enormous rail freight terminal the size of 480 football pitches. My local residents in London Colney want their voice to be heard on the location and type of homes, but after three years of having access to the locality budget in developing a neighbourhood plan, the parish council has been told that there is no funding left to finish that plan. Does the hon. Member agree that where local parishes have made significant progress, funding should be reinstated so that they can complete those plans?
Dr Evans
The hon. Lady makes a vociferous defence of her area; actually, she could have been speaking about my constituency in Leicestershire, which suffers all those things. The only thing I would say is that in my constituency we fought the national rail freight hub, won and pushed it back. The population was very pleased about that, but that speaks to people’s engagement and what they can do. The concern that we have to raise with the Government is about what happens when the funding stops. As I will say later, we need to understand where the Government stand on neighbourhood plans. Do they support them? Do they want them to be taken away? Do they want to see them wither? Will they strengthen them? The Opposition’s argument is that strengthening them would deliver the housing that people want in the way they want it.
On the funding that is stopping, Locality—the membership organisation that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government commissioned to deliver support services to neighbourhood forums to prepare their neighbourhood plans—has announced that it cannot proceed with new neighbourhood planning support services from 2025, and it has until the end of March 2026 to complete all existing technical support packages agreed with MHCLG. It believes that
“it will be difficult for some groups to progress their plans…we are not able to support the Champions Network and other learning and development opportunities”.
The National Association of Local Councils said:
“We are bitterly disappointed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s (MHCLG) decision to stop funding for the neighbourhood planning support programme…This decision is a significant setback for localism and the highly successful neighbourhood planning initiative”.
CPRE nationally says that that it is
“concerned about the government’s decision to end support for preparing and updating neighbourhood plans, as this is likely to lead to planning decisions becoming less responsive to the needs and aspirations of local communities.”
That is the rub: it feels like a slap in the face for local communities that want to take on the responsibility of making change. That is often done by volunteers who do not have technical experience but aspire to change their area for the better. That is why it hurts.
This is not just some nebulous concept that we discuss down here in Whitehall and Westminster. My constituency is a primary example that is living this out. We do not have an up-to-date local plan under the Liberal Democrat borough council—this has been ongoing for six years—or an up-to-date five-year land supply. The Liberal Democrats’ local campaign says, “Stop building,” but the national campaign says, “We need to go even further than the Labour and Conservative pledges.”
Daisy Cooper
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the housing debate is about not just the number of homes but who determines where they should be built. He continues to point to the Liberal Democrats, but I gently remind him that our policy is not just about numbers, but about having a bottom-up approach whereby local authorities work out the homes they need in their local area, in contrast to the top-down approach pursued by his former Government and the current Labour Government.
Dr Evans
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing that out; I hope she will get in contact with her colleagues in the Liberal Democrat-run Hinckley and Bosworth borough council to make that exact point. They could take more control if they had an up-to-date local plan and learned from their neighbours in North West Leicestershire—part of which is now in my constituency—which does have a five-year land supply and an up-to-date local plan, and is making the best of that because it is able to take in business rates and turn that into a positive. The community chooses where development goes and has control over it. The mechanism is there, and I have been raising this issue with the last Government and this Government.
I am keen to ensure that the Government are able to kick local decision making in the right direction to prevent failings. Neighbourhood plans are the protective mechanism that can deal with that. I argued with the last Government, and will argue with this Government, that neighbourhood plans should have more weight, especially where there is no up-to-date local plan, because that would do exactly what the hon. Lady is asking for. They allow communities to have infrastructure and amenities, in keeping with the their heritage and environment, without top-down speculative developments that place 100, 200, 300, 500 or 1,000 houses on top of them. Communities just will not swallow that. That is the key and why I secured this debate.
Let me continue with the example of my constituency. We now have the prospect of devolution, with 21 councils getting a legal invite to change the way in which they structure themselves. I am not sure about other Members, but if I got a “legal invite” from the court, I would not ignore it. This is being imposed on local governments. In my area, we have at least three different versions of what devolution will look like. This will have a drastic impact on planning, yet we have no idea of what the neighbourhood plans or planning authorities will look like, especially if we are divided into one, two or three different unitaries.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. On the devolved issue, which is slightly different in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of GB, there has been a planning proposal in my area for about seven years to develop a good-quality hotel close to where the Open golf championship will take place next week. That has been delayed not by problems, complaints or objections from local residents, but by a politically inspired complaint extraneous to the constituency. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to address the issue in a more holistic way, to try to get development that most people can agree with and want to see progressed as quickly and effectively as possible?
Dr Evans
The hon. Member makes a fantastic point. It is about getting that balance. There will always be nimbys, but I find that many of my constituents understand that we need more housing for the young and for older people to downsize into, and more businesses and infrastructure for jobs and creating wealth. The question is their involvement and the understanding of the community, and being plugged into decision making.
The whole idea of localism is that local communities know best. The Government cannot do everything, so we should empower the people at the bottom to make choices, and they will do. The evidence backs that up, which is why I would like to know why the Government seem to be reneging on localism. In response to parliamentary questions, the Government’s answers have been ambivalent:
“Government remains of the view that neighbourhood plans can play an important role in the planning system. Communities can continue to prepare neighbourhood plans where they consider that doing so is in their best interests.”
The Government believe:
“Support for neighbourhood planning groups should be possible without further Government funding.”
They also state:
“The Government has no target for neighbourhood plan take-up.”
This is why I secured this debate: do the Government want to scrap neighbourhood plans, or simply phase them out? If they believe in neighbourhood plans, why are they taking away the funding? How do they expect volunteers to deliver the change that the Government and the Opposition want to see, without the means to deliver it?
What protections can be put in place for villages and parishes that are using neighbourhood plans, especially when there is no up-to-date local plan? How can we hold to account local councils, such as Liberal Democrat-run Hinckley and Bosworth borough council, for not delivering a local plan? The plans were almost designated under the previous Government, but that would be a big step to take. Fortunately, we have seen progress in planning improved, but at the end of the day we are open to speculative development, and there does not appear to be a mechanism to hold local councils to account.
Finally, what does the Minister say in response to the thousands of plans, with likely tens of thousands of volunteers who have given hundreds of thousands of hours to deliver on a vision for their community that brings the houses that the Government need and of which local people can be proud? Westminster might write the targets, but it is our neighbourhoods that deliver the homes. If the Government cut the lifeline in neighbourhood planning, they sever the link that turns policy into places and houses into homes. We must not lose sight of their value or ignore the warning signs.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this valuable debate.
Let me take you, Ms McVey, and the Minister to my constituency of Melksham and Devizes, in the beautiful county of Wiltshire, where many villages have worked to develop neighbourhood plans over the years. The plans have allowed for good consultation with communities over what developments they want to see and where. For the most part, they have worked—when not disrupted by the lack of housing supply from the previous Conservative Administration.
The village of Holt is a perfect example of what can be done when local people have the tools to shape their future. A parish councillor in Holt recently reminded me of the success of Holt’s first neighbourhood plan, which was created in 2016. That plan shaped the development of a derelict tannery site into an award-winning mixed-use development that combines homes and commercial space while preserving the village’s distinctive character and history.
Nearly a decade on, Holt is now updating its plan to address residents’ current concerns, such as traffic, road safety and local infrastructure. As the councillor put it to me:
“The neighbourhood plan process is a part of local democracy.”
She is right. It empowers communities, gives residents a unified voice and ensures that developments do not just reflect the needs and priorities of developers.
The withdrawal of funding for neighbourhood plans means that we are heading towards a two-tier planning system. In one tier, more affluent areas, where the parish councils can afford to fund expensive plans, will continue to have a say in their futures. In the other tier, the less affluent areas that lack such resources will be left vulnerable to speculative development, with little say and even less resource.
Wendy Morton
On that point, some of us do not have parish councils, but the local voice in neighbourhood planning is still important. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this insistence on top-down targets is driving out any space for local communities and the local voice? That is deeply damaging if we want to create sustainable communities.
Brian Mathew
I agree entirely with the right hon. Member. I urge the Government to reconsider their decision. Local democracy should not be a luxury available only to those who can afford to pay for it.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this debate, which is incredibly important to our whole country, and certainly to my constituency.
Neighbourhood plans are a vital component of a fair, balanced and genuinely democratic planning system. They are a testament to the principle that local people should not simply be told how their community will look by central Government, but be empowered to shape the future of the places they call home. Neighbourhood plans should guarantee that development happens with the consent of those who live there, and is not forced on them by speculative developers or bureaucrats in Whitehall, who too often view our villages and market towns as blank canvases.
In Buckinghamshire, a clear framework is taking shape. The new Buckinghamshire plan is being developed right now to set out how many homes we need in the county and, broadly, where they should go, building on the local plans of the legacy councils before we went unitary in 2021. However, it is our neighbourhood plans that give meaning to that strategy on the ground. They provide certainty to my constituents in Mid Buckinghamshire. They reflect the unique character, constraints and aspirations of each parish, village and town. They tell developers, planners and councillors alike where development is acceptable and, just as importantly, where it is not acceptable.
In Mid Buckinghamshire, I have seen how the plans work when they are respected and, sadly, what happens when they are not. In Marsh Gibbon, for example, the parish’s neighbourhood plan, backed by a local referendum, capped the number of new homes in that small village at 25 until 2031, yet we now face an attempt by a speculative developer to push through 90 homes, all on farmland—nearly four times what the community had previously agreed to. Such proposals do not simply test the robustness of local policy; they erode trust in the entire planning system if they succeed.
We see similar disregard for local issues elsewhere. In Waddesdon, a proposal has come forward for more than 500 homes and a solar installation—far beyond what local people had planned for. In Stoke Mandeville, a 650-home scheme threatens to overwhelm local roads, schools, drainage and other infrastructure. In Longwick, the parish council produced a neighbourhood plan with the clear backing of the local community, yet despite that plan, and despite the village having nearly doubled in size already, Longwick continues to receive speculative applications for yet more housing. Sometimes we simply have to say enough is enough.
Labour’s stated aim to build, build, build, no matter the consequences or cumulative impact of development on our rural communities, in reality means destroy, destroy, destroy. Consent from constituents is crucial to protect the rural identity of communities throughout Mid Buckinghamshire and right across the country. Under the last Government, we rightly strengthened neighbourhood planning powers, because we recognised that development must be rooted in local consent. We wanted to see homes built where they were genuinely needed and wanted, while protecting the green fields, rural lanes and historic character that make our villages so special. We knew that communities are more likely to support plans when they have real control over scale and location, not when that is dictated from Westminster.
I am proud that in my constituency so many parish councils and volunteers in the villages I have mentioned—Marsh Gibbon, Waddesdon, Stoke Mandeville, Longwick and beyond—have done the hard graft of surveys, consultations and draft policies. They have balanced the need for new homes with the reality of local infrastructure and the natural environment and beauty. They have played their part in delivering homes, but on terms that respect the countryside and the unique Buckinghamshire character that makes these places attractive and worth living in.
Neighbourhood plans are not optional extras. They are not tick-box exercises. They carry legal weight and must be defended robustly by planning authorities, inspectors and Ministers, even if this Government have never quite grasped that concept or shown any interest in doing so. If we truly want to build the right homes in the right places, we must stand with our constituents, communities, hamlets, villages and towns. We must back local people, who have done the hard work of saying, “Yes, here, but not there.” If we do not, we risk not just bad development but a total breakdown in trust between residents and the system that is meant to serve them. That is what we in this place are meant to uphold.
Although the current Labour Government, particularly with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, want to ravage natural landscapes across our country, I will remain staunch in seeking to protect our neighbourhoods and my hamlets, villages and towns from this reckless agenda. I very much hope the Minister is able to give the Government’s commitment to neighbourhood plans and, as others have said, ensure that the funding can remain to produce them.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this important debate.
I have been struck when listening to all the speeches so far by the fact that so often when we talk about planning, we speak in terms of bricks and mortar and targets, but we are actually talking about the neighbourhoods that we want to live in—the places where our children can be near their grandparents, where working families can afford a home, where older people can remain in the communities that they helped to build.
In West Dorset, the system too often delivers not the homes we need, but the ones that developers choose to build—homes that are almost empty, unaffordable or ill-suited to the needs of local communities. We are told that planning holds up development, but many sites already have planning permission and are sitting unused. Far too often, the problem is not the approval of homes but the delivery of what is already agreed.
I often joke when I am talking to residents that there are only two things in politics that everyone agrees on: that we need more homes and that we need them somewhere else. Let me be very clear: Dorset needs new homes, but they must be the right homes, in the right places, for the people who actually need them, supported by proper infrastructure, guided by good planning and with water management built in from the start.
Neighbourhood plans are a crucial part of the solution. They are developed by communities, who know their areas best and understand where homes can go and where they should not, what infrastructure is needed, what characteristics must be preserved and what kinds of homes are actually required.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Appropriate and adequate housing is key to the growth of any area. A lack of housing is a very real problem in Northern Ireland, particularly in my constituency. While we have a different planning system, our issues are the same. The hon. Member mentioned the lack of investment in water and sewerage infrastructure. Does he agree that, in the round of this planning discussion, we need to get the water services at the table to ensure that they are investing in areas so that the housing can be built when it is approved?
Edward Morello
I agree 100%. I will come on to the campaign that the Liberal Democrats have been running to make water companies statutory consultees, and the importance of their involvement.
In West Dorset, we need genuinely affordable social housing, affordable homes for key workers and smaller homes for older people who want to downsize but remain in their communities. In my constituency, nearly 80% of homes are under-occupied. Many residents, especially the half of the population over 55, are trapped in houses that are too large for their current needs, with no smaller suitable alternatives locally. Meanwhile, young families are priced out of the villages that they grew up in. Neighbourhood plans offer us a way forward, but they must be given real weight in planning decisions. Local voices must not be sidelined by arbitrary targets, and local planners must be given the tools and support to do the job properly and shape developments that fit our communities.
Planning should not just be about housing; it should be about protecting the natural environment and ensuring that the infrastructure is in place to support new developments. In West Dorset, more than 70% of our land is designated as a protected natural landscape. These landscapes are not only part of our heritage, but vital to our local economy; tourism brings in more than £320 million a year and supports more than 5,000 jobs. People come to Dorset for the natural beauty. If we lose that, we lose more than the countryside; we lose our livelihoods and our communities. That is why I believe that National Landscapes must be made a statutory consultee in the planning process and have a guaranteed seat at the table when decisions are made that could permanently alter the characteristics of our protected areas.
The same must be done with water companies, as mentioned. At present, they are not statutory consultees on new housing developments, despite the fact that every flush, every sink and every shower adds pressure to an already overstretched system. In 2024 alone, West Dorset saw more than 4,200 sewage spills, equating to a staggering 48,000 hours of sewage discharge. It is not just a planning issue; it is a public health crisis and an environmental disaster. When homes are built without the pipes and the run-off systems to support them, everyone pays the price. Water companies must be statutory consultees, so that new development does not simply add to the pollution burden and we can hold water companies accountable if the pollution continues. The planning system must build in environmental accountability from the start.
Neighbourhood plans should not just be maps of where homes go; they should be binding frameworks that connect housing with infrastructure, nature, transport and water. They must have teeth and they must be respected. We must also tackle the backlog of permissions already granted. Developers must not be allowed to sit on land when communities go without. “Use it or lose it” measures must be implemented to ensure that approved developments are built or planning permission is withdrawn.
Dorset will soon be consulting on its new local plan and I urge residents to get involved. Housing targets may be set by Whitehall, but homes are lived in by people, and people deserve a system that listens to local communities, delivers the right kind of housing and provides the infrastructure needed to make those homes liveable.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this debate. It is really timely, not least because the Planning and Infrastructure Bill continues to make progress down the other end of this place. I hope that it continues to receive the scrutiny that such a huge piece of legislation requires.
Neighbourhood plans were designed to give local people a meaningful say in shaping development in their communities; as democratically elected Members of Parliament, we must never forget that. They are a crucial tool for ensuring local input and accountability. There has to be a place for local voices when it comes to planning. Even where there are no parish councils, as in my constituency, local residents expect a voice; they expect to be heard. Just the other week, I was out on site at Barr Lakes common with a group of residents regarding a specific planning application.
I fear that the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill risks undermining progress by centralising decision-making power and reducing the influence of local councillors and neighbourhood forums in planning decisions. That is why the funding for the NALC is so vital. If the Bill is allowed to pass, the resulting democratic deficit will risk elected councillors having only a limited role in scrutinising developments and—this is really worrying—denying them a meaningful voice in deciding applications, including those guided by neighbourhood plans. If neighbourhood plans are to remain relevant, the Bill must ensure that they have real weight and that local representatives retain genuine decision-making power.
We all know that neighbourhood plans are crucial in helping communities to protect valued local green belt. Many people in this place will know that I bang on a lot about the green belt and I am happy to continue to do so, because it is vital to the integrity of the communities I represent. We are not anti-housing, but I want to see housing that is not only in the right place but has the right infrastructure, and housing that meets the needs of local communities. It is local residents who understand the environmental and social importance of making sure that spaces are developed appropriately. Often, they understand that so much better than central planners here in Westminster and in Government.
The Bill risks expediting development and sidelining the protections provided by neighbourhood plans. The threat of piecemeal “grey belt” erosion will just grow further if we do not firmly embed green-belt protections in planning reforms. We are seeing that in my constituency, particularly down at Chapel Lane. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that neighbourhood plans can effectively safeguard the environment, which I think we care about on both sides of the House; to prioritise brownfield development as a first step, which I thought we all broadly agreed on as well; and to respect the clear wishes of local residents—and that is the bit where I feel there is an increasing divide in this place.
That is evident as I look around the Chamber: it is Members from Opposition parties who have come to speak in the debate and raise local issues. Apart from the Minister—and his Parliamentary Private Secretary, but of course he is not allowed to speak—there is nobody on the Government side of the Chamber. The Minister is a good man, so I do not want to refer to him as Billy No Mates, but he is a little bit lonely sitting there on his own early on a Wednesday morning.
Sir Ashley Fox
Does my right hon. Friend agree that probably half of Labour Members are pleased with the enormous reductions in housing totals in their urban constituencies and those who represent rural constituencies are just too embarrassed to show their faces?
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The west midlands is heavily dominated by Labour MPs, but none of them are here today. Their housing targets have come tumbling down. My constituency is not technically a rural constituency; actually, I have challenged the Government to define whether my seat is rural or not, and there seems to be some ambiguity. Those of us on the periphery of the conurbations, where the green belt provides huge protection from urban sprawl, are really concerned about the Government’s approach.
The Government’s approach to housing targets is deeply flawed, as we have seen. Targets are imposed from the top down, with insufficient regard for local circumstances or infrastructure capacity. We need to see planning reforms that give neighbourhood plans real power, to help to balance that important housing supply with local realities. I have spoken a lot about the need to continue championing brownfield sites, and when it comes to neighbourhood plans, that must be seen as a credible alternative, but we need sufficient brownfield remediation funding to make that happen. Otherwise, it is almost unfair on developers, because if they are facing a choice of brownfield or greenfield development, often it is so much cheaper and quicker to develop that housing by going down the greenfield route, as we all know.
There must be adequate funding, and in the west midlands, under the leadership of the previous mayor, Andy Street, we absolutely demonstrated what can be done. He worked with Walsall council on the development of the Caparo and Harvestime sites, showing that these sort of town centre and urban edge sites can be delivered. That has to be a win-win. If we are serious about regeneration, let us develop the brownfield sites; then we will get footfall back into our town centres and communities working together again, and there is often some infrastructure in place. It just seems to be common sense, but we seem to be failing in that regard now.
One of the biggest concerns of local people is about infrastructure: “Where am I going to send my children to school?”, “Where’s the nearest school?”, “Where’s the nearest hospital?”, “Where’s the healthcare?”, “Where are the jobs?”, “Where’s the transport?”—do not worry, I am not going to talk about Aldridge train station today; I will save that for another day. This is about having joined-up thinking. We had an opportunity with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to really make a difference, but I think that opportunity is gone. We need to build communities and houses, but we need to do more than that. We need to build sustainable neighbourhoods. We need to take communities with us, not leave them behind. Otherwise, I fear that we are not creating communities; in the worst-case scenario, we are creating the sink estates of the future. They have no heart and no soul, and they are not really homes; they are just houses plonked in an open space.
To me, all politics is local. It centres on the people we represent. Some of us will have friends or colleagues who serve on parish councils, district councils or county councils. We choose to serve here, but we must never, ever lose sight of the importance of that local voice.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this debate.
The Localism Act 2011 gave parish and town councils the ability to produce neighbourhood plans, which formed policies to make decisions on planning applications alongside a wider local plan. That was strengthened by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which gave greater weight to such plans when it came to planning decisions. That is because Conservatives believe that planning decisions should, to the greatest extent possible, be made with the consent of local communities. We believe that local residents know best what they need. Neighbourhood plans are an important way to allow residents to shape development in their area in a way that reflects local needs and priorities.
There are several such neighbourhood plans in effect in my constituency, in Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge, in Nether Stowey, in Puriton, and in Wembdon. There is even a referendum on a neighbourhood plan in Cannington going on tomorrow. I am sure there will be many hundreds of people in Cannington watching this debate at this very moment. I urge them to turn out and vote tomorrow. Neighbourhood plans are particularly important in my constituency, where Liberal Democrat-led Somerset council says it will take at least another four years to come up with a local plan that applies across the whole county. I would like to criticise it, but I understand it is fairly normal for a unitary authority to develop a new local plan.
The previous Government provided funding for groups that wanted to create their own neighbourhood plan. It is very disappointing that the Government have now stopped that funding with no warning at all. Will the Minister explain the rationale for that decision? It is the latest in a series of decisions by the Government to take planning powers away from local people and give them to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill, for instance, seems designed to allow central Government to impose huge amounts of building in rural communities, especially those that do not vote Labour. A crucial element of the Bill is to reduce the power of planning committees, which will mean that there is less democratic accountability for development. No doubt the Minister will disagree with me, but I wonder whether he will reflect on why Somerset has had a 41% increase in its house building target while Bristol has had an 11% reduction.
I am not against development. We need houses so that our children can afford a place of their own, but they need to be supported by the right infrastructure, such as GPs, schools, transport links and parks. I want us to build beautifully, and in line with the character of the local area. According to a report by the University of Reading, almost 90% of neighbourhood development plans seek to improve the quality of development in their area. That is often done through policies and guidelines to influence new building design or alterations to existing buildings. My message to the Government is simple: we must support local people to properly engage in the planning process and have their say over development in their communities.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for drawing attention to this often-neglected area. For many years, planning has been the subject of intense argument and dispute, both locally and nationally. Part of that argument is around environmental protection, but in particular there have been battles over the need to find ever more housing sites. The Government are clearly approaching neighbourhood plans from that perspective.
As Liberal Democrats, we believe that the starting point for any planning reform should be public consent. That cannot mean a right of veto in every circumstance, because the needs of society as a whole may outweigh local considerations. However, the best results can be obtained when we go as far as possible to allow local residents genuine involvement in their own future.
Neighbourhood plans were brought in following the Localism Act 2011 under the coalition Government. As such, Liberal Democrats have always supported them. At their best, they represent the strongest form of community involvement, control and consent in local development. They are a unique co-production between ordinary members of the public and planning professionals. Judging by the number that have been undertaken over the years, they have been very successful, especially in rural areas. When one considers the amount of voluntary work that residents have to put in, they are a remarkable exhibition of people power. I pay tribute to all the residents in my own constituency of Horsham who have sacrificed so much for their communities.
Cutting locals out of the process, as the Government’s new Planning and Infrastructure Bill does in so many ways, is a violent break with this past. The main strategic goals for an area need to be set by professionals, but alongside them, ideally in genuine partnership, residents bring a unique local knowledge and emotional commitment in a way that can never be replaced by professional planning officers. As such, it is disappointing to see that this role has been entirely ignored in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that is currently making its way into law.
In July 2024, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) asked the Secretary of State,
“could she confirm that where local residents have complied with her mandatory targets through a neighbourhood plan, rather than a local plan, the neighbourhood plan will reign supreme and will not be trampled over by planning inspectors subsequently?”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1191.]
The Secretary of State replied:
“I can confirm that neighbourhood plans and the protections will remain, which is really important.”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1191.]
Now that the full text of the Bill has come to light, exactly how true was that statement? Neighbourhood plans are usually created on completely different timelines to local plans. They are usually adopted at different stages and they allocate housing for different periods. Although a neighbourhood plan can meet a housing target at the time it is approved, if a subsequent local plan sets a higher target, the neighbourhood plan will be overruled. That was already a problem under the previous Government. The introduction of the standard method for calculating local housing targets created a parallel but contradictory process for deciding house building, and that has caused endless confusion and dispute ever since. I say to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth that the real cause of the problems with his local council is the standard method. That is the source of the top-down targets. The standard method is not a solution to the housing crisis, but it is a major contributory factor. It is very disappointing—
Dr Evans
That was the argument made to me when I solely represented Hinckley and Bosworth, but stepping across and taking in north-west Leicestershire, when they are able to deliver a local plan that has the five-year land supply that brings in the business rates, there is chalk and cheese to be seen. Everyone can see that. So I am not so sure that the targets are the problem. There is the local accountability. The Government need to step in to say that where councils are failing on delivery, they should be held accountable. Unfortunately, what happens is that people come to their MP to say, “What are you going to do to sort it out?”, when of course it is councils that deliver the plan. They just need to be held accountable. Does the hon. Member agree?
John Milne
Not entirely, although I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The standard method was intended as an objective way to calculate local housing targets. It is objective in the sense that it is mathematical. However, the question has to be asked: does it give appropriate targets? I would say it very much does not. The reason for the pressure on the green belt—there could be 1,000 reasons—is that the mathematical calculation does not actually calculate housing need; it is a proxy for housing need, which is completely inaccurate and has been the cause of many problems. So it is very disappointing to see that the standard method has been retained by the current Government, and in fact made even worse by another round of mathematical jiggery-pokery that has very little to do with calculating genuine housing need.
The policy of reducing house prices by sheer number of planning permissions did not work for the last Government, and it will not work for the current one. It will do irreversible damage along the way to local communities before it will inevitably be changed again. An extra layer of difficulty has been added by local government reorganisation. In many areas, such as my constituency of Horsham in West Sussex, the forthcoming abolition of district and borough planning authorities means that the local plan process will be even more remote from the community.
It really is hard to see what role, if any, remains for neighbourhood plans in future. Why would anyone bother with all that work when they do not have any obvious statutory role? Neighbourhood plans can take years to draw up, and most of that is unpaid. The only clear benefit seems to be as a way of securing the higher rate of CIL, or community infrastructure levy payments, but to me it no longer makes sense to incentivise neighbourhood plan making in this way. Perhaps the Government should simply remove that hurdle and make the higher rate automatic.
It is extraordinary to see the complete absence of any mention of neighbourhood plans and their role in the new legislation. We can draw no other conclusion than to assume that the Government’s intention is to let them wither away altogether by a gradual process of neglect. To repeat: at their best, neighbour plans are a remarkable demonstration of people power—but not the people this Government want to listen to, apparently.
The Liberal Democrats believe that the best way to get Britain building the housing infrastructure we need and bring down costs is to give local communities a real voice and a real stake. To do so we want to ensure that strategic planning authorities consult on a statement of community involvement, which guarantees the right to be heard at an examination; that the Secretary of State takes this consultation into account when deciding an application for development consent; and that parliamentary approval is required for the removal of statutory consultees from the planning process. The Liberal Democrats would also like to see planning committees retain their current powers. When we look at this alongside the emasculation of neighbourhood plans and all the measures that take away or compress local consultation, it is clear that this Government believe that local residents are just a nuisance who need to be locked out of the room while the grown-ups make all the decisions.
We are deeply disappointed by the Government’s lack of commitment to boost nature’s recovery and tackle climate change in the planning process, despite promising in their manifesto that changes to the planning system would create places that increased climate resilience and promoted nature recovery. Neighbourhood plans have played a particularly effective role in identifying and protecting existing green spaces, which often have unclear legal status—lost in the mists of time—and are now under threat from the rapacious development industry.
Overall, the sidelining of neighbourhood plans in new legislation fits into a pattern of diminishing local power and representation. The Government believe that it is a sacrifice worth making for the sake of pushing faster house building, but all it will do in practice is to pile on more unbuilt planning permissions to the 1.4 million that we already have. It has been demonstrated plainly that permissions by themselves do not bring down prices. Developers simply stop building any time prices start to fall.
Mandating an ambitious annual delivery of social housing would be a faster and more effective, environmentally friendly and, above all, consensual way to achieve results. That is why the Liberal Democrats are asking for a guaranteed 150,000 new social houses a year. Neighbourhood plans should be retained and strengthened as a key part of the drive to build consensus in development—not compulsion.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this important debate. He is a champion for his community, and I know that his constituents will be grateful to him for standing up for them.
Both my hon. Friend and I are in an unenviable position as two examples of MPs whose constituencies are set to be paved over under Labour’s new house building algorithm. He and I both have a Liberal Democrat council, and I know that his council has lacked an updated local plan since 2019. His council may not be engaged in speculative development itself, but my council has given developers a blank cheque in Hinckley and Bosworth to build at will, while nearby Labour-run Leicester city will be spared for their failures by having their brownfield site targets cut. My hon. Friend is right to pick up on what is, as I have called it in this House before, a politically gerrymandering algorithm put forward by this Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) said, I find it really surprising that there are no Labour Back Benchers here today. We have seen housing targets being massively increased in rural areas, but in urban centres where the infrastructure already exists, housing numbers and requirements are going down. I think that shows that colleagues in the Minister’s party who represent rural areas, as my hon. Friend said, are staying quiet because of the housing boom that they will have to explain to their constituents, while Labour MPs in urban centres are celebrating, or quite frankly embarrassed by, the reduction that this Government are allowing their councils to get away with.
I know of some of the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth has with his Lib Dem council. Like me, I am sure that he will recognise that in many Liberal Democrat “Focus” leaflets going out on people’s doorsteps there is an excuse as to why development is going forward in his constituency. But it is not the fault of the Lib Dem council, who make the decisions in the first place to grant planning permission; it is either the Tory county or the national Government at the time forcing them to make this huge sacrifice—that is why they are building across my hon. Friend’s constituency and mine.
The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), was a living embodiment of that example today by saying that it was not the national housing targets that were forcing our councils to build, and then excusing his own councils for not putting forward local plans that would stop that speculative development in the first place. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth will know that Liberal Democrat councils are in themselves speculative, which is one of the reasons they are failing their residents in planning going forward across this country.
John Milne
The targets are centrally driven and set by the standard method. In many areas, they are extremely difficult to fulfil, and that is why we get pressure on the green belt or protected conservation areas. That is the fundamental cause. Across the country, many councils of many different persuasions all face the same problem. That can break councils, because they are forced to allocate housing in areas where they really do not want to. The fundamental issue is the standard method, and we will never solve the issue of building on brownfield or greenfield sites until we properly replace it.
Paul Holmes
Again, the Liberal Democrats need to be clear about what they are promising the country. The hon. Gentleman again says that targets are the problem and that councils have difficulty in meeting them, but in the main Chamber his party is calling for more national housing targets. With all due respect, if a Liberal council in Hinckley and Bosworth is not delivering on a local plan, that is his party’s responsibility. Doing so would protect that constituency from the very targets that Liberal Democrats are bemoaning. The Liberal Democrats need to be clear on where they stand on national targets versus delivering locally for the people they claim to represent.
Edward Morello
Given the hon. Gentleman’s concerns over that Liberal Democrat-run council, I am sure he would welcome the opportunity to join me in applauding Liberal Democrat-run Dorset council, which is currently opening up its local plan to public consultation, so that communities can get involved in shaping the plan and we can deliver the homes that we need.
Paul Holmes
I am happy to congratulate any council controlled by any party if it has a local plan process going through, but the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his party spokesman, the hon. Member for Horsham, who just said that local plans cannot be delivered because of housing targets that put pressure on local councils. Dorset is an example of a Lib Dem council that has taken its responsibilities seriously, so I suggest that the Lib Dem spokesman has a meeting with the leader of that council.
John Milne
That is a gross generalisation. There are local factors everywhere. The hon. Gentleman really cannot make generalisations like that.
Paul Holmes
We have probably exhausted this line of debate, but, again, we have an example on the record of a Liberal council, Hinckley and Bosworth, that has not delivered on a local plan. Liberal Democrats in the main Chamber are asking for more national housing targets, but here in Westminster Hall they are claiming that targets are the reason why Lib Dem administrations cannot deliver local plans. We will let the record stand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth and I were proud to serve under the previous Conservative Government, which built on the coalition’s achievements in introducing the Localism Act 2011. In that landmark legislation, we took bold and progressive steps to empower local communities. We made it a statutory requirement for local authorities to support and advise communities on neighbourhood planning. That was not just a policy, but a principle that local people should have a direct say in shaping the future of their towns, villages and neighbourhoods.
As I am sure colleagues are aware, schedule 9 to the Act created a framework through which parish and town councils, neighbourhood forums and community organisations—in other words, local voices—could lead the charge in designating local development plans, not as spectators, but as active participants in the planning system. District and county councils may hold formal planning powers—as Conservatives, we rightly believe that power should be delegated to the local level—but, if we are to build places that people are proud to live in, we must also make sure that the views of residents are heard, respected and acted on.
Parish and town councils should never be relegated to the role of rubber-stamping planning decisions; they must be central to shaping the development of their local areas. Villages know best. All my hon. Friends have talked about how villages in their constituencies want to build and want an active say in how their villages are shaped. I say to the Minister that this Government’s long-standing position has eroded planning committees, the rights of local councillors at parish, district and county level, and the ability of councillors to make decisions on behalf of local people.
I, like many others, welcomed the strengthening of neighbourhood planning in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which gave greater weight to those plans in decision making. The introduction of neighbourhood priority statements was a practical and positive step forward, giving parish councils and neighbourhood forums another mechanism to shape local policy, with a duty on local authorities to listen.
Sadly, that progress has been halted. Since taking office just over a year ago, this Government has made their mission clear: to sideline local people and centralise control. Through changes to the national planning policy framework, their smoke-and-mirrors “grey belt” policy and now the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, they are systematically removing local voices from the process. This is not reform—it is a power grab, and the message is clear: the future of our towns, villages and green spaces is being determined in Whitehall, not in our communities. That is a betrayal of the very principle of localism. When local voices are ignored and planning decisions are imposed from the centre, trust in the system is eroded and disillusionment grows.
We are becoming accustomed to disappointment when it comes to this Government, but to see, without so much as a ministerial statement, that Ministers have pulled funding for neighbourhood plans is another mark on their scorecard. This decision poses a serious setback for the principle of localism and undermines a widely celebrated initiative that has empowered more than 2,500 communities, with over 1,000 neighbourhood plans successfully passed at referendum. Parish and town councils have historically played a vital role in this process, driving forward locally led planning that reflects the needs and aspirations of their communities.
Neighbourhood plans have been a massively successful policy. Across the country, from small villages to growing towns, communities have embraced the opportunity to shape their future, but the Government’s plans threaten to undo these successes. Not only are they centralising power, but, with looming unitarisation, we will see even more erosion of these local voices, as these bigger local government councils will not have the time—nor, likely, the inclination—to bother with designating development areas, leaving already overdeveloped communities at risk of yet more reckless building.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth has been a consistent and passionate advocate for neighbourhood planning. He has highlighted the benefits of the process in this Chamber on many occasions, and rightly so. I commend him for his speech today, in which he outlined many of the problems that local councils face and the pressure they are under. This erosion of the right and responsibility of local people to have a say over local decisions must stop. We will continue to be a constructive but challenging Opposition on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I urge the Minister to speak to the Secretary of State about giving back power to local communities.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I remind the Minister to leave Dr Luke Evans a couple of minutes to wind up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing the debate; thanks to the way he set us off, this has been an excellent way to start the parliamentary day. Throughout his time in Parliament, he has been—and will remain, no doubt, for the rest of his time here—a champion of neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood planning and a consistent advocate for a locally led planning system.
The interest from hon. Members shows that, with many neighbourhood plans having been developed across England—indeed, with interest from beyond England; I was flicking through my notes to try to identify what I might have missed there—neighbourhood planning is a topic of interest across the House. Likewise, the future role for neighbourhood plans in the planning system will be closely watched by communities who have invested time and energy to participate in neighbourhood planning. Once we get beyond the politics, we are at risk of one of the most dangerous things in this place: vicious agreement. It is no secret that we as a Government believe in a plan-led system. The plan-led approach is and must remain the cornerstone of our planning system.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) talked about the neighbourhood plan referendum in Cannington tomorrow. I want to underline for any Cannington residents watching that the best way of allowing communities to shape development in their area is to have an up-to-date local plan that ensures the provision of supporting infrastructure so that the development proceeds in a sustainable manner, in exactly the way the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) described.
We have to end the uncertainty that plagues development across so much of the country by putting local plans back in their proper place as the foundation of the planning system. I hope I can give a degree of comfort to the hon. Member for Bridgwater and the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is not as they characterise it. The foundation of the planning system is those local plans and those local communities. We have talked about democracy and local say, and they are the anchor for that.
Sir Ashley Fox
If neighbourhood plans are as important as the Minister says, why are the Government withdrawing funding?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman runs a paragraph or two ahead in my speech; I promise I will address that point shortly. I was talking about local plans, but I will turn to neighbourhood plans shortly.
To help us achieve our ambition of universal coverage of up-to-date local plans, which I think is a shared ambition, not least because of comments made by hon. Members today, we intend to introduce a new system for plan making later this year. In February, we responded to the plan-making consultation, which confirmed our vision for that new system. We will provide further details soon, in line with our commitment to provide a reasonable familiarisation period.
On neighbourhood plans, evidence shows that they work best where they build on the foundation of the local plan to meet the priorities and preferences of the community. In a planning system that is all too often antagonistic, neighbourhood planning can bring the community together in support of development, often resulting, as the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth said, in more housing for the area and additional benefits to the local community. If we are to hit our target of building 1.5 million homes within this Parliament, the community support that neighbourhood planning attracts will be a very important component. I can give assurance of that.
Wendy Morton
On meeting targets, would the Government undertake to ensure sufficient funding for the brownfield remediation process, to unlock sites across the country? All of us in the House acknowledge the importance of unlocking those sites, because the regeneration opportunities would be massive, but it needs funding from central Government.
Alex Norris
I appreciate that point and share that view. I stare at a site, and probably, I will retire still staring at it—I should not make that commitment to my constituents, as they would encourage me to—in my old council ward, Johnsons dye works, that has been brownfield and vacant for three decades. The site is of complex ownership. We need those sites developed because they are a blight on the community. I completely accept that point. I think we made clear in the spending review our significant commitment as central Government to making funding available to get sites going. I hope that gives the right hon. Lady a degree of comfort about the Government’s direction.
Dr Evans
Just before he took the previous intervention, the Minister was talking about the power of neighbourhood plans and the community coming together. My worry is that, if there is no funding, why would volunteers step forward for such a big undertaking, requiring legal prowess? That is a big worry, and the Government do not seem to have explained how they have filled that void. At the end of the day, this is volunteers working hundreds of thousands of hours to deliver for their communities.
Alex Norris
I accept that point. I hope the hon. Gentleman will show a degree of forbearance, as I will come to that point shortly—I make that commitment to him and to the hon. Member for Bridgwater.
Neighbourhood planning is a well-established part of our planning system, and we want that to remain the case. Our Department is aware of more than 1,800 plans in place and 3,150 designated neighbourhood areas. I believe that in the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth’s constituency alone, there are seven made plans, with five more actively progressing, which reflects brilliantly on his constituents. I too express my admiration for those who join neighbourhood planning groups: they could be doing anything else with their lives, but they choose to put their shoes on, go out and have difficult conversations with their neighbours in the interest of the community. That is a very British and wonderful thing. I hope that, on reflection, the people of Cannington come out in their droves tomorrow to play their part in that process.
I turn now to our announcement following the spending review that we are unable to commission further funded support for neighbourhood planning groups. It was not a decision taken lightly, and I recognise the concerns it has prompted among groups, local planning authorities and hon. Members. I pay tribute to Locality, the National Association of Local Councils and other organisations that played their part in that process. I worked on it very closely with Locality, an excellent organisation that is very good at making community voice heard. We want to be clear, however, that that is not an abolition of neighbourhood planning. We believe that neighbourhood planning is an important part of the planning system.
The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth asked two questions. Do the Government intend to end neighbourhood planning? No, we do not. Do we intend or wish secretly for the phasing out of neighbourhood planning? No, we do not. Communities can continue to prepare neighbourhood plans where they consider doing so is in their best interests.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being most generous. From his language—he said that this was not a decision taken lightly—this is clearly another victim of the Prime Minister’s U-turn on welfare and the Chancellor now having to find money. Can he not see that there will be a problem? The simple logistics of getting together a local neighbourhood plan with no funding, including consultation—parish councils are not paid, but are often the most trusted of the councils—will mean a reduction in the number of neighbourhood plans and consultations. Does he not see that that is a bad thing for our villages across this country?
Alex Norris
On the point about the nation’s finances, it is the hon. Gentleman’s job to point the finger at the Government, but he and his party will continue to struggle until and unless they accept their role in that. At the end of the day, that inability to grasp the legacy of their 14 years in government will not help their fortunes in the future—but that is a matter for him, not me.
Difficult decisions have to be made. We have to weigh up where to put taxpayers’ money. Our analysis is that after more than a decade of taxpayer support, neighbourhood planning should be possible without further Government funding. Since 2013, more than £71 million of support has gone into this area. That speaks to the points made by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth and the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). There has been a significant period of work in this area. There is a network of planners and groups with skills and expertise in preparing neighbourhood plans, who can help others to do so. I hope that addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) about access.
Wendy Morton
The Minister makes an important point about the level of expertise needed by local parishes and town councils to prepare their evidence base and documentation. However, if there is no funding from central Government, the only way I can see for a parish council or town council to find the funding is by raising the precept, which would be tantamount to Labour increasing the taxes of local people. Does the Minister agree, or is there an alternative?
Alex Norris
The right hon. Lady will know, despite not having any parish councils, that the precept is a matter for local authorities. That is a decision that they will have to make. We recognise the concern on resourcing, and it will depend on the area. However, even though national structured support is ending, there is now expertise and know-how within the market for local groups to tap into, which should help to develop their ability. Hopefully, some of that combined support can help to lower costs.
Brian Mathew
As I tried to make out in my speech, the worry of a two-tier system, where some communities can afford a neighbourhood plan and others simply cannot, will be important. The only way out that I can think of would be a simplification of the neighbourhood planning process, which would allow communities to get on and do it themselves without the need for expensive consultants to be involved, as there is at the moment. Is something the Minister would consider?
Alex Norris
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman succour on that point, but I hope that I can offer something in lieu. I accept that these things can become complex, but sometimes things are complex because they are complex. I do not think that we can wish that away and simplify a process in way that would mean taking away the fundamentals that require complex organisation and preparation. I think he is speaking to a wider point that also came up in the debate: complex planning matters ought to be the purview of local plans. If local plans are done properly, a lot of that complexity and difficulty will fall out and leave space for neighbourhood plans to operate as designed, rather than having to backfill the failures of local authorities.
I could not help but get the sense from the contribution of the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth that a lot of the issues are due to the absence of a local plan in his community. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire talked about speculative development. The story, as he put it, in his part of the world seemed to be developing, but that is clearly a risk until the process is finished. I cannot help but think that the issue there is the same. Similarly, the point that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) made about infrastructure falls within the purview of the local plan. We have to get the balance right.
I turn to local planning authorities, which have not been a feature of this debate, but have been a feature of the public debate. The end of funding for neighbourhood planning groups has created a misconception that our commitment to funding local planning authorities for their neighbourhood planning function will be affected. I want to be clear to anybody watching and to hon. Members in the Chamber that that is not the case. That again speaks to the point about the interrelationship between the local and neighbourhood planning functions. We will make announcements about the arrangements for this financial year in due course.
I turn to where neighbourhood plans sit in decision making, because I want to address the point made by the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne). It has never been the case that neighbourhood plans are determinative in every case, always. National policy is clear that an application contrary to an up-to-date neighbourhood plan should not usually be approved. I totally accept and understand the frustration that people would feel if they are approved, but we have to be honest: under the system as it stands—this does not result from any changes that we have made—when the balance of considerations in the case outweighs the neighbourhood plan, the development can take place. That is the world as it is today. In response to what the hon. Gentleman said, we are not planning to make changes to that. Again, the best thing that communities can do is have neighbourhood plans sitting underneath a local plan for their community.
Before I finish, I turn to the points that hon. Members made about local government reorganisation and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 reforms. I hold the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) in very high regard, but I know that to be in his company is to expect a degree of impudence, so I was not surprised that he trumpeted provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that his Government did not turn on. There is no point in the powers being on the statute book if they are not turned on—that does not help—so I chafe a little at the characterisation that that is somehow our failure, rather than Conservatives’. Surely, they are at least equally complicit.
I want to give clarity to colleagues and those watching that no local government reorganisation will affect the status of neighbourhood plans; they will continue to have effect and will form part of the development plan for their area.
Dr Luke Evans
The way I see it, under devolution, more powers will be devolved down to parish councils, so indirectly they will have more responsibilities by the very nature of what the Government are trying to do in creating unitaries. Do the Government really believe that a volunteer on a parish council, which will have more responsibilities under devolution, will turn their attention to neighbourhood plans, especially when there is no funding, given the responsibility that goes with them? My concern is that there are competing issues for parish councillors.
Alex Norris
There are a couple of points there. I noted this and decided not to say anything about it because it might look like I was trying to be rude, and I am not. The hon. Gentleman should not conflate local government reorganisation and devolution. Although they are, of course, related to some degree, they are different. Local government reorganisation is about changing local authorities’ boundaries so that they have the right size and heft to function. The power conversation is slightly different.
I have to say that, in my experience, parish and town councillors are generally excellent, so I believe that they are able to balance competing interests. I do not accept that planning would not be seen as a priority; that is not an option for any politician in any role. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I hope I can assure him that local government reorganisation is not likely to drive material change in this space, not least because the plans will continue unaffected. The most important thing will be, as the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire said, that the new authorities get into the local plan process to ensure they have the cover and that good organisation and order.
Neighbourhood plans can play an important part in planning decision making across the country, and we want communities to continue to prepare them if they wish to do so. We want to encourage more constructive engagement across the whole planning system. Neighbourhood planning has shown that communities are willing and eager to embrace development when given the opportunity, as the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth said. I congratulate him on the case that he made and on securing this debate. I thank all colleagues for their contributions.
Dr Luke Evans
I thank the Minister. I know that this is not his brief, and that he fought eagerly to respond to this debate. I appreciate his constructive tone. He heard Members say that neighbourhood plans are not a luxury, that they are about local concern and that things should not be forced on communities. Members said that we want neighbourhoods that we want to live in, that local people should have a meaningful say, that we want scrutiny and, to the greatest extent possible, that they should be done with local residents. Those are the key sentiments behind neighbourhood plans.
Neighbourhood plans are not obstacles to progress; they are the architects of local consent. In fact, they are the granular centre of local democracy. To dismantle them is to forget that true planning begins not in Whitehall but in the beating hearts of our communities, which call these places home.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the role of neighbourhood plans in planning decisions.