Westminster Hall
Thursday 16th July 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 weeks ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
13:30
13:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you, Sir Desmond. And I am pleased to be here to present the culture, Media and Sport Committee's report Protecting Built Heritage. And I am grateful to the backbench Business Committee for allocating time on this statement. And I'd also like to thank the chair for the culture, Media Sport Committee, the Right Honourable member for Gosport, for handing on the baton to a fellow committee member. So the committee launched its inquiry into the state of our built heritage back in December 2020.
For over 12 months, we held five sessions, heard from 26 witnesses and received 113 pieces of written evidence. We also visited the National Gallery, the Southbank, Southbank Centre, Buckingham Palace and the V and E storehouses. And I'd like to thank all those that gave evidence and welcomed us on visits. So our report, published on Monday, is the product of extensive evidence from heritage organisations, local authorities, faith groups, businesses, community organisations and individuals from across the country. So this inquiry is particularly important to me.
So before returning to Parliament, I oversaw at least Spinners mill, a grade two listed former cotton mill in the heart of Leigh in my constituency. And there I saw it first hand both the challenges and opportunities that come with preserving historic buildings. I was involved in efforts to restore and repurpose the site so that it could be supported for heritage, enterprise, arts and culture whilst serving our great community. So that experience reinforced my belief that our historic buildings are not simply reminders of the past, but assets that can contribute to our future prosperity and wellbeing.
Built by previous generations with confidence in the future of their towns, they should continue to be valued, preserved and invested in as part of our future. And that is one of the central messages of this report. Built heritage plays a vital role in the identity of our towns, villages and cities. Historic buildings support tourism. Provide community spaces. Create opportunities for economic growth, and contribute to a sense of place and belonging. However, we heard concerning evidence that many of these assets are under growing pressure from rising costs, workforce shortages and a planning system that is too often inconsistent and difficult to navigate.
And yet, alongside those challenges lies a tremendous opportunity. Historic England estimates that up to 670,000 homes could be created through the reuse of vacant or under-used historic buildings. That's almost half of the government's 1.5 million homes target. And we were struck by an initiative in Italy, where homes can be sold for as little as €1, so long as they are neglected. Heritage assets that are successfully transformed into homes. We should demonstrate similar ambition. So too often, policy treats re-use as an afterthought rather than a priority.
And our report argues that this must change. So we therefore recommended the development of a national heritage to housing approach and a broader strategy that puts the reuse and adaptation of existing buildings at the heart of regeneration policy. And we also believe that there is merit in establishing a dedicated programme to support the repurposing of underused town centre and high street buildings, helping local authorities unlock opportunities for housing and economic development. Our committee also found that a one size fits all approach to high street regen does not work.
Communities face different challenges and opportunities. So we therefore recommended better tools and frameworks to help local authorities identify the interventions most likely to succeed in their area, and to ensure that investment is targeted effectively. So the committee also heard consistent concerns about the operation of the planning system owners, developers and community organisations told us that lengthy planning and listed building consent can discourage investment and delay projects that would otherwise bring historic buildings back into use. And we heard evidence that many listed building consent applications are ultimately approved, but that decisions are often delayed, which creates uncertainty and additional costs.
While recent reforms are welcome, the government must go further to streamline processes, encourage the wider use of the local listed building consent orders, strengthen conservation capacity in local authorities and promote early engagement between applicants, applicants and planning authorities. Financial barriers remain a major obstacle to the preservation of built heritage. So witnesses we heard from repeatedly highlighted the fact that the current VAT regime often makes repairing and reusing existing buildings more expensive than demolishing them and starting again. X on new residential buildings and some conversions are zero rated for VAT.
Owners of listed buildings are still required to pay VAT at 20% on construction and alteration works. And we found that this creates a difficult incentive that runs counter to heritage protection and wider environmental objectives. And we also heard of the pressures this regime places on historic high streets and the businesses that occupy heritage buildings. So we therefore urge the government to review and reform the tax frameworks that better supports retrofit and re-use conservation and the future of our high streets. And we also heard compelling evidence about the challenges facing churches and other listed places of worship.
England has over 370,000 listed buildings, and almost 15,000 of those are churches and religious buildings. Many are not only important heritage assets, but also serve as vital community spaces, providing support, activities and services far beyond their primary religious function. However, many of these buildings are facing significant financial pressures, and witnesses raised concerns about the reduction in support previously available through the Listed Places of Worship Grant scheme and the potential impact of its replacement with a new grant scheme. The Places of Worship Renewal Fund, while targeting funding to areas facing the greatest challenges, is an understandable objective.
We concluded that there is a real risk that places of worship, of exceptional historic and architectural significance could be disadvantaged if heritage value is not given sufficient weight. So we therefore call on the government to ensure that the new funding arrangements provide adequate support for repair and conservation works and properly recognise the national and local importance of these irreplaceable buildings. The loss of a historic church is not simply the loss of a place of worship. It's often the loss of a key part of a community's history, identity and shared heritage.
And finally, the future of built heritage depends on people. One of the major risks identified in our inquiry was the shortage of specialist skills across the sector. So from traditional crafts and conservation skills to planning expertise and heritage management, there is an urgent need to attract and train the next generation. And I was particularly impressed by an example of an innovative heritage skills programme within the North West, which was offered by the Hopwood Foundation and implemented in HMP Thorn Cross, which can create pathways into employment while helping to address workforce shortages.
The government should build on these successes and work with the sector to expand opportunities for training and careers. And we also heard that many small and specialist heritage buildings struggle to make full use of existing arrangements, despite being responsible for passing on many of the traditional skills the sector relies upon. Greater flexibility within the apprenticeship system would allow businesses to pool apprentices, share training costs and collaborate more effectively. If we are serious about safeguarding our built heritage, we must ensure that the next generation of stonemasons, joiners, roofers, servitors and heritage specialists have a clear pathways into these careers.
Ultimately, our report makes a simple argument heritage should not be viewed as a constraint on growth, but recognised as an enabler of growth. The government now has an opportunity to adopt a more ambitious approach, and that secures both the protection and the potential of our built heritage for generations to come. Thank you.
For over 12 months, we held five sessions, heard from 26 witnesses and received 113 pieces of written evidence. We also visited the National Gallery, the Southbank, Southbank Centre, Buckingham Palace and the V and E storehouses. And I'd like to thank all those that gave evidence and welcomed us on visits. So our report, published on Monday, is the product of extensive evidence from heritage organisations, local authorities, faith groups, businesses, community organisations and individuals from across the country. So this inquiry is particularly important to me.
So before returning to Parliament, I oversaw at least Spinners mill, a grade two listed former cotton mill in the heart of Leigh in my constituency. And there I saw it first hand both the challenges and opportunities that come with preserving historic buildings. I was involved in efforts to restore and repurpose the site so that it could be supported for heritage, enterprise, arts and culture whilst serving our great community. So that experience reinforced my belief that our historic buildings are not simply reminders of the past, but assets that can contribute to our future prosperity and wellbeing.
Built by previous generations with confidence in the future of their towns, they should continue to be valued, preserved and invested in as part of our future. And that is one of the central messages of this report. Built heritage plays a vital role in the identity of our towns, villages and cities. Historic buildings support tourism. Provide community spaces. Create opportunities for economic growth, and contribute to a sense of place and belonging. However, we heard concerning evidence that many of these assets are under growing pressure from rising costs, workforce shortages and a planning system that is too often inconsistent and difficult to navigate.
And yet, alongside those challenges lies a tremendous opportunity. Historic England estimates that up to 670,000 homes could be created through the reuse of vacant or under-used historic buildings. That's almost half of the government's 1.5 million homes target. And we were struck by an initiative in Italy, where homes can be sold for as little as €1, so long as they are neglected. Heritage assets that are successfully transformed into homes. We should demonstrate similar ambition. So too often, policy treats re-use as an afterthought rather than a priority.
And our report argues that this must change. So we therefore recommended the development of a national heritage to housing approach and a broader strategy that puts the reuse and adaptation of existing buildings at the heart of regeneration policy. And we also believe that there is merit in establishing a dedicated programme to support the repurposing of underused town centre and high street buildings, helping local authorities unlock opportunities for housing and economic development. Our committee also found that a one size fits all approach to high street regen does not work.
Communities face different challenges and opportunities. So we therefore recommended better tools and frameworks to help local authorities identify the interventions most likely to succeed in their area, and to ensure that investment is targeted effectively. So the committee also heard consistent concerns about the operation of the planning system owners, developers and community organisations told us that lengthy planning and listed building consent can discourage investment and delay projects that would otherwise bring historic buildings back into use. And we heard evidence that many listed building consent applications are ultimately approved, but that decisions are often delayed, which creates uncertainty and additional costs.
While recent reforms are welcome, the government must go further to streamline processes, encourage the wider use of the local listed building consent orders, strengthen conservation capacity in local authorities and promote early engagement between applicants, applicants and planning authorities. Financial barriers remain a major obstacle to the preservation of built heritage. So witnesses we heard from repeatedly highlighted the fact that the current VAT regime often makes repairing and reusing existing buildings more expensive than demolishing them and starting again. X on new residential buildings and some conversions are zero rated for VAT.
Owners of listed buildings are still required to pay VAT at 20% on construction and alteration works. And we found that this creates a difficult incentive that runs counter to heritage protection and wider environmental objectives. And we also heard of the pressures this regime places on historic high streets and the businesses that occupy heritage buildings. So we therefore urge the government to review and reform the tax frameworks that better supports retrofit and re-use conservation and the future of our high streets. And we also heard compelling evidence about the challenges facing churches and other listed places of worship.
England has over 370,000 listed buildings, and almost 15,000 of those are churches and religious buildings. Many are not only important heritage assets, but also serve as vital community spaces, providing support, activities and services far beyond their primary religious function. However, many of these buildings are facing significant financial pressures, and witnesses raised concerns about the reduction in support previously available through the Listed Places of Worship Grant scheme and the potential impact of its replacement with a new grant scheme. The Places of Worship Renewal Fund, while targeting funding to areas facing the greatest challenges, is an understandable objective.
We concluded that there is a real risk that places of worship, of exceptional historic and architectural significance could be disadvantaged if heritage value is not given sufficient weight. So we therefore call on the government to ensure that the new funding arrangements provide adequate support for repair and conservation works and properly recognise the national and local importance of these irreplaceable buildings. The loss of a historic church is not simply the loss of a place of worship. It's often the loss of a key part of a community's history, identity and shared heritage.
And finally, the future of built heritage depends on people. One of the major risks identified in our inquiry was the shortage of specialist skills across the sector. So from traditional crafts and conservation skills to planning expertise and heritage management, there is an urgent need to attract and train the next generation. And I was particularly impressed by an example of an innovative heritage skills programme within the North West, which was offered by the Hopwood Foundation and implemented in HMP Thorn Cross, which can create pathways into employment while helping to address workforce shortages.
The government should build on these successes and work with the sector to expand opportunities for training and careers. And we also heard that many small and specialist heritage buildings struggle to make full use of existing arrangements, despite being responsible for passing on many of the traditional skills the sector relies upon. Greater flexibility within the apprenticeship system would allow businesses to pool apprentices, share training costs and collaborate more effectively. If we are serious about safeguarding our built heritage, we must ensure that the next generation of stonemasons, joiners, roofers, servitors and heritage specialists have a clear pathways into these careers.
Ultimately, our report makes a simple argument heritage should not be viewed as a constraint on growth, but recognised as an enabler of growth. The government now has an opportunity to adopt a more ambitious approach, and that secures both the protection and the potential of our built heritage for generations to come. Thank you.
13:40
13:40
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
He has loads of fantastic built heritage from the likes of Knaresborough House, Knaresborough Castle, Starbeck Baths and much more. I really enjoyed reading the report and noted the recommendation about Safe Harbour, where trusted bodies could temporarily take control of at risk assets to stabilise them. In the course of report, it doesn't mention the likes of town councils like of Knaresborough Town Council or Harrogate Town Council. Does the honourable lady agree with me that these would be best placed to look after some of our much loved, built heritage?
13:40
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank the honourable member for that contribution. And he's absolutely right to mention councils, local authorities, um, that are doing so much work or trying to do so much work within the country, the report does um, point out that every place is going to be different and it is about pulling on the expertise of local.
13:41
13:41
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. I thank the honourable member for that contribution. And he's absolutely right to mention councils, local authorities, um, that are doing so much work or trying to do so much work within the country, the report does, um, point out that every place is going to be different and it is about pulling on the expertise of local authorities and town councils to what fits within particular areas. So the honourable gentleman has made a really good point, and I think it's now up to the government to read the report and to look at best practice.
I think, throughout the UK. Thank you.
I think, throughout the UK. Thank you.
13:41
13:41
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you, Sir Desmond. And I hope, my hon. Friend, for presenting this excellent report. In Stoke on Trent we've declared a heritage emergency, but the restoration of our historic buildings is repeatedly held back by fragmented funding and the need to negotiate separately with numerous funding bodies. Does my honourable friend agree that the government should bring together the main departments and heritage funders around one table in places such as Stoke on Trent, so that we can turn our beautiful yet endangered buildings into engines of regeneration.
13:42
13:42
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I again thank my honourable friend for that contribution, and he makes a really important point. And I think it just goes back to the the previous question. There are schemes that are highlighted within the report that have worked for particular areas. So when you look at the Community Ownership fund, um, or the Heritage action zones, uh, which was something that took place in my particular area. And again, this is pulling on the expertise of partners, getting them around the table. So looking at local authorities, um, and the community.
I think that's probably one of the important factors that, you know, that we are trying to, to sort of lead on in this report is getting everybody around that table, um, to make sure that funding is is given to where it's needed.
I think that's probably one of the important factors that, you know, that we are trying to, to sort of lead on in this report is getting everybody around that table, um, to make sure that funding is is given to where it's needed.
13:43
13:43
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you very much. Jasmine, can I commend the honourable lady for her very clear and excellent presentation of this report. Sadly, there isn't time for me to list all the great heritage assets in East Hampshire, of which there are very many. But I want to ask about the aspects. She talks about importance of heritage to tourism, and also the possibility of using some underused heritage assets for housing. Does she also think there is a case to be made for?Looking at how we can best use some of those assets for hotel and holiday accommodation.
13:43
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And I thank my honourable friend who is a great contributor to the culture, Media and Sports Committee, and it's an honour to sit alongside him on on that committee. Um, I agree there is a significant scope for heritage buildings to play a bigger role in providing such things as hotel accommodation. And one of our findings was the best way to protect many historic buildings is to ensure that they remain occupied. Um, again, economically, they will be economically viable and actively used. The report focuses on a reuse first approach rather than a housing only approach.
And where hotel accommodation can provide a sustainable future for historic buildings, it can support tourism, create local jobs and an excellent way of bringing our heritage back into use.
And where hotel accommodation can provide a sustainable future for historic buildings, it can support tourism, create local jobs and an excellent way of bringing our heritage back into use.
13:44
13:44
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
And can I echo my fellow committee member, the member for East Hampshire, is it?Yes. Uh, in praising my hon. Friend from Atherton and Leigh for doing such a brilliant job on behalf of all of us, uh, with this report presenting it today, I just wondered, um, and also, can I thank the committee staff for their excellent as well. And indeed, they helped me when I had to speak this February, something called the Night time Economy Summit in Liverpool. And there it was a panel on these very subjects protecting heritage buildings.
And it was in a city, Liverpool, that had Unesco World Heritage Site status, I think, between 2000 and 4. I've just been googling it and 2021. So my question really was about around the changing nature of these things. They took it away when the new Everton spoilt the skyline. So just how we can future proof some of these things, and particularly in the, um, the committee staff helped me with my remarks at that conference in Liverpool in February. And I think her new neighbour, um the future Prime Minister, also spoke there, as did the former deputy Prime minister.
The point that was made to me and I was being lobbied there was the UN also has something called intangible cultural heritage, which is stuff like, well, it's human traditions, practices short. Oh, look, it requires a lot of context. So because I'm springing it on her, I don't want to just say, do you agree with this?I need to explain. I'm sorry, Sir Desmond. I'm getting to the point anyway. Would she agree there could be a way of knitting together the heritage buildings and the intangible cultural aspects of value.
For example, her constituency wig and soul, the Wigan casino northern soul. Could we find a way of maybe mixing up the two?
And it was in a city, Liverpool, that had Unesco World Heritage Site status, I think, between 2000 and 4. I've just been googling it and 2021. So my question really was about around the changing nature of these things. They took it away when the new Everton spoilt the skyline. So just how we can future proof some of these things, and particularly in the, um, the committee staff helped me with my remarks at that conference in Liverpool in February. And I think her new neighbour, um the future Prime Minister, also spoke there, as did the former deputy Prime minister.
The point that was made to me and I was being lobbied there was the UN also has something called intangible cultural heritage, which is stuff like, well, it's human traditions, practices short. Oh, look, it requires a lot of context. So because I'm springing it on her, I don't want to just say, do you agree with this?I need to explain. I'm sorry, Sir Desmond. I'm getting to the point anyway. Would she agree there could be a way of knitting together the heritage buildings and the intangible cultural aspects of value.
For example, her constituency wig and soul, the Wigan casino northern soul. Could we find a way of maybe mixing up the two?
13:46
13:46
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you, thank you, chair, and I thank my honourable friend for that question. And as well. Can I can I thank my honourable friend again. It's an honour to sit alongside you on the Culture Media Sport Committee. My hon. Friend makes a really important point, which I referred to in my earlier remarks. So the mill that I worked on was used for cultural and creative value. Um, and and there is a bit in the report as well, isn't it?Is how we can connect that up.
I think this report, um, sparks that conversation of, of what fits, um, in our individual towns and villages and cities. Um, and um, and I look forward to working alongside her to, to continue that conversation.
I think this report, um, sparks that conversation of, of what fits, um, in our individual towns and villages and cities. Um, and um, and I look forward to working alongside her to, to continue that conversation.
13:47
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
First of all, can I thank the committee chair and the select committee for, for all of their many positive recommendations. They. To repair and conservation heritage. My question is to the honourable Lady. Previous schemes have retained and have restored churches across the province in Northern Ireland and indeed in my constituency, the shared heritage, the Listed Places of Worship grant scheme can do so much more. So what discussion has the chair of the committee and the committee had with the Northern Ireland Assembly to develop and deliver this much valued and important scheme?
13:48
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. Um, and can I thank my honourable friend for that important contribution. It was a major part of the report. Um and the inquiry um that has just been held. So I visited two of my derelict churches over the last few weeks. Um, one was just last week which was Sacred Heart. So we know places of worship are amongst the most significant heritage assets within our communities. And the committee heard concerns about funding pressures and the impact of changes to the grant scheme, with the government deciding to replace the scheme with a new fund that prioritises areas of need of most need.
But there is a risk that that could disadvantage churches of real historical significance. And that's been highlighted within this report. So I think that the government needs to make sure that funding is at least as generous with the new scheme as it was, um, with the. Old one. And that religious buildings are continually prioritised. Thank you.
But there is a risk that that could disadvantage churches of real historical significance. And that's been highlighted within this report. So I think that the government needs to make sure that funding is at least as generous with the new scheme as it was, um, with the. Old one. And that religious buildings are continually prioritised. Thank you.
13:49
13:49
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you, Sir Desmond. Um, I'm very pleased to see you in the chair. And I'm very grateful for the time to be able to introduce this debate, which relates to the impact of the changes to the NPF, the national planning. Oh, sorry. Um, I call this debate following a decision affecting the village of Yatton in the north of Wells and Mendip Hills Constituency, 190 homes are set to be built on a site known as Rectory Farm, Yate and Batch Yate and batch is in a flood risk zone three a zone, the highest level of risk, according to the Environment Agency.
The consequences of this decision affect not just the people of Yatton. This sets a precedent, I believe, for every other community living with flood risk across this country. I would like to give the minister some context to the geography of my constituency, because this matters enormously. Wells and Mendip Hills falls roughly in two parts. One part comprises the limestone Mendip Hills and the rest the majority of the constituency is wetlands and coastal plains. The Somerset Levels and the North Somerset Levels.
51% of my constituency is fewer than 20m above sea level. A map and I will send the minister one. He will see that the Somerset Levels are a man made landscape. The monks, led by the Abbot of Glastonbury, drain the land hundreds of years ago by digging what we call locally Reens. Which is why the map shows the waterways as straight lines in my part of the world, it doesn't take. A PhD in geography to work out that low lying coastal wetlands are prone to flooding.
It's taken centuries of careful management and regular maintenance of the local waterways to keep this land habitable at all.
The consequences of this decision affect not just the people of Yatton. This sets a precedent, I believe, for every other community living with flood risk across this country. I would like to give the minister some context to the geography of my constituency, because this matters enormously. Wells and Mendip Hills falls roughly in two parts. One part comprises the limestone Mendip Hills and the rest the majority of the constituency is wetlands and coastal plains. The Somerset Levels and the North Somerset Levels.
51% of my constituency is fewer than 20m above sea level. A map and I will send the minister one. He will see that the Somerset Levels are a man made landscape. The monks, led by the Abbot of Glastonbury, drain the land hundreds of years ago by digging what we call locally Reens. Which is why the map shows the waterways as straight lines in my part of the world, it doesn't take. A PhD in geography to work out that low lying coastal wetlands are prone to flooding.
It's taken centuries of careful management and regular maintenance of the local waterways to keep this land habitable at all.
13:52
13:52
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
She will be familiar that the Lincolnshire Fens, and particularly South Holland, the Deepings I represent, are entirely flat, without even the undulation she is described of the Mendip Hills, or an equivalent, and that our land is drained. Much of it is reclaimed from the sea, and yet there are perpetual attempts. Sir Desmond, to put infrastructure of a critical nature on it. Solar pylons and such like. This is incompatible. These things can't be reconciled. So I entirely endorse what she said about the character of the land is propensity to flood and what we should do with it.
13:52
13:53
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I take your point. I have to say one of the suggestions I'm going to make to the minister is that if he wishes to pursue a policy of building things on land that will most likely flood, almost certainly flood, then we need to put it on stilts. And that's not impossible. And I've certainly seen, certainly one very beautiful house on the levels which does indeed sit on stilts. So. Yatton, the subject village of the decision, sits within the North Somerset Levels, barely two kilometres from the Bristol Channel.
On Friday the 12th of June, the High Court handed down its judgment, permitting the development of 190 homes on this flood prone area on a site that failed the flood risk sequential test. That judgment follows exactly the nppf, as the judge had to, and prioritise building homes over protection from flooding. It imperils not just the new homes. And I should explain that the judge said that home owners threatened by flooding had sufficient time to vacate their houses before the flood water reached them. Also it imperils homes and businesses in and around the site.
In Yatton, the impact of flooding doesn't disappear just because you can get away safely. This is about property as well as people, and the damage to wellbeing and mental health takes its toll on those affected, as well as the damage to items of property, which can take months and sometimes years to remedy and replace. I wouldn't want the minister to think that this is a case of NIMBYism, an anti-development sentiment by those in rural areas. My Lib Dem colleagues and I agree with the government's desire to meet the huge need for housing across the country.
There are 12,800 people on Homefinder list in Somerset, which covers 66% of my patch and a similar proportion on the North Somerset list, I am chair. Of the Appg, the all party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities. Many of our discussions centre around the flood re scheme. This was a great initiative that meant insurers could cover flooding claims and the premiums for home insurance in high flood risk areas was not astronomical. This scheme is coming to an end in 2039, and the government has been very clear it will not be extended as set out in legislation.
Homes built after 2009 are not covered by the scheme. As we get closer to that 2039 date, more and more homes built in high flood risk areas are not covered by the scheme and so risk becoming uninsurable and consequently unmanageable. The consequences of this, and for developers and for those who have already bought these homes, will be awful. And the Yatton decision compounds the problems with the Nppf in allowing the need for home building to override common sense. So to press the point, it's very likely that residents of new homes built on flood plains like those in Yatton, will face face flooding damage in the coming years.
Not only will they not be able to make an insurance claim for this, but any new buyers will likely struggle struggle to access a mortgage. Residents may well end up trapped, unable to sell their home, and that a home that may cost them thousands of pounds in repairs every winter. And the minister will know that. The weather experts say that what we're experiencing now is, is our most stable weather that we're ever going to see. I mentioned the existing neighbours would also be affected.
This is due to the simple fact that the flood water must go somewhere, and if developers choose to build up the land on which they wish to develop that. Flood water may well not hit those homes precisely. But essentially will actually cause all of the properties in the existing homes and business in the area to be flooded more greatly. And the land on which we're about, which we're I'm specifically speaking is and I have a lovely set of photographs. I'll send the minister, which show exactly how it floods every year.
Please. Of course.
On Friday the 12th of June, the High Court handed down its judgment, permitting the development of 190 homes on this flood prone area on a site that failed the flood risk sequential test. That judgment follows exactly the nppf, as the judge had to, and prioritise building homes over protection from flooding. It imperils not just the new homes. And I should explain that the judge said that home owners threatened by flooding had sufficient time to vacate their houses before the flood water reached them. Also it imperils homes and businesses in and around the site.
In Yatton, the impact of flooding doesn't disappear just because you can get away safely. This is about property as well as people, and the damage to wellbeing and mental health takes its toll on those affected, as well as the damage to items of property, which can take months and sometimes years to remedy and replace. I wouldn't want the minister to think that this is a case of NIMBYism, an anti-development sentiment by those in rural areas. My Lib Dem colleagues and I agree with the government's desire to meet the huge need for housing across the country.
There are 12,800 people on Homefinder list in Somerset, which covers 66% of my patch and a similar proportion on the North Somerset list, I am chair. Of the Appg, the all party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities. Many of our discussions centre around the flood re scheme. This was a great initiative that meant insurers could cover flooding claims and the premiums for home insurance in high flood risk areas was not astronomical. This scheme is coming to an end in 2039, and the government has been very clear it will not be extended as set out in legislation.
Homes built after 2009 are not covered by the scheme. As we get closer to that 2039 date, more and more homes built in high flood risk areas are not covered by the scheme and so risk becoming uninsurable and consequently unmanageable. The consequences of this, and for developers and for those who have already bought these homes, will be awful. And the Yatton decision compounds the problems with the Nppf in allowing the need for home building to override common sense. So to press the point, it's very likely that residents of new homes built on flood plains like those in Yatton, will face face flooding damage in the coming years.
Not only will they not be able to make an insurance claim for this, but any new buyers will likely struggle struggle to access a mortgage. Residents may well end up trapped, unable to sell their home, and that a home that may cost them thousands of pounds in repairs every winter. And the minister will know that. The weather experts say that what we're experiencing now is, is our most stable weather that we're ever going to see. I mentioned the existing neighbours would also be affected.
This is due to the simple fact that the flood water must go somewhere, and if developers choose to build up the land on which they wish to develop that. Flood water may well not hit those homes precisely. But essentially will actually cause all of the properties in the existing homes and business in the area to be flooded more greatly. And the land on which we're about, which we're I'm specifically speaking is and I have a lovely set of photographs. I'll send the minister, which show exactly how it floods every year.
Please. Of course.
13:57
13:57
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Come in believe for. And I commend her for the ambition that she has put forward. Does the honourable not agree that there is a risk of severe regulatory divergence if the English planning system undergoes a massive deregulation, introducing a faster rules based default?Yes to major projects than capital will do what it always does. It will flow to the path of least resistance. And the government and the minister need to ensure that this this is that possibility that the honourable lady is outlining for her constituents could happen elsewhere as well.
13:58
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I think the honourable gentleman for his intervention. The point I would like to make to the Minister as well is that if we are in a situation where developers choose to raise the level of the land on which they wish to build, we then make a complete mockery of the Environment Agency's work in relation to the LiDAR data that they use to create flood risk, because there are going to be little pockets that are no longer in flood risk. Zone three A, for example, but everybody else then becomes a higher problematic area for flooding.
So I think, yes. So just to talk about. The existing neighbours, they would also be affected. And the simple fact is, as I said, that flood water has to go somewhere. And if these properties are lifted above sea level by raising the land in the event of flooding, the displaced water goes straight into existing homes and businesses. The Association of British Insurers has been clear. While it supports government ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes, it has serious concerns about allowing developers to bypass the flood risk.
Sequential test in areas at high risk of surface water flooding. Precisely this kind of decision we saw, we've seen play out in Yatton. The scale of the risk to which they point is sobering. The Environment Agency's own National Assessment of Flood and Coastal Erosion Risks shows 6.3 million homes in England are already at risk of flooding, 4.6 million of them from surface water alone in just the. First quarter of this year, the insurers paid out £846 million in property claims, with the average weather related claim reaching £6,040.
The highest first quarter figure on record. Subsidence claims often linked to the same extreme weather, rose 9% year on year to 17,820, and research commissioned by Aviva suggests that 11% of new homes built between 2022 and 2024 are already at risk of flooding. Today, a figure projected to rise to 1 in 7 by 2050. Once climate change is factored in. So this is why I believe the Association of British Insurers, together with the UK finance and Flood campaigners, has written directly to the Defra Secretary and to the Housing Secretary to raise the alarm.
The message is simple rather than weakening the sequential test, the government should mandate sustainable drainage systems. Finally, implementing schedule three of the Floods and Water Management Act 2010, legislation that has been in the ether and unimplemented for many years. Nearly 15. Um, and it's telling that 66% of the public already say they do not believe the country or their local area is prepared for future flooding. So ignoring the fact the industry that pays out when these floods happen is really not the way to change minds.
I just want to put to the minister that Somerset Council is required to deliver 75,000 new homes in the next 20 years, and I believe that North Somerset has to produce nearly 25,000 new homes in the next 15 years. I just like to point out and repeat something that one of my colleagues at Somerset Council says. So it's taken since the dawn of time for the population of Somerset alone, not North Somerset, to reach 560 000 people. I'd be very keen to know why the minister thinks and his government believes that it's.
The population is going to grow by more than 75000 people in the next 20 years. It's a 30% increase in 20 years when it's taken centuries to get 560 000. It's a ridiculous population increase, and it's not in the slightest bit realistic. For context, the office for National Statistics projects the entire population of the United Kingdom to grow from around 70 million to around 72 million over the same period, a rise of just 2.8%. Um, I am the first to recognise that Wells and Mendip Hills is a lovely place to live.
Actually the best, but even allowing for that huge appeal, I really struggle to understand why the government believes such a disproportionately rural area is going to see growth almost five times the national rate. And of course, the nppf changes affect much more than just flood risk. We're an area that is going to be under pressure on our green spaces. So, um, it seems disproportionate, especially when I look at my local city, which I love dearly. That is Bristol. Um, the population there is projected to grow by about 10%, which is again above the national interest average.
But it really seems that those in Somerset and North Somerset are going to be asked to take a huge number of new residents. And as I say, I don't know where they're coming from. And I can't quite see how it is that the government's come to those figures. And I'd be very grateful if the minister could write to me on how his team has come to that assumption. Um. The last thing I'd like to bring, I think, is the matter of farmers.
So farmers run factories, factories are agricultural land. It's just that we do not have roofs on our factories. This is no different from any other part of the country that has some sort of manufacturing. And farmers, we, we use fields and they just don't have roofs. So it's quite hard for people to spot the fact that these are food factories. So I in the interest of an honest debate, I'll acknowledge that many in the farming community welcome what is set out in the new Nppf, but that comes with real caveats.
And I think it's worth the House hearing them. So a lot of our greenhouses are more than 40 years old and in urgent need of modernisation. A large glasshouse developments are still routinely treated as major infrastructure projects, which triggers huge delays that again undermine our domestic food production. Um, and my colleagues will need no second invitation to that. I make this point. And that is that food security is national security. And I'm really glad that the government has recognised this.
Um, as. Recognised this in February. So ensuring that our farmers can produce the food this country needs is a critical importance in what is a very unstable world. So I'm going to ask the minister, please, if he could consider the fact that the points that I've made. Write to me about the population figures, and to make absolutely certain that he doesn't misunderstand me, in that this is not a sentimental case for anything like nature and green spaces. It is very realistic damage that's happening to Somerset.
Thank you.
So I think, yes. So just to talk about. The existing neighbours, they would also be affected. And the simple fact is, as I said, that flood water has to go somewhere. And if these properties are lifted above sea level by raising the land in the event of flooding, the displaced water goes straight into existing homes and businesses. The Association of British Insurers has been clear. While it supports government ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes, it has serious concerns about allowing developers to bypass the flood risk.
Sequential test in areas at high risk of surface water flooding. Precisely this kind of decision we saw, we've seen play out in Yatton. The scale of the risk to which they point is sobering. The Environment Agency's own National Assessment of Flood and Coastal Erosion Risks shows 6.3 million homes in England are already at risk of flooding, 4.6 million of them from surface water alone in just the. First quarter of this year, the insurers paid out £846 million in property claims, with the average weather related claim reaching £6,040.
The highest first quarter figure on record. Subsidence claims often linked to the same extreme weather, rose 9% year on year to 17,820, and research commissioned by Aviva suggests that 11% of new homes built between 2022 and 2024 are already at risk of flooding. Today, a figure projected to rise to 1 in 7 by 2050. Once climate change is factored in. So this is why I believe the Association of British Insurers, together with the UK finance and Flood campaigners, has written directly to the Defra Secretary and to the Housing Secretary to raise the alarm.
The message is simple rather than weakening the sequential test, the government should mandate sustainable drainage systems. Finally, implementing schedule three of the Floods and Water Management Act 2010, legislation that has been in the ether and unimplemented for many years. Nearly 15. Um, and it's telling that 66% of the public already say they do not believe the country or their local area is prepared for future flooding. So ignoring the fact the industry that pays out when these floods happen is really not the way to change minds.
I just want to put to the minister that Somerset Council is required to deliver 75,000 new homes in the next 20 years, and I believe that North Somerset has to produce nearly 25,000 new homes in the next 15 years. I just like to point out and repeat something that one of my colleagues at Somerset Council says. So it's taken since the dawn of time for the population of Somerset alone, not North Somerset, to reach 560 000 people. I'd be very keen to know why the minister thinks and his government believes that it's.
The population is going to grow by more than 75000 people in the next 20 years. It's a 30% increase in 20 years when it's taken centuries to get 560 000. It's a ridiculous population increase, and it's not in the slightest bit realistic. For context, the office for National Statistics projects the entire population of the United Kingdom to grow from around 70 million to around 72 million over the same period, a rise of just 2.8%. Um, I am the first to recognise that Wells and Mendip Hills is a lovely place to live.
Actually the best, but even allowing for that huge appeal, I really struggle to understand why the government believes such a disproportionately rural area is going to see growth almost five times the national rate. And of course, the nppf changes affect much more than just flood risk. We're an area that is going to be under pressure on our green spaces. So, um, it seems disproportionate, especially when I look at my local city, which I love dearly. That is Bristol. Um, the population there is projected to grow by about 10%, which is again above the national interest average.
But it really seems that those in Somerset and North Somerset are going to be asked to take a huge number of new residents. And as I say, I don't know where they're coming from. And I can't quite see how it is that the government's come to those figures. And I'd be very grateful if the minister could write to me on how his team has come to that assumption. Um. The last thing I'd like to bring, I think, is the matter of farmers.
So farmers run factories, factories are agricultural land. It's just that we do not have roofs on our factories. This is no different from any other part of the country that has some sort of manufacturing. And farmers, we, we use fields and they just don't have roofs. So it's quite hard for people to spot the fact that these are food factories. So I in the interest of an honest debate, I'll acknowledge that many in the farming community welcome what is set out in the new Nppf, but that comes with real caveats.
And I think it's worth the House hearing them. So a lot of our greenhouses are more than 40 years old and in urgent need of modernisation. A large glasshouse developments are still routinely treated as major infrastructure projects, which triggers huge delays that again undermine our domestic food production. Um, and my colleagues will need no second invitation to that. I make this point. And that is that food security is national security. And I'm really glad that the government has recognised this.
Um, as. Recognised this in February. So ensuring that our farmers can produce the food this country needs is a critical importance in what is a very unstable world. So I'm going to ask the minister, please, if he could consider the fact that the points that I've made. Write to me about the population figures, and to make absolutely certain that he doesn't misunderstand me, in that this is not a sentimental case for anything like nature and green spaces. It is very realistic damage that's happening to Somerset.
Thank you.
14:06
14:06
14:06
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank you, Sir Desmond. Chair of the Appg on Council and Social Housing. It's a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, and I congratulate the member for Wells and Mendip Hills for securing this very important debate on a personal basis. A debate on national planning policy feels like a very fitting bookend to the outgoing administration. The issue of what gets built, where defines our daily lives like no other issue. And I found my first two years in this place defined by those debates, without wanting to cast myself as a latter day Cassandra chair, I shared early on in my time, my view that try though ministers might, there would be no appeasing the developer lobby.
No amount of deregulation will ever satisfy them. And so, as proven with the clamour for relaxed fire safety standards, the weakening of environmental policies, and for there to be less opportunity for ordinary people to influence decisions in the planning system as loud as ever. But chair, my views on this subject have changed today. I'm not joining this debate to raise a series of detailed concerns about the latest redrafting of the NPF, although I do, of course, still have such concerns, especially in relation to possible changes to the sequential test on surface water flooding and limits being imposed on local authorities to pursue more ambitious policies on climate and nature restoration.
However, the point I really want to make today is that I believe we've reached a point where national planning policy is completely broken, and that is beyond reform. After decades of deregulation, the genius of Labour's post-war democratic settlement has been degraded and reduced to a system of fiendishly complex process combined with overwhelmingly negative outcomes that, for all the world, seems as if it has been designed by an evil genius to drive all those involved mad. When Lewis Silkin created the planning system that rebuilt this country from the ashes of World War Two, he described the distinctly Labour vision for a policy that would meet actual needs, democratically expressed.
Yet what the NPF has achieved for years, I'm afraid, and I'm afraid the latest iteration will be little different, is almost the precise opposite of Sorkin's idealism. Pretty much ever since the first version of the NPF in 2012, what we have seen is the proliferation of speculative development across the country, with democratically produced local plans ridden over roughshod and housing built first and foremost for profit, not for people. In fact, a national planning policy framework is not even an accurate name for what we have. There can be no plan led system when national policy introduces the overwhelming likelihood of caveats to local plans through an ever stronger and equally inaccurately named presumption in favour of sustainable development, which in reality functions as a passport to permission for all but the very worst speculative schemes.
Chair, this is not planning in any reasonable sense of the word, it is merely reacting under the NPF system more and more of the initiative, the influence and the advantage lies with the vested interests of land promoters and major developers whose private profit will never accord with the public good, and thus we have a national system in which the notion of affordable housing is a running joke, a system in which the environment in which the environment politicians so often protest their love for, is repeatedly trashed as a secondary matter compared to the unequally distributed benefits of growth.
It is a national planning policy framework that overwhelmingly produces outcomes that lock us into car dependent, unsustainable lifestyles with polluted air that chokes the lungs of our children and costs the NHS billions, utterly fails to secure public consent for the development. We very desperately do require to meet the needs of those stuck in temporary accommodation and in cramped, crowded and unsanitary conditions. I'll gladly give way.
No amount of deregulation will ever satisfy them. And so, as proven with the clamour for relaxed fire safety standards, the weakening of environmental policies, and for there to be less opportunity for ordinary people to influence decisions in the planning system as loud as ever. But chair, my views on this subject have changed today. I'm not joining this debate to raise a series of detailed concerns about the latest redrafting of the NPF, although I do, of course, still have such concerns, especially in relation to possible changes to the sequential test on surface water flooding and limits being imposed on local authorities to pursue more ambitious policies on climate and nature restoration.
However, the point I really want to make today is that I believe we've reached a point where national planning policy is completely broken, and that is beyond reform. After decades of deregulation, the genius of Labour's post-war democratic settlement has been degraded and reduced to a system of fiendishly complex process combined with overwhelmingly negative outcomes that, for all the world, seems as if it has been designed by an evil genius to drive all those involved mad. When Lewis Silkin created the planning system that rebuilt this country from the ashes of World War Two, he described the distinctly Labour vision for a policy that would meet actual needs, democratically expressed.
Yet what the NPF has achieved for years, I'm afraid, and I'm afraid the latest iteration will be little different, is almost the precise opposite of Sorkin's idealism. Pretty much ever since the first version of the NPF in 2012, what we have seen is the proliferation of speculative development across the country, with democratically produced local plans ridden over roughshod and housing built first and foremost for profit, not for people. In fact, a national planning policy framework is not even an accurate name for what we have. There can be no plan led system when national policy introduces the overwhelming likelihood of caveats to local plans through an ever stronger and equally inaccurately named presumption in favour of sustainable development, which in reality functions as a passport to permission for all but the very worst speculative schemes.
Chair, this is not planning in any reasonable sense of the word, it is merely reacting under the NPF system more and more of the initiative, the influence and the advantage lies with the vested interests of land promoters and major developers whose private profit will never accord with the public good, and thus we have a national system in which the notion of affordable housing is a running joke, a system in which the environment in which the environment politicians so often protest their love for, is repeatedly trashed as a secondary matter compared to the unequally distributed benefits of growth.
It is a national planning policy framework that overwhelmingly produces outcomes that lock us into car dependent, unsustainable lifestyles with polluted air that chokes the lungs of our children and costs the NHS billions, utterly fails to secure public consent for the development. We very desperately do require to meet the needs of those stuck in temporary accommodation and in cramped, crowded and unsanitary conditions. I'll gladly give way.
14:09
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you. I apologise. I apologize to the minister. I'm trying to bop between two different debates in different chambers, but I made this point to my constituents that I try and make it today, which is under planning policy. AM I at the moment, having fought for decades now to protect the green belt, the introduction of the concept of the green Belt means that developers now turning green belt into grey belt by dumping, cutting down trees, despoiling the air itself, and then giving planning permission for development.
The concept of grey belt now has undermined all that we've been campaigning for, for for decades.
The concept of grey belt now has undermined all that we've been campaigning for, for for decades.
14:10
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
I do agree with those concerns. Um, certainly, as I understand it, many of the applications for grey Belt are in fact on greenfield sites. And that does need to be addressed. And for all its labyrinthine processes, the NPF makes a mockery of local democracy in a way that breeds disillusion and contempt for politics in this country, where the system we have created through the NPF traps communities in a never ending cycle of adversarial confrontations with corporations that see our local landscapes as easy pickings, and who cream off so much of the wealth of new developments while leaving the public with the majority of the costs to carry the section 106 mechanism it relies upon is not only obscure, but is demonstrably incapable of securing the investment in infrastructure, the GPS, the schools, the sports ground and the public transport necessary to keep pace with population growth.
When hundreds of new houses are bolted on to towns that have already seen almost all of their facilities closed, and the housing it produces is often both miserablist and identikit, seemingly designed to erase local identity. Shorn of local traditions, with no space for community and with a built environment that is best described as unhappiness given physical form. All in all, chair the damage successive iterations of the NPF have done to our country is difficult to forgive. Instead of further amendments. Now is the time to consign the NPF to the dustbin of history where it belongs, and start afresh.
And the one positive note I can strike in this debate is that it is not, in fact, difficult to imagine something far, far better. We need to return to Labour's democratic principles to stop treating the public as a problem, to be silenced, and to embrace them as a source of optimistic solutions for meeting the needs of the future. It is time to replace the constant nonsense that produces our constituents as NIMBYs, and put power in their hands to decide where and how to meet the housing needs of their communities in a way that expresses their hopes and their priorities for the future.
It is time to bring back architects in every local planning authority, working with each community to shape plans for future development on an appropriate scale for each settlement. With a renaissance in the local vernacular of buildings that strengthens and reinvigorates the culture and identity of each unique town, village and city city. In short, it is time to ditch the NPF and build a new system that puts power in the hands of the people and allows planners to genuinely plan with communities.
When hundreds of new houses are bolted on to towns that have already seen almost all of their facilities closed, and the housing it produces is often both miserablist and identikit, seemingly designed to erase local identity. Shorn of local traditions, with no space for community and with a built environment that is best described as unhappiness given physical form. All in all, chair the damage successive iterations of the NPF have done to our country is difficult to forgive. Instead of further amendments. Now is the time to consign the NPF to the dustbin of history where it belongs, and start afresh.
And the one positive note I can strike in this debate is that it is not, in fact, difficult to imagine something far, far better. We need to return to Labour's democratic principles to stop treating the public as a problem, to be silenced, and to embrace them as a source of optimistic solutions for meeting the needs of the future. It is time to replace the constant nonsense that produces our constituents as NIMBYs, and put power in their hands to decide where and how to meet the housing needs of their communities in a way that expresses their hopes and their priorities for the future.
It is time to bring back architects in every local planning authority, working with each community to shape plans for future development on an appropriate scale for each settlement. With a renaissance in the local vernacular of buildings that strengthens and reinvigorates the culture and identity of each unique town, village and city city. In short, it is time to ditch the NPF and build a new system that puts power in the hands of the people and allows planners to genuinely plan with communities.
14:12
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
It's a great pleasure to see you in the chair. Congratulate you for Wells and Mendip Hills. In just short of four minutes, I'm going to try and cover four aspects of the NPF. The first is about what it says on intentional unauthorised development, and I welcome the move towards a stronger wording in this area. And I should stress, we are not I'm not talking here about a house extension or somebody accidentally not complying with regulations, but where you are talking about entire new dwellings and it being done wilfully.
As I say, I welcome the move from material consideration as it's known to substantial weight, but I fear it doesn't go far enough. And as I said in my submission to the consultation, it should set out very clearly that willfully ignoring planning requirements will not result in retrospective planning permission subsequently being granted. And this cannot, in normal circumstances, be overridden by personal circumstance arguments. There are other things that could be done in support as well. Making sure that stop notices are easier to um to issue, and restrictions on things like delivery of construction materials and mobile homes to unlawful sites more broadly on the way the NPF works, the way the housing formula works.
The minister and I have had these discussions many times across this floor, and I do want to thank him. He is a very diligent minister and although he robustly always defends the government line, which of course is kind of annoying, he does it always with great courtesy and I thank him. I thank him for that. But the problem is this formula, Sir Desmond has meant this massive increase in housing numbers for the countryside. It's not a north south thing. It's an urban countryside, urban two countryside shift in East Hampshire.
Whereas overall for the country, the the numbers have gone up by 50%. In East Hampshire they have doubled. And of course, when that happens overnight, no one can have a five year land supply that can deal with it. And so you get speculative developments. Um, um, this has become even more into sharp relief by the issue of water supply, which is particularly come to prominence since South East Water's submission to the Basingstoke and Deane um local plan. But, but the area that it talks about the Basingstoke area, the zone four as it's known, also extends to Alton and around in my constituency we have the Environment Agency having stopped the extension of the abstraction licence at Greywell Fen because of the degradation there has been of that globally rare site of Special scientific interest.
I met South East Water recently on this. There are obviously there are questions outstanding, particularly as regards parts of my constituency and clearly action should have happened before now. But a doubling of the housing target, obviously hugely exacerbates the issue and large scale development simply should not go ahead unless and until this issue is resolved. My hon.
As I say, I welcome the move from material consideration as it's known to substantial weight, but I fear it doesn't go far enough. And as I said in my submission to the consultation, it should set out very clearly that willfully ignoring planning requirements will not result in retrospective planning permission subsequently being granted. And this cannot, in normal circumstances, be overridden by personal circumstance arguments. There are other things that could be done in support as well. Making sure that stop notices are easier to um to issue, and restrictions on things like delivery of construction materials and mobile homes to unlawful sites more broadly on the way the NPF works, the way the housing formula works.
The minister and I have had these discussions many times across this floor, and I do want to thank him. He is a very diligent minister and although he robustly always defends the government line, which of course is kind of annoying, he does it always with great courtesy and I thank him. I thank him for that. But the problem is this formula, Sir Desmond has meant this massive increase in housing numbers for the countryside. It's not a north south thing. It's an urban countryside, urban two countryside shift in East Hampshire.
Whereas overall for the country, the the numbers have gone up by 50%. In East Hampshire they have doubled. And of course, when that happens overnight, no one can have a five year land supply that can deal with it. And so you get speculative developments. Um, um, this has become even more into sharp relief by the issue of water supply, which is particularly come to prominence since South East Water's submission to the Basingstoke and Deane um local plan. But, but the area that it talks about the Basingstoke area, the zone four as it's known, also extends to Alton and around in my constituency we have the Environment Agency having stopped the extension of the abstraction licence at Greywell Fen because of the degradation there has been of that globally rare site of Special scientific interest.
I met South East Water recently on this. There are obviously there are questions outstanding, particularly as regards parts of my constituency and clearly action should have happened before now. But a doubling of the housing target, obviously hugely exacerbates the issue and large scale development simply should not go ahead unless and until this issue is resolved. My hon.
14:15
14:15
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
As well, across the water is, of course, the ministerial responsibility for. But does he feel as. I feel that the recommendations and some of the good things that are learned here in the mainland UK should be shared with us back home to ensure that we don't have the same problems repeating over and over again that seem to be happening here.
14:15
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I do, I do agree, Sir Desmond, and there is no practical limit on what we can learn from one another in the home nations of the of the United Kingdom. The next thing I was going to come on to was what's known as policy L3. This is the minimum density requirements for areas around train stations. And again, I've written about this in my submission to the to the consultation. I fear that a policy which is on the face of it, sensible, like let's have people living close to train stations where they can commute to work or whatever it might be, is really designed for urban town areas, but actually will also have an impact on market towns in places like East Hampshire and indeed in villages that just happen to have a train station.
But where the the sorts of densities that are talked about would be wholly inappropriate. I mean, market towns like Alton in East Hampshire and rural villages like Bentley or Rowlands, all Rowlands Castle and finally Sir Desmond. Um, how this thing interacts with local government reorganisation. I'm totally opposed to the to the government's top down reorganisation of Hampshire local government for multiple reasons, including the fact that it splits up an area with an identity, namely East Hampshire putting putting the the the lower part into a new Portsmouth Super Council area and the rest of East Hampshire into this vast new East mid Hants unitary.
But the real question is here, of course, local plans have been built around existing district Council geographies and for councils who are part way through the process and are about to have this enormous reorganisation thrust upon them. What is the guidance from the government as to how they should proceed?
But where the the sorts of densities that are talked about would be wholly inappropriate. I mean, market towns like Alton in East Hampshire and rural villages like Bentley or Rowlands, all Rowlands Castle and finally Sir Desmond. Um, how this thing interacts with local government reorganisation. I'm totally opposed to the to the government's top down reorganisation of Hampshire local government for multiple reasons, including the fact that it splits up an area with an identity, namely East Hampshire putting putting the the the lower part into a new Portsmouth Super Council area and the rest of East Hampshire into this vast new East mid Hants unitary.
But the real question is here, of course, local plans have been built around existing district Council geographies and for councils who are part way through the process and are about to have this enormous reorganisation thrust upon them. What is the guidance from the government as to how they should proceed?
14:17
14:17
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Sir, it's a pleasure to serve under your chair, and I thank my hon. Friend the member for Wells and Mendip Hills for securing this debate on this important topic. Very much in the spirit of end of term relaxation. First of all, I want to start with some of the positives of the new draft MP. My district councils locally have welcomed its structure and usability and the good aim, at least of more a more streamlined planning system and reduction of duplication. They also welcome the separation of plan making and decision making guidance, and overall the aim of speeding up the plan making process for 13 months is welcome.
Local plans take many years to be produced and involve a huge amount of resource, but I'm certainly interested to hear from the minister whether he feels that the Planning Inspectorate has the resources to be able to cope with an increase in the number of plans to examine and assess, and the honourable member for East Hampshire raised a very important point about the implications of local government reorganisation. But significant concerns remain. Local decision making and community empowerment. It seems that the government is taking is making a move away from those, as this new scheme of delegation will reduce the input of elected councillors in planning decisions involving communities and needs specific to a local geography become even more important.
Yet there are concerns that spatial development strategies will be agreed to far away from communities. More could be done to clarify the planning system and permissions around houses in multiple occupation. Such properties are often associated with parking and waste issues, and, unlike larger HMOs, may not be subject to requirements on parking provision, room sizes or amenity space, potentially resulting in poor living conditions requiring planning permission for all HMOs for a single use class could help address these issues by ensuring consistent standards. The environment is a big concern.
Insufficient focus on our climate and environmental obligations is in the draft PDF, and certainly not enough on flood and extreme temperature resilience and standards for homes. And as highlighted by the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the draft NPF would limit local ambition and powers by preventing local planning authorities from requiring biodiversity net gain above the statutory 10% minimum. This seems like a retrograde step. Finally, Sir Desmond, my biggest concern it concerns a point I have raised with the minister many times and in many different forums, which is that the government's ambitious targets for housing are not being supported with the same focus on the need for the infrastructure and public services to support them.
And that really does make it harder to get local communities invested in the importance of more housing. In Oxfordshire, where there's been an extremely fast rate of housing growth, the challenge is ensuring that infrastructure such as doctors, schools, public transport and affordable housing are available to support our growing population and development should remain planned, led and guidance by evidence, local need and not by market forces alone. That is the biggest concern that I have about government policy and in general, and particularly about the NPF, and I do hope the Minister will add to his previous comments about what the government is going to be doing to ensure that our house targets and population growth are supported by infrastructure and public services.
Local plans take many years to be produced and involve a huge amount of resource, but I'm certainly interested to hear from the minister whether he feels that the Planning Inspectorate has the resources to be able to cope with an increase in the number of plans to examine and assess, and the honourable member for East Hampshire raised a very important point about the implications of local government reorganisation. But significant concerns remain. Local decision making and community empowerment. It seems that the government is taking is making a move away from those, as this new scheme of delegation will reduce the input of elected councillors in planning decisions involving communities and needs specific to a local geography become even more important.
Yet there are concerns that spatial development strategies will be agreed to far away from communities. More could be done to clarify the planning system and permissions around houses in multiple occupation. Such properties are often associated with parking and waste issues, and, unlike larger HMOs, may not be subject to requirements on parking provision, room sizes or amenity space, potentially resulting in poor living conditions requiring planning permission for all HMOs for a single use class could help address these issues by ensuring consistent standards. The environment is a big concern.
Insufficient focus on our climate and environmental obligations is in the draft PDF, and certainly not enough on flood and extreme temperature resilience and standards for homes. And as highlighted by the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the draft NPF would limit local ambition and powers by preventing local planning authorities from requiring biodiversity net gain above the statutory 10% minimum. This seems like a retrograde step. Finally, Sir Desmond, my biggest concern it concerns a point I have raised with the minister many times and in many different forums, which is that the government's ambitious targets for housing are not being supported with the same focus on the need for the infrastructure and public services to support them.
And that really does make it harder to get local communities invested in the importance of more housing. In Oxfordshire, where there's been an extremely fast rate of housing growth, the challenge is ensuring that infrastructure such as doctors, schools, public transport and affordable housing are available to support our growing population and development should remain planned, led and guidance by evidence, local need and not by market forces alone. That is the biggest concern that I have about government policy and in general, and particularly about the NPF, and I do hope the Minister will add to his previous comments about what the government is going to be doing to ensure that our house targets and population growth are supported by infrastructure and public services.
14:20
14:20
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank you, sir, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I'd like to thank my hon. Friend the member for Wells and the Mendip Hills for securing this important debate. Planning and local development is one of the most common issues raised in my. In my email box inbox, and I'm sure it's the case for many others in this room, I'd like to make it clear, first of all, that I am completely aware of the dire need for housing in this country.
Many young people have expressed their fears to me that they will never get a foot on the property ladder, or are having to move away from the communities they know and love to find affordable places to rent. Affordable housing is a need, not a luxury. However, new homes do not need to come at the cost of the community already there, nor should they be placed on floodplains, local people and local elected officials should have a role in deciding the future of their area because they best understand their area.
When local people are given the opportunity to help shape their future, it can be a roaring success in the village of Holt, in my constituency, their neighbourhood plan shaped the development of a derelict, unused tannery site into an award winning mixed use development, combining homes and new commercial space while still providing the preserving the village's distinct character and acknowledging its history. Meanwhile, in Seend, near Devizes, the village's Community Land Trust has delivered affordable homes for local residents built to the highest passive house standards of energy efficiency. And this demonstrates what rural communities can achieve working with partners such as local council and Homes England, both for the benefit of residents and the environment.
While there's a lot of good in the framework, I am particularly concerned that it fails to commit to new homes being zero carbon or held to the highest energy efficiency standards possible. Development in Seend also contains no clear commitment to delivering actually affordable homes. It risks encouraging more executive housing to make more money for developers, while failing to tackle the housing crisis. I welcome the proposed presumption in favour of development near railway stations. Transport oriented development is precisely the kind of planning approach needed to move away from car dependent housing estates, located far from town centres.
I will.
Many young people have expressed their fears to me that they will never get a foot on the property ladder, or are having to move away from the communities they know and love to find affordable places to rent. Affordable housing is a need, not a luxury. However, new homes do not need to come at the cost of the community already there, nor should they be placed on floodplains, local people and local elected officials should have a role in deciding the future of their area because they best understand their area.
When local people are given the opportunity to help shape their future, it can be a roaring success in the village of Holt, in my constituency, their neighbourhood plan shaped the development of a derelict, unused tannery site into an award winning mixed use development, combining homes and new commercial space while still providing the preserving the village's distinct character and acknowledging its history. Meanwhile, in Seend, near Devizes, the village's Community Land Trust has delivered affordable homes for local residents built to the highest passive house standards of energy efficiency. And this demonstrates what rural communities can achieve working with partners such as local council and Homes England, both for the benefit of residents and the environment.
While there's a lot of good in the framework, I am particularly concerned that it fails to commit to new homes being zero carbon or held to the highest energy efficiency standards possible. Development in Seend also contains no clear commitment to delivering actually affordable homes. It risks encouraging more executive housing to make more money for developers, while failing to tackle the housing crisis. I welcome the proposed presumption in favour of development near railway stations. Transport oriented development is precisely the kind of planning approach needed to move away from car dependent housing estates, located far from town centres.
I will.
14:22
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I thank the honourable member for giving way. I just want to point out that actually, it would be a very good idea to have development near railway stations. That's absolutely fine, but I have another application which is on the horizon in Yatton. The decision, the village I was discussing earlier, um, which. Where there's a plan to build on the railway station car park. I just wondered whether he thought that was a good idea.
14:23
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
It does sound most, most odd. Uh, if I may say so. Um, but if I may get back to my argument, the the principle lies at the heart of the Bath and Wiltshire Metro proposal that I support, which has the potential to unlock brownfield regeneration in Melksham town centre, revitalise the riverside and strengthen the high street through sustainable rail connected growth. However, if this ambition is to be realised, local areas must have access to resources needed to develop robust transport business cases, master plans and infrastructure programmes.
I am therefore concerned that the removal of funding for subnational transport bodies risks creating a significant obstacle to the station upgrade, service improvements and strategic transport planning required to support housing and regeneration opportunities that the policy seeks to encourage. Without adequate investment in the transport network itself, the benefits of transport orientated development may be difficult to deliver in much of the country. Thank you.
I am therefore concerned that the removal of funding for subnational transport bodies risks creating a significant obstacle to the station upgrade, service improvements and strategic transport planning required to support housing and regeneration opportunities that the policy seeks to encourage. Without adequate investment in the transport network itself, the benefits of transport orientated development may be difficult to deliver in much of the country. Thank you.
14:24
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you, Sir Desmond. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. First of all, I'd like to thank the Minister for his assistance in progressing the Local plan. In my constituency of Horsham, we faced a unique problem called water neutrality, which had the which the previous government showed no sign of ever grappling with. So I'm very grateful for his personal involvement. However, when it comes to national housebuilding strategy, I do have to be critical. Difficulty in obtaining planning permission is only one of the many obstacles to housebuilding, and no longer even the most important.
So why do we obsess over it to the exclusion of all else?Local targets are set by a compulsory process called the standard method. High house high local house prices, but with only modest local wages, means you'll find yourself with a steeper housing target. In practice, this formula turns out to be a terrible way to assess local housing need, but the worst aspect is the way it destroys local authority's negotiating power with developers. Like most planning authorities, Horsham District Council builds very few council houses directly, so most of its new housing stock, the vast majority, must come from private developers.
Developers aren't stupid. They know that if a council has a target of 1800 homes each year and every year, as Horsham may face, then the council is going to have to say yes to practically every site that's put in front of them, no matter if it was a site they rejected the year before or anything else. Try explaining that to residents. Developers bid against each other for options on the land, with a price based on the highest possible outcome. Achieving that price means they'll have to build zero homes for social rent, but lots of high priced executive homes.
It's a bizarre case where competition drives prices only ever up and not down. Incredibly, in Horsham, we would be better off if we negotiated a monopoly for one single company to develop the whole district. And that's why we have the paradox of a chronic housing shortage. At the same time as 1.5 million unbuilt planning permissions. Meanwhile, as collateral damage to this whole process, we are ripping apart local democracy. Councils are forced to approve sites with zero local consent that are deficient in transport water supply, mostly on greenfield sites.
Local authorities have to take the word of statutory consultees as gospel, even when they know perfectly well that that land will flood. But if the Environment Agency says it won't, that's the end of it. I know that the minister is committed to solving the national housing problem, and I wholeheartedly, wholeheartedly support him in that. But this is all sacrifice to no benefit. The sites we are approving today will sit like a dead weight on the housing market for years to come.
They're locking in high land prices in wasteful schemes that take up three times the land that they need to minister. We need a reset and I hope that he will agree to meet with me to consider alternative solutions.
So why do we obsess over it to the exclusion of all else?Local targets are set by a compulsory process called the standard method. High house high local house prices, but with only modest local wages, means you'll find yourself with a steeper housing target. In practice, this formula turns out to be a terrible way to assess local housing need, but the worst aspect is the way it destroys local authority's negotiating power with developers. Like most planning authorities, Horsham District Council builds very few council houses directly, so most of its new housing stock, the vast majority, must come from private developers.
Developers aren't stupid. They know that if a council has a target of 1800 homes each year and every year, as Horsham may face, then the council is going to have to say yes to practically every site that's put in front of them, no matter if it was a site they rejected the year before or anything else. Try explaining that to residents. Developers bid against each other for options on the land, with a price based on the highest possible outcome. Achieving that price means they'll have to build zero homes for social rent, but lots of high priced executive homes.
It's a bizarre case where competition drives prices only ever up and not down. Incredibly, in Horsham, we would be better off if we negotiated a monopoly for one single company to develop the whole district. And that's why we have the paradox of a chronic housing shortage. At the same time as 1.5 million unbuilt planning permissions. Meanwhile, as collateral damage to this whole process, we are ripping apart local democracy. Councils are forced to approve sites with zero local consent that are deficient in transport water supply, mostly on greenfield sites.
Local authorities have to take the word of statutory consultees as gospel, even when they know perfectly well that that land will flood. But if the Environment Agency says it won't, that's the end of it. I know that the minister is committed to solving the national housing problem, and I wholeheartedly, wholeheartedly support him in that. But this is all sacrifice to no benefit. The sites we are approving today will sit like a dead weight on the housing market for years to come.
They're locking in high land prices in wasteful schemes that take up three times the land that they need to minister. We need a reset and I hope that he will agree to meet with me to consider alternative solutions.
14:27
14:27
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Chair, and I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this debate. Building homes is clearly essential. One of the reasons that I am in this place is because of my work supporting victims of domestic abuse. For those on a six month stay in refuge, often with children fleeing the most dreadful violence, a secure home is the first step to a new, safe future. And yet, despite this, the government has not introduced any targets for council or social homes, despite many calls to do so from the Liberal Democrats.
This dreadful shortage left as our legacy by successive conservative governments is at the very least not being remedied under this Labour government. This is the problem that needs fixing and the nppf changes are not only not addressing this problem, they are opening up a raft of other ones on local plans.
This dreadful shortage left as our legacy by successive conservative governments is at the very least not being remedied under this Labour government. This is the problem that needs fixing and the nppf changes are not only not addressing this problem, they are opening up a raft of other ones on local plans.
14:28
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Turf development granted on appeal, resulting in large housing estates on the edges of our towns and villages, with no accompanying infrastructure to make the best of a bad situation. The Liberal Democrats in heart brought in a local plan. Crucially, getting houses built on brownfield land in a sustainable way. And when the Lib Dems took joint control of Basingstoke and a local Plan was prioritised and in progress. But this government's new housing targets have rendered those plans all but redundant. Both both councils are now an easy target for housing developments that are entirely inappropriate when the balance tips in favour of appeal, it is not, in fact, people who benefit, but the developers in Basingstoke and Deane.
There is already planning permission granted for around 6000 new homes and in heart, the major developer working on the biggest housing project has slowed down, building instead of 200 at a time to sell, they are now building 50 to protect their profits. These houses are not any more affordable. In fact, North East Hampshire has some of the most expensive property prices outside of London, but developers are, through these policies, being allowed to land bank pushing through application after application. Despite the lack of infrastructure holding on to land for years and decades.
While it increases in value, and we see applications come in for a raft of inappropriate places, all the while, our most important resource is not a statutory Consultee water is our biggest concern of all, and is absent from the government's plans. South East water supplying fresh water to most of north east Hampshire, produced in autumn 2020 for a five year plan that is largely a work of fiction, siting a new pipeline that would supply new and existing homes that would come online in spring 2025. Nobody believes that could be completed in six months, yet Offutt has no powers to compel South East Water to publish a plan that is in any way based in reality.
The consequences of this regulatory and legislative failure sit with local people and the environment. Failure to supply local fresh water has consequences that are obvious, but the environment also suffers in Greywell. We have heard already about how the Environment Agency has cancelled the supply of water, and yet South east water continues to obstruct from this environmental place.
There is already planning permission granted for around 6000 new homes and in heart, the major developer working on the biggest housing project has slowed down, building instead of 200 at a time to sell, they are now building 50 to protect their profits. These houses are not any more affordable. In fact, North East Hampshire has some of the most expensive property prices outside of London, but developers are, through these policies, being allowed to land bank pushing through application after application. Despite the lack of infrastructure holding on to land for years and decades.
While it increases in value, and we see applications come in for a raft of inappropriate places, all the while, our most important resource is not a statutory Consultee water is our biggest concern of all, and is absent from the government's plans. South East water supplying fresh water to most of north east Hampshire, produced in autumn 2020 for a five year plan that is largely a work of fiction, siting a new pipeline that would supply new and existing homes that would come online in spring 2025. Nobody believes that could be completed in six months, yet Offutt has no powers to compel South East Water to publish a plan that is in any way based in reality.
The consequences of this regulatory and legislative failure sit with local people and the environment. Failure to supply local fresh water has consequences that are obvious, but the environment also suffers in Greywell. We have heard already about how the Environment Agency has cancelled the supply of water, and yet South east water continues to obstruct from this environmental place.
14:30
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Mr. Desmond, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I thank my hon. Friend the member for Wales and Mendip Hills for securing this debate. My constituency is large and rural, containing the towns of Thornbury and Chipping Sodbury, and numerous villages and hamlets stretching from the internationally designated Severn Estuary all the way to the Cotswold Escarpment, a large part of the countryside that surrounds those communities is currently designated as greenbelt. With all the protections that used to bring. But now that protection is under threat.
Before I go further, some context under the current administration, South Gloucestershire Council recognises the need for new housing and has developed a plan to deliver its housing need, which has recently been going through its examination in public. More than that, it recognises the importance of homes for social rent, as has been punching above its weight in their provision, with around 0.6% of the population of England outside London. It delivered 1.6% of a total new social rent completions last year. There is an implicit deal, though, with local people in that Local plan.
The plan delivers homes while protecting the remaining countryside from speculative development. But the government's greenbelt policy fundamentally threatens that. Green belt land will now be passed up into cells for assessment, and it will be difficult to show one cell's contribution. The changes to the framework around greenbelt essentially make purposes C and E void, particularly C, which protects countryside from encroachment. The danger is that pockets of land will be considered in isolation and are judged only to contribute to purpose. C indeed, the West of England Combined Authority 2022 report in the Local Plan evidence shows that the primary reason for just about all of the land in the greenbelt locally is C.
But the cumulative impact of development developing them would degrade the greenbelt as a whole. Some of our greenbelt is very narrow and will only become more so if it is allowed to happen. Our towns and villages will solely be swallowed up by Bristol, and a distinctiveness of our communities lost. My constituents do not want do not want this, and I suspect the good people of Bristol do not want it either, although some may be. Some honourable members think otherwise. The government rightly wants to speed up housing delivery, but indiscriminate housing by big developers with no regard for the environment or the people living nearby is not the answer.
Ironically, far from increasing the speed of housing deliveries, the government claims in my area, the grey belt changes, risk changes, risk, creating more delays by distracting planning officers from the planned sites and from the government's new town proposal. Time will be wasted arguing with speculative developers about what constitutes grey belt, when it could be spent delivering the local housing need through the Local Plan. I urge the Minister to listen to honourable members across the room who rightly raised concerns, and to advise the new cabinet, as well as the incoming incoming Prime Minister, that rural voices must be heard and the Mppf revisited.
Before I go further, some context under the current administration, South Gloucestershire Council recognises the need for new housing and has developed a plan to deliver its housing need, which has recently been going through its examination in public. More than that, it recognises the importance of homes for social rent, as has been punching above its weight in their provision, with around 0.6% of the population of England outside London. It delivered 1.6% of a total new social rent completions last year. There is an implicit deal, though, with local people in that Local plan.
The plan delivers homes while protecting the remaining countryside from speculative development. But the government's greenbelt policy fundamentally threatens that. Green belt land will now be passed up into cells for assessment, and it will be difficult to show one cell's contribution. The changes to the framework around greenbelt essentially make purposes C and E void, particularly C, which protects countryside from encroachment. The danger is that pockets of land will be considered in isolation and are judged only to contribute to purpose. C indeed, the West of England Combined Authority 2022 report in the Local Plan evidence shows that the primary reason for just about all of the land in the greenbelt locally is C.
But the cumulative impact of development developing them would degrade the greenbelt as a whole. Some of our greenbelt is very narrow and will only become more so if it is allowed to happen. Our towns and villages will solely be swallowed up by Bristol, and a distinctiveness of our communities lost. My constituents do not want do not want this, and I suspect the good people of Bristol do not want it either, although some may be. Some honourable members think otherwise. The government rightly wants to speed up housing delivery, but indiscriminate housing by big developers with no regard for the environment or the people living nearby is not the answer.
Ironically, far from increasing the speed of housing deliveries, the government claims in my area, the grey belt changes, risk changes, risk, creating more delays by distracting planning officers from the planned sites and from the government's new town proposal. Time will be wasted arguing with speculative developers about what constitutes grey belt, when it could be spent delivering the local housing need through the Local Plan. I urge the Minister to listen to honourable members across the room who rightly raised concerns, and to advise the new cabinet, as well as the incoming incoming Prime Minister, that rural voices must be heard and the Mppf revisited.
14:33
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
George, thank you, Sir Desmond, and I congratulate my hon. Friend for securing this debate and all other members for excellent contributions, which I strongly endorse and I particularly wish to, highlight. Uh, the the contribution of the honourable member for, for North East Hertfordshire, who I hope that was a bid to become Secretary of State, uh, to. Him there um, under, under the new the new regime. And certainly I would strongly support the, the approach which he is taking. A lot of people have have um referred to the, the, the inequity and inappropriateness of the way in which the government has introduced, uh, national targets and imposed them in the manner in which they have through the National Planning Policy Framework.
And certainly it reinforces the weakness of the whole system, because of course, it's based on a on a delusion, a delusion that private developers will collude with the government, uh, in driving down the price of their, of their finished product. Um, and certainly I, as someone who during my nine year sabbatical from this place was a chief executive of a, of a registered social landlord, a community land trust, and therefore trying to deliver in these circumstances. I certainly am aware of the difficulties of trying to achieve these kind of, uh, or to achieve the need to meet the needs for affordable homes in, in those in those circumstances.
So with regard to, um, the primary point which I wish to make is the way in which the National Planning Policy Framework has fundamentally weakened the rural exceptions policy, which was introduced in the early 90s under PBP three. In those days, this was the first time in principle that planning had had switched from, from from planning use to, to, to, to user and took into account users. So meeting local housing need. And this has been very productive in a number of areas, especially in Cornwall where it's actually for many years been the primary source of delivery of affordable homes within, uh, within the Duchy.
But the problem is that because the way in which this has been brought in, and because local authorities can no longer demonstrate that they can meet their five year land supply, it means that all areas which were previously could be designated as as rural exception site to meet affordable housing need can no longer be the case, and a lot of them have been converted to open market housing development. So I think it's it was it was unintended by by the minister. But it has produced an entirely counterproductive impact in in many rural areas, as in fact, one of the primary means by which affordable housing can be delivered within them is now not being.
So the planning system is fueled by greed rather than need. And so long as we have weaknesses in the system like this, we cannot meet housing need.
And certainly it reinforces the weakness of the whole system, because of course, it's based on a on a delusion, a delusion that private developers will collude with the government, uh, in driving down the price of their, of their finished product. Um, and certainly I, as someone who during my nine year sabbatical from this place was a chief executive of a, of a registered social landlord, a community land trust, and therefore trying to deliver in these circumstances. I certainly am aware of the difficulties of trying to achieve these kind of, uh, or to achieve the need to meet the needs for affordable homes in, in those in those circumstances.
So with regard to, um, the primary point which I wish to make is the way in which the National Planning Policy Framework has fundamentally weakened the rural exceptions policy, which was introduced in the early 90s under PBP three. In those days, this was the first time in principle that planning had had switched from, from from planning use to, to, to, to user and took into account users. So meeting local housing need. And this has been very productive in a number of areas, especially in Cornwall where it's actually for many years been the primary source of delivery of affordable homes within, uh, within the Duchy.
But the problem is that because the way in which this has been brought in, and because local authorities can no longer demonstrate that they can meet their five year land supply, it means that all areas which were previously could be designated as as rural exception site to meet affordable housing need can no longer be the case, and a lot of them have been converted to open market housing development. So I think it's it was it was unintended by by the minister. But it has produced an entirely counterproductive impact in in many rural areas, as in fact, one of the primary means by which affordable housing can be delivered within them is now not being.
So the planning system is fueled by greed rather than need. And so long as we have weaknesses in the system like this, we cannot meet housing need.
14:36
14:36
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you, Sir Desmond. And it's a pleasure to serve the committee with you in the chair. Uh, I'd like to thank my hon. Friend for Wells and Mendip Hills and all the honourable members who made contributions, uh, around the chamber today. Um, my hon. Friend. Sir Saint Ives and the Isles of Scilly, Thornbury and Yate. Horsham. Didcot, North East Hampshire, Melksham and Devizes. One. The abiding themes was that water and other infrastructure doesn't seem to be.
It seems, to escape the kind of demanding targets that are applied to the delivery of housing. What we need is an infrastructure first approach in which that infrastructure is as prioritised as housing itself. We welcome the ambitions to deliver more homes, particularly 150,000 social and council rent. Homes as a country needs, which we establish as our target. And our manifesto. But the right way to deliver those is by working with local communities, trusting them not through more centralisation into Whitehall.
Housing targets for us are established firmly in a community led process. The incoming Prime Minister has talked a lot about devolution, giving power back to local communities and he's right to do so. Communities know what works for their area, but this proposed framework is the opposite of that stripping power away from local decision makers rather than handing it to them. And it comes off the back of recent regulations and direction, which means that decisions, both small and large, are now removed from local councillors, so that councillors may have no power of control over those decisions.
It means it also means that proposed developments like those at Orchard Portman, near Taunton, 1100 acres sold off by the Crown Estate of Farms to a housebuilder without the usual return of payments to the public purse being required in the event of planning permission could be decided in Whitehall, not by our elected councillors in Somerset. And for all the applications now for all applications. Now the draft NPF, which has recently been out for consultation, is filled with policies that weaken local plans and community involvement. It's a power grab by central government to Desmond across the proposed new framework document.
That centralising instinct repeats itself, starting with the presumption, which has been in favour of sustainable development. Today as a backstop, applying only where the Local Plan is absent or out of date, or where there's no five year land supply that rewards communities for investing in an up to date local plan. That presumption in favour of sustainable development is now to be abolished. And instead policies S3, S4, S5 would impose a de facto presumption in favour of development in every circumstance for certain kinds of development, begging the question Will councils continue to invest all the time and effort in Local Plan preparation?The same instinct runs through proposals on the weight to be given to different policy considerations, giving the same weight to housing, economic development and heritage, and landscape.
Leading Historic England to raise concerns about how these will be balanced. It could mean the historic setting of the Wellington Monument or Wade road in my constituency, currently subject to appeal, could be another victim of these proposed policies and it could be in contravention of the of the well known wording in the statute on the Listed Building Act. That special regard will be had to preserving heritage. But nowhere is the centralisation of these decisions in Whitehall's grasp going further than it does in the greenbelt.
The Town and Country Planning Association have called this an unprecedentedly permissive, permissive framework for good reason. Three elements combined to have this effect. First, the standard method, where 0.8% of the existing housing stock is a multiplier applied, and then a further multiplier is applied for according to areas of how high house prices well, greenbelts. Sir Desmond by definition constrained supply. That is the purpose of greenbelts. Therefore they are areas of high prices. In short, the standard method takes the consequence of protecting a place as a justification for building more on it, which cannot be logical or acceptable.
Rural councils have therefore been subject to much higher housing targets. For example, in Somerset's my honourable friend from Wells and Amanda, pills are very well put. Put across the 75,000 new dwellings will come as a surprise to. In terms of the growth in population that has ever been achieved in the past, urban areas where regeneration is needed have seen their targets reduced. The second element that drives towards development in these rural green fields is on greenbelt. The Greenbelt policy gb7.
In short, it means that a developer can secure consent anywhere in the greenbelt, regardless of what the local Plan says, on condition that it is near a town with a railway station. Ironically, an area without greenbelt might be better protected because it's not subject to these policies to allow development around railway stations. Thirdly, and the third and final part of the policy that leads to this greenfield development is GB two. And this is grey belt, and I think few of us would object. Certainly the Liberal Democrats wouldn't object to local communities deciding that under-used green belt land is degraded and can be released for development, but this policy overrides that local Plan process, and this applies protections against encroachment on the countryside, removing villages from protections they've had in greenbelt terms for decades and generations.
Of course I will.
It seems, to escape the kind of demanding targets that are applied to the delivery of housing. What we need is an infrastructure first approach in which that infrastructure is as prioritised as housing itself. We welcome the ambitions to deliver more homes, particularly 150,000 social and council rent. Homes as a country needs, which we establish as our target. And our manifesto. But the right way to deliver those is by working with local communities, trusting them not through more centralisation into Whitehall.
Housing targets for us are established firmly in a community led process. The incoming Prime Minister has talked a lot about devolution, giving power back to local communities and he's right to do so. Communities know what works for their area, but this proposed framework is the opposite of that stripping power away from local decision makers rather than handing it to them. And it comes off the back of recent regulations and direction, which means that decisions, both small and large, are now removed from local councillors, so that councillors may have no power of control over those decisions.
It means it also means that proposed developments like those at Orchard Portman, near Taunton, 1100 acres sold off by the Crown Estate of Farms to a housebuilder without the usual return of payments to the public purse being required in the event of planning permission could be decided in Whitehall, not by our elected councillors in Somerset. And for all the applications now for all applications. Now the draft NPF, which has recently been out for consultation, is filled with policies that weaken local plans and community involvement. It's a power grab by central government to Desmond across the proposed new framework document.
That centralising instinct repeats itself, starting with the presumption, which has been in favour of sustainable development. Today as a backstop, applying only where the Local Plan is absent or out of date, or where there's no five year land supply that rewards communities for investing in an up to date local plan. That presumption in favour of sustainable development is now to be abolished. And instead policies S3, S4, S5 would impose a de facto presumption in favour of development in every circumstance for certain kinds of development, begging the question Will councils continue to invest all the time and effort in Local Plan preparation?The same instinct runs through proposals on the weight to be given to different policy considerations, giving the same weight to housing, economic development and heritage, and landscape.
Leading Historic England to raise concerns about how these will be balanced. It could mean the historic setting of the Wellington Monument or Wade road in my constituency, currently subject to appeal, could be another victim of these proposed policies and it could be in contravention of the of the well known wording in the statute on the Listed Building Act. That special regard will be had to preserving heritage. But nowhere is the centralisation of these decisions in Whitehall's grasp going further than it does in the greenbelt.
The Town and Country Planning Association have called this an unprecedentedly permissive, permissive framework for good reason. Three elements combined to have this effect. First, the standard method, where 0.8% of the existing housing stock is a multiplier applied, and then a further multiplier is applied for according to areas of how high house prices well, greenbelts. Sir Desmond by definition constrained supply. That is the purpose of greenbelts. Therefore they are areas of high prices. In short, the standard method takes the consequence of protecting a place as a justification for building more on it, which cannot be logical or acceptable.
Rural councils have therefore been subject to much higher housing targets. For example, in Somerset's my honourable friend from Wells and Amanda, pills are very well put. Put across the 75,000 new dwellings will come as a surprise to. In terms of the growth in population that has ever been achieved in the past, urban areas where regeneration is needed have seen their targets reduced. The second element that drives towards development in these rural green fields is on greenbelt. The Greenbelt policy gb7.
In short, it means that a developer can secure consent anywhere in the greenbelt, regardless of what the local Plan says, on condition that it is near a town with a railway station. Ironically, an area without greenbelt might be better protected because it's not subject to these policies to allow development around railway stations. Thirdly, and the third and final part of the policy that leads to this greenfield development is GB two. And this is grey belt, and I think few of us would object. Certainly the Liberal Democrats wouldn't object to local communities deciding that under-used green belt land is degraded and can be released for development, but this policy overrides that local Plan process, and this applies protections against encroachment on the countryside, removing villages from protections they've had in greenbelt terms for decades and generations.
Of course I will.
14:41
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
As the as my hon. Friend is aware, I. I'm very fortunate in having secured a private member's bill which. Which is indeed an affordable homes bill, and there is an opportunity there because the details have not been written to work with him and indeed, the Secretary of State, when I'm very keen to do so, is to to adapt a number of these policies. So it does provide a framework within which the government can can work with, with with Parliament as a whole to improve and adjust planning policy to, to achieve the desirable end.
14:42
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I'm grateful to my friend who makes a very important point. And he, he, he reminds me that I frankly struggle, Sir Desmond, with the fact that this is such a momentous and significant policy instrument that is going through without a vote of Parliament that it can hardly be right to my mind that these these major policy changes which will have the effect of unleashing development all over the country and reversing decades old planning policies, will be subject to no vote, whereas we spend weeks and months going through bills. Quite rightly, Sir Desmond.
So I'm very grateful that my hon. Friend is bringing forward and has chosen to prioritise these issues in his private member's bill, and I wish him well, and I hope, and I know the minister always works constructively across the House and his his work is appreciated for that. I know he will work as. Of course I will with him on that. Um the so-called uh as I was saying, Sir Desmond, the existing along with the proposed frameworks, begin to look like a greenfield first approach.
The golden rules, which would rightly require more affordable housing, social housing, where greenbelt is released are absolutely right. But we see the government's consulted on allowing viability assessments to potentially undermine that. And I would encourage the minister to say something on whether, just because land has been previously developed, it should escape the golden rules requiring more social housing. Equally damaging are the removal of binning in the draft of the Garden City Principles, the very foundation of what made the new towns of the post-war some of the best places to live in, and places like Milton Keynes, with its famous 22 million trees.
No doubt a bit of drafting by those who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Sir Desmond similar centralising is on nature and climate. National development management policies, along with constraints on local standard setting, will stop councils exceeding the statutory 10% of biodiversity net gain and again, proposed policy. Pm10 will prevent councils setting more ambitious energy targets. And we've seen the folly of that under the previous government, where they refused to continue with the Zero Carbon Homes programme.
If they had, and we'd had solar panels on every new house built since then, we could have avoided the need for an entire 900 megawatt power station, perhaps a small nuclear reactor or a gas fired power station. Finally, Sir Desmond, as my hon. Friend for Wells and Mendip Hills, has pointed out the policy. F5 two B one would create a new exemption from the sequential test for flood risk, surface flood water flood risk. Uh, as my as my hon. Friend has said, the insurance industry has pointed out there could be as many as 400 000 mortgage prisoners in future.
Unable to afford insurance. As a result of these kinds of policies. To conclude, Sir Desmond, Liberal Democrats are firmly committed to delivering the housing we need and that our communities need. But placing all the emphasis on increasing permissions for private, private sector homes that few can afford is not the answer. We know it hasn't, and it won't reduce prices to make homes affordable. New homes are only 5% of the market, after all, and with 13,000 homes with planning permission unbuilt in Somerset, 359,000 empty homes in the country, we should be redoubling our efforts to deliver on both of those fronts.
First, what a community approach led approach really means. And this framework lacks almost anything about community involvement. Our homes, they can afford council and social rent homes alongside rent to own to help people get on the housing ladder, the environment and our people and communities are not the blockers of development. Sir Desmond. They are, or at least should be, the reason for development way we can enhance the life chances of both if we get it right. Thank you.
So I'm very grateful that my hon. Friend is bringing forward and has chosen to prioritise these issues in his private member's bill, and I wish him well, and I hope, and I know the minister always works constructively across the House and his his work is appreciated for that. I know he will work as. Of course I will with him on that. Um the so-called uh as I was saying, Sir Desmond, the existing along with the proposed frameworks, begin to look like a greenfield first approach.
The golden rules, which would rightly require more affordable housing, social housing, where greenbelt is released are absolutely right. But we see the government's consulted on allowing viability assessments to potentially undermine that. And I would encourage the minister to say something on whether, just because land has been previously developed, it should escape the golden rules requiring more social housing. Equally damaging are the removal of binning in the draft of the Garden City Principles, the very foundation of what made the new towns of the post-war some of the best places to live in, and places like Milton Keynes, with its famous 22 million trees.
No doubt a bit of drafting by those who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Sir Desmond similar centralising is on nature and climate. National development management policies, along with constraints on local standard setting, will stop councils exceeding the statutory 10% of biodiversity net gain and again, proposed policy. Pm10 will prevent councils setting more ambitious energy targets. And we've seen the folly of that under the previous government, where they refused to continue with the Zero Carbon Homes programme.
If they had, and we'd had solar panels on every new house built since then, we could have avoided the need for an entire 900 megawatt power station, perhaps a small nuclear reactor or a gas fired power station. Finally, Sir Desmond, as my hon. Friend for Wells and Mendip Hills, has pointed out the policy. F5 two B one would create a new exemption from the sequential test for flood risk, surface flood water flood risk. Uh, as my as my hon. Friend has said, the insurance industry has pointed out there could be as many as 400 000 mortgage prisoners in future.
Unable to afford insurance. As a result of these kinds of policies. To conclude, Sir Desmond, Liberal Democrats are firmly committed to delivering the housing we need and that our communities need. But placing all the emphasis on increasing permissions for private, private sector homes that few can afford is not the answer. We know it hasn't, and it won't reduce prices to make homes affordable. New homes are only 5% of the market, after all, and with 13,000 homes with planning permission unbuilt in Somerset, 359,000 empty homes in the country, we should be redoubling our efforts to deliver on both of those fronts.
First, what a community approach led approach really means. And this framework lacks almost anything about community involvement. Our homes, they can afford council and social rent homes alongside rent to own to help people get on the housing ladder, the environment and our people and communities are not the blockers of development. Sir Desmond. They are, or at least should be, the reason for development way we can enhance the life chances of both if we get it right. Thank you.
14:46
14:46
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Thank you very much, Desmond. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to take part in this debate about the impact of changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, and I wish to thank at the outset the honourable Lady, the member for Wells and Mendip Hills for securing this important debate. She made a very strong speech, particularly focused on the danger of building in areas prone to flooding. I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank the ten honourable and right honourable members who have so far spoken in this debate, and the three who have intervened in it.
Desmond, the Nppf is the rulebook by which our planning system is guided. It's an extensive and comprehensive statement of government of today's policy direction, and perhaps the clearest signal to developers, local authorities and local people about how a government will approach changes to their surrounding built environment. It covers everything from roads to housing, local communities to land use, and provides the overarching checks, balances and direction in the planning system. Now, Sir Desmond, we are not in a blanket opposition to everything the government is seeking to do with the Nppf.
However, we do have significant concerns about some aspects of it and I will focus on these in my remarks today. Since coming to power two years ago, this government has twice proposed revisions to the NPF, both times with severe consequences for our green spaces, rural towns and villages, and local democratic voices. For their very first revisions made just before Christmas in 2024, the government's policy direction was clear. Unfortunately, what was on offer was an unwelcome gift of urban sprawl, and this is because the government made it easier for local authorities to release green belt land for development in more ways than one.
The first and the most obvious, was the announcement that new golden rules would need to be met in order to expand onto the green belt. This effectively invited developers to test the waters by stating that where development complies with the Golden rules, the Nppf states that local authorities should give significant weight in favor of approving the scheme. The second release came with the government's spurious greenbelt designation, concocted in the bowels of Marsham Street. Greenbelt is a disingenuous label that the Prime Minister has told us is low quality land made up of disused car parks.
But this is very far from the truth because too many sites greenbelt is simply a facade for releasing greenbelt sites, for urban sprawl and over development. This is backed by research from December 2025 by the campaign for the Protection of Rural England, which showed that a year after the first nppf reforms, of the 13 developments of ten or more homes that have been approved by government planning inspectors on so-called grey belt land, comprising of 1250 homes, 88% will be built on previously undeveloped countryside, not disused power stations, petrol stations or low quality land or any other trumped up example taken straight from an Mhclg press release.
Just our countryside. What's worse is that these developments make up more than 90% of homes granted planning permission on greenbelt sites by inspectors. A further 21 smaller schemes totalling no more than 91 homes comprise the remainder and this. Isn't the only attack on our green spaces. The 2024 Nppf revisions also reintroduced mandatory top down housing targets across England. By removing the word advisory from the relevant paragraph concerning housing targets, alongside references to exceptional circumstances. For alternative approaches to determine local housing targets.
And this came, as other members have said, alongside a new standard method for housing targets, both the honourable member for Horsham and the Honourable Lady, the member for Wells and Mendip Hills, highlighted some of the bizarre assumptions underpinning the housing targets generated by the new standard method, alongside some of the counterproductive outcomes of it and when examined together, disproportionately redistributed top down housing targets onto rural areas from urban areas, for example, under the government's targets, housing numbers were cut by 11%. In London, 38% in Birmingham and 55% in Coventry, whilst increasing by 106% in the New Forest, 199% in North Yorkshire and 487% in Westmorland and Furness.
This is particularly concerning given that major cities, not least here in central London, have the infrastructure needed to support development. But even in Greater London, although the collective target has been reduced by 11%, this has been achieved by sharp drops in urban inner London, whereas in the more rural outer London areas, huge increases have been imposed. For example, in my borough, the London borough of Bromley, which is the largest borough in Greater London and is mostly rural, the target has been increased by 400%. The conclusion is inescapable.
The nppf changes show very clearly that this government is determined to build all over the greenbelt, and what has been the result of these reforms?It certainly hasn't been large amounts of extra housing, as I pointed out in this place yesterday. The government's own figures show that the number of net new additional dwellings in England was just 208,600 in Labour's first year in power, a 6% drop from 2020 324 under the last conservative government's final year in office. Indeed, the government themselves admitted that they will not hit the target through their own net additional dwelling forecast, predicting that by 2029 they will have fallen well short.
But it doesn't have to be this way. The opposition recognises the need to build more homes, and we made it clear from the start of this Parliament that we are broadly supportive of the ambition to build many more homes, but the government's actions, through some of their revisions to the NPF, are the wrong way to go about it. A future conservative government will employ a genuine brownfield first approach rather than release swathes of green belt or relabel it under the murky and disingenuous designation of grey belt.
We won't just pay lip service to brownfield development, but prioritise it and make it easier. This can and will be done. The CPR reported that a large proportion of England's housing could be swiftly met, using brownfield land that already has planning permission without encroaching on undeveloped greenfield or green belt land. They estimate that there is enough brownfield land to build 1.41 million homes in England, based on data from local planning authorities. Most updated brownfield land registers up to 2024. This amounts to 93% of the government's parliamentary target.
Furthermore, they have shown that England's brownfield sites are increasing in number, land area and minimum net dwellings, up 54%, 6% and 34% respectively, between 2018 and 2024. And this is why, and not for the first time. I pressed the minister to go further and faster in helping local authorities and developers to access brownfield sites, rather than freeing up our green belt and steamrollering over local democracy, local voices and local communities. Recent history shows that this approach can work if the government want to see urban regeneration densification done right, they can follow conservatives examples and pursue brownfield first, not greenfield first.
Only abandon the government's offensive on our green spaces, but we will harmonise supply and demand side policies. And I will finish with a small note on that point. As the government continues to tweak the NPF, they are doing nothing to back first time buyers, families and downsizers by axing demand side schemes and cutting stamp duty relief. There is no point in delivering supply side reforms if the demand isn't there to make it worthwhile. To conclude, it is evident from the speeches here today and the evidence before us, that the impact of recent reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework have failed to deliver more homes, failed to protect our green belt, failed to support the housing market, failed to make brownfield sites viable and failed to deliver for voters.
Now, Sir Desmond, regardless of the outcome of that, the minister is a man. I have a great deal of respect for. I agree with my right hon. Friend the member for East Hampshire that the minister is a decent and thoughtful man, and I sincerely wish him well in the pending reshuffle, regardless of the outcome of the reshuffle, the Minister has the chance to raise this with whomever his new boss will be after next week's coronation, so I hope he grasps the opportunity with alacrity and delivers the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure, just as the country deserves.
Thank you.
Desmond, the Nppf is the rulebook by which our planning system is guided. It's an extensive and comprehensive statement of government of today's policy direction, and perhaps the clearest signal to developers, local authorities and local people about how a government will approach changes to their surrounding built environment. It covers everything from roads to housing, local communities to land use, and provides the overarching checks, balances and direction in the planning system. Now, Sir Desmond, we are not in a blanket opposition to everything the government is seeking to do with the Nppf.
However, we do have significant concerns about some aspects of it and I will focus on these in my remarks today. Since coming to power two years ago, this government has twice proposed revisions to the NPF, both times with severe consequences for our green spaces, rural towns and villages, and local democratic voices. For their very first revisions made just before Christmas in 2024, the government's policy direction was clear. Unfortunately, what was on offer was an unwelcome gift of urban sprawl, and this is because the government made it easier for local authorities to release green belt land for development in more ways than one.
The first and the most obvious, was the announcement that new golden rules would need to be met in order to expand onto the green belt. This effectively invited developers to test the waters by stating that where development complies with the Golden rules, the Nppf states that local authorities should give significant weight in favor of approving the scheme. The second release came with the government's spurious greenbelt designation, concocted in the bowels of Marsham Street. Greenbelt is a disingenuous label that the Prime Minister has told us is low quality land made up of disused car parks.
But this is very far from the truth because too many sites greenbelt is simply a facade for releasing greenbelt sites, for urban sprawl and over development. This is backed by research from December 2025 by the campaign for the Protection of Rural England, which showed that a year after the first nppf reforms, of the 13 developments of ten or more homes that have been approved by government planning inspectors on so-called grey belt land, comprising of 1250 homes, 88% will be built on previously undeveloped countryside, not disused power stations, petrol stations or low quality land or any other trumped up example taken straight from an Mhclg press release.
Just our countryside. What's worse is that these developments make up more than 90% of homes granted planning permission on greenbelt sites by inspectors. A further 21 smaller schemes totalling no more than 91 homes comprise the remainder and this. Isn't the only attack on our green spaces. The 2024 Nppf revisions also reintroduced mandatory top down housing targets across England. By removing the word advisory from the relevant paragraph concerning housing targets, alongside references to exceptional circumstances. For alternative approaches to determine local housing targets.
And this came, as other members have said, alongside a new standard method for housing targets, both the honourable member for Horsham and the Honourable Lady, the member for Wells and Mendip Hills, highlighted some of the bizarre assumptions underpinning the housing targets generated by the new standard method, alongside some of the counterproductive outcomes of it and when examined together, disproportionately redistributed top down housing targets onto rural areas from urban areas, for example, under the government's targets, housing numbers were cut by 11%. In London, 38% in Birmingham and 55% in Coventry, whilst increasing by 106% in the New Forest, 199% in North Yorkshire and 487% in Westmorland and Furness.
This is particularly concerning given that major cities, not least here in central London, have the infrastructure needed to support development. But even in Greater London, although the collective target has been reduced by 11%, this has been achieved by sharp drops in urban inner London, whereas in the more rural outer London areas, huge increases have been imposed. For example, in my borough, the London borough of Bromley, which is the largest borough in Greater London and is mostly rural, the target has been increased by 400%. The conclusion is inescapable.
The nppf changes show very clearly that this government is determined to build all over the greenbelt, and what has been the result of these reforms?It certainly hasn't been large amounts of extra housing, as I pointed out in this place yesterday. The government's own figures show that the number of net new additional dwellings in England was just 208,600 in Labour's first year in power, a 6% drop from 2020 324 under the last conservative government's final year in office. Indeed, the government themselves admitted that they will not hit the target through their own net additional dwelling forecast, predicting that by 2029 they will have fallen well short.
But it doesn't have to be this way. The opposition recognises the need to build more homes, and we made it clear from the start of this Parliament that we are broadly supportive of the ambition to build many more homes, but the government's actions, through some of their revisions to the NPF, are the wrong way to go about it. A future conservative government will employ a genuine brownfield first approach rather than release swathes of green belt or relabel it under the murky and disingenuous designation of grey belt.
We won't just pay lip service to brownfield development, but prioritise it and make it easier. This can and will be done. The CPR reported that a large proportion of England's housing could be swiftly met, using brownfield land that already has planning permission without encroaching on undeveloped greenfield or green belt land. They estimate that there is enough brownfield land to build 1.41 million homes in England, based on data from local planning authorities. Most updated brownfield land registers up to 2024. This amounts to 93% of the government's parliamentary target.
Furthermore, they have shown that England's brownfield sites are increasing in number, land area and minimum net dwellings, up 54%, 6% and 34% respectively, between 2018 and 2024. And this is why, and not for the first time. I pressed the minister to go further and faster in helping local authorities and developers to access brownfield sites, rather than freeing up our green belt and steamrollering over local democracy, local voices and local communities. Recent history shows that this approach can work if the government want to see urban regeneration densification done right, they can follow conservatives examples and pursue brownfield first, not greenfield first.
Only abandon the government's offensive on our green spaces, but we will harmonise supply and demand side policies. And I will finish with a small note on that point. As the government continues to tweak the NPF, they are doing nothing to back first time buyers, families and downsizers by axing demand side schemes and cutting stamp duty relief. There is no point in delivering supply side reforms if the demand isn't there to make it worthwhile. To conclude, it is evident from the speeches here today and the evidence before us, that the impact of recent reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework have failed to deliver more homes, failed to protect our green belt, failed to support the housing market, failed to make brownfield sites viable and failed to deliver for voters.
Now, Sir Desmond, regardless of the outcome of that, the minister is a man. I have a great deal of respect for. I agree with my right hon. Friend the member for East Hampshire that the minister is a decent and thoughtful man, and I sincerely wish him well in the pending reshuffle, regardless of the outcome of the reshuffle, the Minister has the chance to raise this with whomever his new boss will be after next week's coronation, so I hope he grasps the opportunity with alacrity and delivers the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure, just as the country deserves.
Thank you.
14:54
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
It's a pleasure to serve with you. In the chair, can I start by congratulating the honourable lady, the member for Wells and Mendip Hills on securing this important debate, and I thank the backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also thank all those other honourable members who have participated in what has been a wide ranging debate this afternoon, and I thank the opposition spokesman for the Liberal Democrats and the shadow minister for their contributions as well, I should say, slightly damming my chances in any upcoming reshuffle.
By the the degree of praise I'm receiving from members on opposite benches, but I do thank them for their kind words. Sir Desmond. A wide range of concerns have been raised and questions put in this debate, and in the time I have available to me, I'll seek to respond to as many as possible, but I will concentrate on those that relate to the National Planning Policy Framework. Issues like the national scheme of delegation, our modernisation of planning committees are outside the framework. I'm more than happy to have a conversation with the honourable member and other members in terms of issues raised outside of the scope, the National Planning Policy Framework sets out the government's planning policies for England and how these should be applied.
It makes clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, and, accordingly, it provides a framework within which locally prepared plans can provide for homes, commercial development and supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. As honourable members will know, the framework must be taken into account in preparing local plans and it is a material consideration in planning decisions. The government's manifesto included a clear commitment to immediately update the NPF. Within three weeks of taking office, we moved to consult on changes to the framework, finalising them in December 2024.
Amongst the many changes made in that initial revision to the framework were the restoration and raising of mandatory housing targets, which have been abolished by the party opposite when they were in government, contributing to that low number of net additional completions in our first year in office, a new standard method for assessing housing needs that's aligned to our 1.5 million new homes, target greater support for social and affordable housing provision, a strengthening of policy relating to brownfield land development, and a modernised strategic approach to green belt land designation and release, as well as support for key economic sectors and clean energy infrastructure.
As honourable members will know, in December last year we published a fuller and more definitive overhaul of the NPF for consultation. The proposed new framework represented the culmination of a sustained effort over the first 17 months of this Parliament to revamp our planning system so that it meets housing need in full and unleashes economic growth. It represents the most significant reform to national planning policy since the original NPF was introduced more than a decade ago. Sir Desmond, the new NPF we consulted on, is wholly restructured.
It maintains and builds on the initial revisions we made in December 2024. Includes a range of new measures to support key economic sectors and as honourable members have noted, incorporates new, clear and rules based national policies for both planning and decision making. These proposals will make the NPF easier to navigate for communities, local authorities and developers alike. The new decision making policies in the framework published last year, designed to make development management more certain, consistent and streamlined to standardise policies that apply across the whole of England, particularly where we have national standards in place and don't need that degree of local variation any longer, and to reduce duplication and avoid unjustified local deviation from national policy in local plans, as they're being prepared to ensure these changes made an immediate difference.
The government proposed that the new national decision making policies effectively override conflicting policies in local plans from day one. As part of this overall change to the framework, we also propose new policies to boost housing supply and unlock economic growth in the years ahead. These included, as has been noted, a permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development. The establishment of in-principle support for suitable proposals that develop land around rail stations within existing settlements and around well connected train stations. Outside settlements, including on green belt land policies designed to drive urban and suburban densification to secure a diverse mix of homes, including stronger support for rural, social and affordable housing, and setting clear expectations for accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disabled people.
Policies embedding a vision led approach to transport that further embed the changes we made in December 2024. Policies that better address climate change mitigation and adaptation, and policies designed to ensure we're better conserving and enhancing the natural environment, including making changes. I will give way in one second, including making changes to reflect local nature recovery strategies to recognise landscape character and conserve and enhance existing natural features. To incorporate swift bricks and to provide guidance on sites of local importance for nature.
By the the degree of praise I'm receiving from members on opposite benches, but I do thank them for their kind words. Sir Desmond. A wide range of concerns have been raised and questions put in this debate, and in the time I have available to me, I'll seek to respond to as many as possible, but I will concentrate on those that relate to the National Planning Policy Framework. Issues like the national scheme of delegation, our modernisation of planning committees are outside the framework. I'm more than happy to have a conversation with the honourable member and other members in terms of issues raised outside of the scope, the National Planning Policy Framework sets out the government's planning policies for England and how these should be applied.
It makes clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, and, accordingly, it provides a framework within which locally prepared plans can provide for homes, commercial development and supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. As honourable members will know, the framework must be taken into account in preparing local plans and it is a material consideration in planning decisions. The government's manifesto included a clear commitment to immediately update the NPF. Within three weeks of taking office, we moved to consult on changes to the framework, finalising them in December 2024.
Amongst the many changes made in that initial revision to the framework were the restoration and raising of mandatory housing targets, which have been abolished by the party opposite when they were in government, contributing to that low number of net additional completions in our first year in office, a new standard method for assessing housing needs that's aligned to our 1.5 million new homes, target greater support for social and affordable housing provision, a strengthening of policy relating to brownfield land development, and a modernised strategic approach to green belt land designation and release, as well as support for key economic sectors and clean energy infrastructure.
As honourable members will know, in December last year we published a fuller and more definitive overhaul of the NPF for consultation. The proposed new framework represented the culmination of a sustained effort over the first 17 months of this Parliament to revamp our planning system so that it meets housing need in full and unleashes economic growth. It represents the most significant reform to national planning policy since the original NPF was introduced more than a decade ago. Sir Desmond, the new NPF we consulted on, is wholly restructured.
It maintains and builds on the initial revisions we made in December 2024. Includes a range of new measures to support key economic sectors and as honourable members have noted, incorporates new, clear and rules based national policies for both planning and decision making. These proposals will make the NPF easier to navigate for communities, local authorities and developers alike. The new decision making policies in the framework published last year, designed to make development management more certain, consistent and streamlined to standardise policies that apply across the whole of England, particularly where we have national standards in place and don't need that degree of local variation any longer, and to reduce duplication and avoid unjustified local deviation from national policy in local plans, as they're being prepared to ensure these changes made an immediate difference.
The government proposed that the new national decision making policies effectively override conflicting policies in local plans from day one. As part of this overall change to the framework, we also propose new policies to boost housing supply and unlock economic growth in the years ahead. These included, as has been noted, a permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development. The establishment of in-principle support for suitable proposals that develop land around rail stations within existing settlements and around well connected train stations. Outside settlements, including on green belt land policies designed to drive urban and suburban densification to secure a diverse mix of homes, including stronger support for rural, social and affordable housing, and setting clear expectations for accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disabled people.
Policies embedding a vision led approach to transport that further embed the changes we made in December 2024. Policies that better address climate change mitigation and adaptation, and policies designed to ensure we're better conserving and enhancing the natural environment, including making changes. I will give way in one second, including making changes to reflect local nature recovery strategies to recognise landscape character and conserve and enhance existing natural features. To incorporate swift bricks and to provide guidance on sites of local importance for nature.
14:58
14:59
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
I'm very grateful to the to the Minister for giving way. He says that the purpose of the policy is, amongst other things, to drive the desperate need for affordable homes. But does he not accept that in rural areas, what he's also doing is driving affordable homes off rural exception sites and making them unaffordable as a result of the of the combination of setting targets, which of course mean that the local plan is no longer viable and appropriate, and therefore planning the developers developers can come in and simply insist that their their developments should be permitted because they're delivering the housing numbers.
14:59
14:59
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention. We've had this debate many, many times. I will come on to housing targets. I'll come on to the fact that if you have an up to date local plan in place, your housing targets don't need to be immediately revised. But on the specific point of rural affordable housing, the framework makes it easier. Easier for rural exception sites to come forward through clearer national policy. It makes it far easier for rural authorities to require affordable housing on smaller sites, including removing the need for legislative designation.
Sir Desmond We received over 20,000 responses to the consultation. We have made very good progress in analysing the responses and making final policy decisions, but unfortunately, as a result of the announcement made by the Prime Minister on the 22nd of June that he was resigning as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party and the associated constraints on government business in the period ahead of the summer recess, including the prohibition on initiating new policy commitments. It has not been possible to respond to the consultation and publish the final framework before the summer recess will seek to do so in due course.
I want to turn to some of the issues that have been raised in the course of this debate, starting with flooding, which was raised by the mover of the debate and is of particular concern, as she made clear to her in her constituency. The NPF outlines a sequential approach to flood risk management requiring inappropriate development to be directed away from areas at highest risk and providing strong safeguards where development is necessary in these areas. In plan making, a sequential approach should be employed. This involves applying the sequential test and, if needed, the exception test in decision making where necessary.
Planning authorities also apply the sequential test and, if needed, the exception test to ensure that flood risk is minimised and appropriately addressed. Did she want to intervene on me?
Sir Desmond We received over 20,000 responses to the consultation. We have made very good progress in analysing the responses and making final policy decisions, but unfortunately, as a result of the announcement made by the Prime Minister on the 22nd of June that he was resigning as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party and the associated constraints on government business in the period ahead of the summer recess, including the prohibition on initiating new policy commitments. It has not been possible to respond to the consultation and publish the final framework before the summer recess will seek to do so in due course.
I want to turn to some of the issues that have been raised in the course of this debate, starting with flooding, which was raised by the mover of the debate and is of particular concern, as she made clear to her in her constituency. The NPF outlines a sequential approach to flood risk management requiring inappropriate development to be directed away from areas at highest risk and providing strong safeguards where development is necessary in these areas. In plan making, a sequential approach should be employed. This involves applying the sequential test and, if needed, the exception test in decision making where necessary.
Planning authorities also apply the sequential test and, if needed, the exception test to ensure that flood risk is minimised and appropriately addressed. Did she want to intervene on me?
15:01
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you chair. I wonder how it is that the High Court has come to the decision that it has over this site in Yatton, when what you're saying sounds good to me, but actually it can be swept away because the NPF is what the judge decreed was the way to go. And therefore one can, because there is a need for homes. Then the sequential test can be completely ignored.
15:01
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
I thank the honourable lady for her intervention. That isn't quite my reading of the Yatton judgment. In that judgment, the judge confirmed that even if a site fails, the formal sequential test for flood risk, elements of the exception test remain a valid material considerations that can outweigh flood risk under the tilted balance under paragraph 11 D so the the High Court made a specific judgment in that case as to the application of the policy, but it applies as I've said out. I'll give way briefly, but I do want to cover the other issues that were raised in the debate.
15:02
15:02
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
If I remain in post. Post the summer recess, I'm more than happy. I'm more than happy to meet with her. Where the sequential test and the exception test have been applied as necessary and are not met, though the framework is clear that development should not be allowed. And I did want to push back gently on the assertions that were made both by the hon. Lady, but also the Liberal Democrat spokesman, that we've weakened the sequential test. We have not weakened the sequential test in any way.
We've clarified through changes to PPG the triggers for the sequential tests as well as its application, but we have not weakened it if it's found necessary to build homes in areas of flood risk. The statutory guidance accompanying the building Regulations promotes flood resilient building work in flood prone areas through approved document C, and the framework makes clear that developments of all sizes should use sustainable drainage techniques where the development could have drainage impacts. The draft NPF that we've consulted includes a dedicated chapter on planning for flood risk and coastal change.
This seeks to clarify how existing policies should operate and aligns the NPF with recent updates to planning guidance. It also includes policies incorporating a new requirement that sustainable drainage systems should be designed in accordance with the National Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems, to provide a consistent basis for improving their design. I wanted to turn briefly to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. We are trying to drive up the coverage of up to date local plans. Several honourable members have spoken today who represent areas that do not have up to date local plans and do not have five year housing land supplies.
We're making great progress. Sir Desmond, in driving up plan coverage over 60% more local plans are at examination now than this time last year, but it will take time to boost coverage. And it's important that where policies are not up to date or where there is an insufficient supply of land, that there is a fallback to encourage planning permission to be granted. And that's what the presumption provides for. But the NPF we published in December 2024, not only improved the operation of the presumption by clarifying the circumstances in which it applies, but introduced new safeguards to make clear that its application cannot justify poor quality development.
And under the revised draft presumption published for consultation last year, the default support in principle is turned off in certain situations, including where the development would conflict with sites allocated for specific uses, would use parks and open spaces, or land identified for flood risk management. It would also be disapplied where development does achieve acceptable standards, it doesn't achieve acceptable standards in relation to harm to nature, heritage assets, flood risk design and being an effective use of land. So Desmond, I only have a brief time available to me, but a wide range of other issues were raised.
I will touch on each of them very briefly in terms of our housing target, our standard method that we've introduced, the new method, in our view, better responds to affordability pressures by using a higher affordability adjustment in its calculation. This recognises the importance of housing affordability in assessing housing needs, and helps direct more homes to where their most needed and least affordable. And it also provides greater certainty to the sector through more stable and predictable housing numbers. Compared to the previous approach that relied on out-of-date demographic projections and unevidenced and arbitrary judgements on brownfield and greenbelt and green belt land.
The shadow Minister knows full well that we strengthened in the December 2024 NPF policy on brownfield land. We've gone further in the draft framework that's out to consultation, but it is not the case that there is enough land at brownfield land, particularly land that's viable in the right locations on brownfield land registers across the country. In certain cases, exceptional circumstances, local authorities do need to release green belt land. We ask them, when they do, to explore all options in maximising brownfield land, working with neighbouring authorities and, where necessary, reviewing their greenbelt.
The definition of greenbelt is set out in the glossary of the NPF. There's no confusion about what it means and where the grey belt is being brought forward. It cannot fundamentally undermine the the policies of the greenbelt across the wider plan area. That is a safeguard that we included in the framework. Sir Desmond, just to finish very briefly on train stations, the right hon. Gentleman the member for East Hampshire, uh, was right that we do want to see, more development come forward in sustainable locations around train stations.
We obviously took a different approach to all stations as opposed to well connected stations, where we are looking for higher densities, minimum densities to come forward. But the proposals I must be clear on this don't grant automatic permission on suitable sites or remove appropriate local oversight of the development control process. They add weight to what needs to be considered as part of an overall planning judgment, as is the case with all material considerations. I won't dwell on rural or urban, uh, housing targets. I've said before and say so again across city regions, the new standard method increases targets by 20%, and through housing growth is directed to a wider range of urban areas, smaller cities and urban areas, as well as our larger city areas.
To conclude, Sir Desmond, I commend the honourable member for Wells and Mendip Hills and the backbench Business Committee for giving the House an opportunity to debate these important matters. Over the past two years, this government has sought to revamp the planning system to ensure it will facilitate the delivery of high and sustainable rates of housebuilding and high quality infrastructure in the years ahead, and to the point on infrastructure. The new MP strengthens expectations in that area as well. There's more that needs to be done to transform the failing housing system we inherited.
But the revised NPF we published in December 2024 and the wholly restructured framework we will publish in due course are integral to our plans to improve housing availability, affordability and quality in this Parliament. I thank all honourable members for their contributions today and wish them all an enjoyable and productive summer recess. As with you, Sir Desmond.
We've clarified through changes to PPG the triggers for the sequential tests as well as its application, but we have not weakened it if it's found necessary to build homes in areas of flood risk. The statutory guidance accompanying the building Regulations promotes flood resilient building work in flood prone areas through approved document C, and the framework makes clear that developments of all sizes should use sustainable drainage techniques where the development could have drainage impacts. The draft NPF that we've consulted includes a dedicated chapter on planning for flood risk and coastal change.
This seeks to clarify how existing policies should operate and aligns the NPF with recent updates to planning guidance. It also includes policies incorporating a new requirement that sustainable drainage systems should be designed in accordance with the National Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems, to provide a consistent basis for improving their design. I wanted to turn briefly to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. We are trying to drive up the coverage of up to date local plans. Several honourable members have spoken today who represent areas that do not have up to date local plans and do not have five year housing land supplies.
We're making great progress. Sir Desmond, in driving up plan coverage over 60% more local plans are at examination now than this time last year, but it will take time to boost coverage. And it's important that where policies are not up to date or where there is an insufficient supply of land, that there is a fallback to encourage planning permission to be granted. And that's what the presumption provides for. But the NPF we published in December 2024, not only improved the operation of the presumption by clarifying the circumstances in which it applies, but introduced new safeguards to make clear that its application cannot justify poor quality development.
And under the revised draft presumption published for consultation last year, the default support in principle is turned off in certain situations, including where the development would conflict with sites allocated for specific uses, would use parks and open spaces, or land identified for flood risk management. It would also be disapplied where development does achieve acceptable standards, it doesn't achieve acceptable standards in relation to harm to nature, heritage assets, flood risk design and being an effective use of land. So Desmond, I only have a brief time available to me, but a wide range of other issues were raised.
I will touch on each of them very briefly in terms of our housing target, our standard method that we've introduced, the new method, in our view, better responds to affordability pressures by using a higher affordability adjustment in its calculation. This recognises the importance of housing affordability in assessing housing needs, and helps direct more homes to where their most needed and least affordable. And it also provides greater certainty to the sector through more stable and predictable housing numbers. Compared to the previous approach that relied on out-of-date demographic projections and unevidenced and arbitrary judgements on brownfield and greenbelt and green belt land.
The shadow Minister knows full well that we strengthened in the December 2024 NPF policy on brownfield land. We've gone further in the draft framework that's out to consultation, but it is not the case that there is enough land at brownfield land, particularly land that's viable in the right locations on brownfield land registers across the country. In certain cases, exceptional circumstances, local authorities do need to release green belt land. We ask them, when they do, to explore all options in maximising brownfield land, working with neighbouring authorities and, where necessary, reviewing their greenbelt.
The definition of greenbelt is set out in the glossary of the NPF. There's no confusion about what it means and where the grey belt is being brought forward. It cannot fundamentally undermine the the policies of the greenbelt across the wider plan area. That is a safeguard that we included in the framework. Sir Desmond, just to finish very briefly on train stations, the right hon. Gentleman the member for East Hampshire, uh, was right that we do want to see, more development come forward in sustainable locations around train stations.
We obviously took a different approach to all stations as opposed to well connected stations, where we are looking for higher densities, minimum densities to come forward. But the proposals I must be clear on this don't grant automatic permission on suitable sites or remove appropriate local oversight of the development control process. They add weight to what needs to be considered as part of an overall planning judgment, as is the case with all material considerations. I won't dwell on rural or urban, uh, housing targets. I've said before and say so again across city regions, the new standard method increases targets by 20%, and through housing growth is directed to a wider range of urban areas, smaller cities and urban areas, as well as our larger city areas.
To conclude, Sir Desmond, I commend the honourable member for Wells and Mendip Hills and the backbench Business Committee for giving the House an opportunity to debate these important matters. Over the past two years, this government has sought to revamp the planning system to ensure it will facilitate the delivery of high and sustainable rates of housebuilding and high quality infrastructure in the years ahead, and to the point on infrastructure. The new MP strengthens expectations in that area as well. There's more that needs to be done to transform the failing housing system we inherited.
But the revised NPF we published in December 2024 and the wholly restructured framework we will publish in due course are integral to our plans to improve housing availability, affordability and quality in this Parliament. I thank all honourable members for their contributions today and wish them all an enjoyable and productive summer recess. As with you, Sir Desmond.
15:08
15:08
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you very much indeed, sir Desmond, I'm very grateful to you, and I'm grateful to the Minister for everything that he said. Um, I terribly much hope that he does stay in place, because I think we'd like to carry on the conversation. Um, so I wish him to stay exactly where he is and let's hope that's where it's going to be. Um, and if for my ghastly moment, he decides that something is not right and he's going to move on, I know the government isn't in favour of leaving notes for his successor, but I wondered if he might leave a large note for his successor.
Um, as I understand it, I wish not to argue, particularly in the last moments of this debate, but the National Planning Policy guidance does permit surface water flooding sequential tests to be disapplied, and I need to continue that conversation with him, if I may. And I would just point out that our local plans are up to date until such time as the housing numbers change. And then, of course, the local plans are not in date any longer. And I would also point out that in places like Somerset alone, and I'm not talking about North Somerset, but Somerset alone has, as I understand it, has 18,000 new homes that have been through planning, have passed planning, but are not built.
And that all relates to phosphate stuff. And those don't seem to be taken into account at all. We've got another 75000 on top of that, which seems inappropriate. So as I said, I note his comments about station parking. I really hope that we don't build on station car parks, because that would be mad. In my view, there are a number. Order order I would like to make. Thank you, Sir Desmond.
Um, as I understand it, I wish not to argue, particularly in the last moments of this debate, but the National Planning Policy guidance does permit surface water flooding sequential tests to be disapplied, and I need to continue that conversation with him, if I may. And I would just point out that our local plans are up to date until such time as the housing numbers change. And then, of course, the local plans are not in date any longer. And I would also point out that in places like Somerset alone, and I'm not talking about North Somerset, but Somerset alone has, as I understand it, has 18,000 new homes that have been through planning, have passed planning, but are not built.
And that all relates to phosphate stuff. And those don't seem to be taken into account at all. We've got another 75000 on top of that, which seems inappropriate. So as I said, I note his comments about station parking. I really hope that we don't build on station car parks, because that would be mad. In my view, there are a number. Order order I would like to make. Thank you, Sir Desmond.
15:10
15:10
15:10
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
Um, sir, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I beg to move that this House has considered capital funding for changing places, toilets. I am grateful to have secured this debate and am grateful to the backbench committee for agreeing to it. At the outset. Can I declare that I serve as the chair of the Appgs for disability equipment for wheelchair users, and I'm the parent of a child with quadriplegic cerebral palsy who does rely on changing places, toilets, changing place. Toilets are designed for people with profound and multiple disabilities and their carers, who need more space and equipment such as ceiling track hoists and height adjustable adult sized changing beds that are standard accessible.
Toilet would not provide. Almost a quarter of a million people in the United Kingdom need personal assistance to use the toilet or change incontinence pads, including people with profound and multiple learning disabilities, spinal injuries, and a number of other complex needs. Currently, the number of active and registered changing places toilets stands at 2665, which is greatly increased from the 140 back in 2007. In last year, there were 99 registrations of new changing places. Toilets across the UK, including in Madame Tussauds here in London.
In five Lloyds Banking Group locations and at three National Trust locations back in. 2005, the Changing Places Consortium was established as a group of individuals and organisations who support the rights of people with disabilities at the heart of the consortium are members is a voluntary organisation based in Dundee that supports parents of children and adults with profound and multiple learning disability, alongside the centre of accessible environments. I want to pay tribute to the late Loretta Lambe, the founder and CEO of Pammy's, along with a team of staff and volunteers behind Changing Places toilets led by Jenny, Karen and Fiona.
I also want to highlight Changing Places Awareness Day this coming Sunday, the 19th of July. Campaigners have worked tirelessly to raise awareness and push for greater inclusion for disabled people, their family and carers. I said changing places. Toilets have been vital for my family. I'm the father of twins and one of our daughters has quadriplegic cerebral palsy. She's a wheelchair user and unable to tell you when she needs the toilet and he's still in nappies. Almost 13 years of age.
Given her height and weight, a changing bed is essential to changing her with dignity. And I have to say still today. Occasionally, unfortunately. But prior to the rollout of the number of changing places we've seen in recent years, I have had the indignity of changing my child on a bench behind a bush. Um, still today, on the floor of our wheelchair accessible van and changing places. Toilets are vital to giving her some dignity. However, with the rollout of changing places, toilets and the Changing Places mat facility, it does allow families like us to plan their days out, their trips, their travel arrangements around that.
Knowing where there will be a toilet as a result of additional funding from the Department for transport, a new Journey Planner feature has been launched as part of the Changing Places toilet map, and this allows for increased functionality for planning, saving and downloading travel routes with changing places, toilets and both the map and the journey planner have been a life changer for many families, allowing access to places to days out to plan a route around the availability of service stations, which again have greatly increased in the last ten years. Train stations, seaside destinations or museums.
And that allows both my children to have the same dignity and respect as other children out there. Now, when I held an adjournment debate on the subject last July, I reported that the number of registered facilities at that point was 2609, and there's just been a slowing of growth this year, and we'll come to that in due course. And while it's positive that that number continues to grow, as I say, is slowing, and that does as much as I'm very supportive of my party, my government, that is because in many respects, the end of the previous scheme, which ended in March 2025, and that's why I continue to call for a formal funding for the introduction of a capital grant to be brought forward to allow organisations, companies and charities to bring forward new changing places, toilets and to bring change to the current standards in our own building here, our changing Places toilet is not a modern standard.
It really is not. Um, and it is. I did it a few weeks ago with my daughter. It is a back breaker. The facility we have here in this building. An expansion of capital funding. Um, for capital. Sorry for changing places. Toilets would lead to people with profound disabilities accessing more opportunities. And it would lead to families and individuals being able to contribute more to our hospitality businesses, theme parks, leisure facilities, facilities, sports grounds, and the list goes on.
Now, there was, of course, the previous fund and in 2019, the then conservative government ran a consultation on the proposals to increase the provision of changing places, toilets and following the conclusion of that consultation, the government announced that the provision of changing places toilets in new public buildings above a certain size would be compulsory, and that was brought into force on the 1st of January 2021. And I'm very grateful that the then local government minister, the Right Honourable Member for Richmond and Northallerton, joins us this afternoon. And he was fundamental.
I do absolutely accept, in a getting the law changed and ensuring that that consultation was held under his watch in July that year, the then government launched a £30.5 million fund to expand the provision of changing places. Toilets from that fund. Almost 500 new facilities were installed. And I know from my own experience there's been a profound change in the last ten years that's made travelling up and down the country much easier. And if you just stand where we're standing today, you know, you can go to the National Picture Gallery, to the National Portrait Gallery, to the National Gallery, to Ikea in Oxford Street, to Waterloo Station, to places that ten years ago, those changing places did not exist.
That fund closed in March 2025. And although I acknowledged that changes to building regulations ensure that facilities continue to be installed in new buildings, I retain concerns that older buildings are often locations that would greatly benefit from having a changing places toilet installed. For example, in April this year, one of those older buildings, Saint Paul's Cathedral, opened a Changing Places facility, giving visitors who require specialist toilets the ability to access them. And also, I understand there's now a special facility at Blackburn Cathedral and very shortly at Lambeth Palace.
Now back to what I said about motorways in November 2018, the DFT announced it was partnering with Muscular Dystrophy UK to expand the provision of changing places, toilets at service stations. And we've now seen we now see 54 service station toilets across the UK, and that's a huge step forward in allowing families like mine more freedom and options when planning their journeys up and down the country. The official Changing Places app, which I will call for there is an unofficial one. Currently, there's a map on the main Changing Places Consortium website, but having the facility to have a Changing Places app would allow identification mapping to allow users to quickly identify where toilets are for such journeys.
And equally, I say this. I've said it many times in the Railways bill, many times in the chamber through Great British Railways. I do believe there should be a national transport accessibility app which shows stations that have level access, station accessibility, live travel, lift information. As the TfL go app has, and linking that to the availability of Changing places toilets. Now I turn now to the need for a new fund of capital funding. Sir Alec Um, which would give businesses and local authorities the opportunity and encouragement to bring forward more changing places, facilities.
I know a number of hon. Friends have identified locations where they believe changing places, toilets could be installed. Um and for instance, my hon. Friend the member for Rushcliffe, who sadly can't be with us this afternoon, has spoke to me at length about the support for a national fund, um in his local authority, uh, Rushcliffe Borough Council. Um, he's been looking for two years to install a Changing Places toilet facility in Westbridge for town centre and is struggling to locate the funding to do so.
I would therefore ask the minister to outline what consideration the Department has given on the merits of bringing forward a new capital fund. I also want to turn to the importance of maintaining changing places toilets. Um, I know I mentioned last year, certainly in my constituency in Bexleyheath town centre, we've had to close a changing places toilet because the level of vandalism it was receiving, people living in it, people dealing drugs in it. Um, and I will continue to call for a greater system, uh, further beyond the current radar key system.
Radar keys are openly available in shops on the internet. And there are too many occasions where changing places, toilets are vandalised as a result of that misuse. I'd also like to thank the chamber engagement team for their hard work in organising a survey for the public to share their experiences of using changing places, toilets and the impact on people's lives, and thank the over 100 people over the last week who've taken the time to answer that survey, and I wanted to read a few of the contributions that we've received, one respondent said.
My daughter is severely disabled. Our first experience of changing places toilets was at Center Parcs. I was amazed and overwhelmed with emotions when I saw how I could finally change my daughter comfortably and how excited she was when she realised this was made for people like her. Another said my son's opportunities to go to new places or anywhere over a certain distance is dependent on the availability of changing places. We work hard all week and want the same opportunities. Other families have to go out as a family and do interesting things without changing places.
We're trapped at home. Other respondents experiences highlighted that there's still a lack of available and well-maintained facilities across the country, with one saying without access to an appropriate facility, I'm left with impossible choices. Ending outings early, avoiding certain venues altogether, or changing my daughter on the floor of an accessible toilet which is neither hygienic, safe nor dignified. And I've read through the responses to the survey, and there was a lot of appreciation for changing places, toilets and the benefit it's had on the lives of severely disabled people and their families.
There is also, however, a number of horror stories of people's experiences where facilities are not available or where they've not been maintained to a suitable standard. I've told one from my own constituency and I could tell others where you go to a venue and you find it's vandalised, it's locked in one occasion, locked after 4 p.m. in the winter in Brighton city centre. On another occasion, a seaside town which locks it from April, October to March. But people still, of course, visit, um, that town.
The new round of funding would ensure that changing places toilets are being maintained and held to a good standard that to see whether training could be provided and new facilities are being opened across the country, because every family deserves to be able to go on days out and partake in everyday activities. I also want to talk about the Scottish Government. They do have a fund managed by Inspiring Scotland in partnership with Pams, which is part of a £10 million investment in the last financial year and in this financial year, which is planning and installing um 150 new additional facilities across Scotland.
I understand the fund maintain it continues to be open for applications which can be found on the inspiring, Can't Speak Inspiring Scotland website. I look forward to seeing more facilities opening um benefiting the people and economy of Scotland. I also want to talk about hospitals. I know it's not in the minister's remit. Um, but changing places. Toilets are important for people when they're out and about. But of course for many people. My daughter is served by four different London hospitals.
Um and in a hospital setting, you would expect to see um people with a profound disability needing to use such facilities. But we continue to see variable information about which hospitals do and don't provide um, such facilities. And also the information available about where they are in those hospitals. Um, so I submitted a written question to inquire about the number of places, hospitals. Unfortunately, there is no assessment made. The Department of Health doesn't hold that information. Um, and it appears that more work does need to be done there.
There is national guidance provided to NHS on designated sanitary spaces and healthcare settings and design facilities to meet the needs of disabled people, but without clear provision of toilets, um needs aren't met for people accessing hospital appointments. In 2019, it was estimated that the average cost of installing a changing places toilet in hospital was between 25 and £35,000. And I would ask that the minister continues conversations across government. Um, so that we can look at those um installation in hospitals. So in my conclusion, Sir Alec, I'd like to ask the minister just to respond to five points that I have made.
Um, firstly, I'd like the government to go back and look at bringing forward a new capital fund for those older and smaller venues. We now have the regulations brought in.
Toilet would not provide. Almost a quarter of a million people in the United Kingdom need personal assistance to use the toilet or change incontinence pads, including people with profound and multiple learning disabilities, spinal injuries, and a number of other complex needs. Currently, the number of active and registered changing places toilets stands at 2665, which is greatly increased from the 140 back in 2007. In last year, there were 99 registrations of new changing places. Toilets across the UK, including in Madame Tussauds here in London.
In five Lloyds Banking Group locations and at three National Trust locations back in. 2005, the Changing Places Consortium was established as a group of individuals and organisations who support the rights of people with disabilities at the heart of the consortium are members is a voluntary organisation based in Dundee that supports parents of children and adults with profound and multiple learning disability, alongside the centre of accessible environments. I want to pay tribute to the late Loretta Lambe, the founder and CEO of Pammy's, along with a team of staff and volunteers behind Changing Places toilets led by Jenny, Karen and Fiona.
I also want to highlight Changing Places Awareness Day this coming Sunday, the 19th of July. Campaigners have worked tirelessly to raise awareness and push for greater inclusion for disabled people, their family and carers. I said changing places. Toilets have been vital for my family. I'm the father of twins and one of our daughters has quadriplegic cerebral palsy. She's a wheelchair user and unable to tell you when she needs the toilet and he's still in nappies. Almost 13 years of age.
Given her height and weight, a changing bed is essential to changing her with dignity. And I have to say still today. Occasionally, unfortunately. But prior to the rollout of the number of changing places we've seen in recent years, I have had the indignity of changing my child on a bench behind a bush. Um, still today, on the floor of our wheelchair accessible van and changing places. Toilets are vital to giving her some dignity. However, with the rollout of changing places, toilets and the Changing Places mat facility, it does allow families like us to plan their days out, their trips, their travel arrangements around that.
Knowing where there will be a toilet as a result of additional funding from the Department for transport, a new Journey Planner feature has been launched as part of the Changing Places toilet map, and this allows for increased functionality for planning, saving and downloading travel routes with changing places, toilets and both the map and the journey planner have been a life changer for many families, allowing access to places to days out to plan a route around the availability of service stations, which again have greatly increased in the last ten years. Train stations, seaside destinations or museums.
And that allows both my children to have the same dignity and respect as other children out there. Now, when I held an adjournment debate on the subject last July, I reported that the number of registered facilities at that point was 2609, and there's just been a slowing of growth this year, and we'll come to that in due course. And while it's positive that that number continues to grow, as I say, is slowing, and that does as much as I'm very supportive of my party, my government, that is because in many respects, the end of the previous scheme, which ended in March 2025, and that's why I continue to call for a formal funding for the introduction of a capital grant to be brought forward to allow organisations, companies and charities to bring forward new changing places, toilets and to bring change to the current standards in our own building here, our changing Places toilet is not a modern standard.
It really is not. Um, and it is. I did it a few weeks ago with my daughter. It is a back breaker. The facility we have here in this building. An expansion of capital funding. Um, for capital. Sorry for changing places. Toilets would lead to people with profound disabilities accessing more opportunities. And it would lead to families and individuals being able to contribute more to our hospitality businesses, theme parks, leisure facilities, facilities, sports grounds, and the list goes on.
Now, there was, of course, the previous fund and in 2019, the then conservative government ran a consultation on the proposals to increase the provision of changing places, toilets and following the conclusion of that consultation, the government announced that the provision of changing places toilets in new public buildings above a certain size would be compulsory, and that was brought into force on the 1st of January 2021. And I'm very grateful that the then local government minister, the Right Honourable Member for Richmond and Northallerton, joins us this afternoon. And he was fundamental.
I do absolutely accept, in a getting the law changed and ensuring that that consultation was held under his watch in July that year, the then government launched a £30.5 million fund to expand the provision of changing places. Toilets from that fund. Almost 500 new facilities were installed. And I know from my own experience there's been a profound change in the last ten years that's made travelling up and down the country much easier. And if you just stand where we're standing today, you know, you can go to the National Picture Gallery, to the National Portrait Gallery, to the National Gallery, to Ikea in Oxford Street, to Waterloo Station, to places that ten years ago, those changing places did not exist.
That fund closed in March 2025. And although I acknowledged that changes to building regulations ensure that facilities continue to be installed in new buildings, I retain concerns that older buildings are often locations that would greatly benefit from having a changing places toilet installed. For example, in April this year, one of those older buildings, Saint Paul's Cathedral, opened a Changing Places facility, giving visitors who require specialist toilets the ability to access them. And also, I understand there's now a special facility at Blackburn Cathedral and very shortly at Lambeth Palace.
Now back to what I said about motorways in November 2018, the DFT announced it was partnering with Muscular Dystrophy UK to expand the provision of changing places, toilets at service stations. And we've now seen we now see 54 service station toilets across the UK, and that's a huge step forward in allowing families like mine more freedom and options when planning their journeys up and down the country. The official Changing Places app, which I will call for there is an unofficial one. Currently, there's a map on the main Changing Places Consortium website, but having the facility to have a Changing Places app would allow identification mapping to allow users to quickly identify where toilets are for such journeys.
And equally, I say this. I've said it many times in the Railways bill, many times in the chamber through Great British Railways. I do believe there should be a national transport accessibility app which shows stations that have level access, station accessibility, live travel, lift information. As the TfL go app has, and linking that to the availability of Changing places toilets. Now I turn now to the need for a new fund of capital funding. Sir Alec Um, which would give businesses and local authorities the opportunity and encouragement to bring forward more changing places, facilities.
I know a number of hon. Friends have identified locations where they believe changing places, toilets could be installed. Um and for instance, my hon. Friend the member for Rushcliffe, who sadly can't be with us this afternoon, has spoke to me at length about the support for a national fund, um in his local authority, uh, Rushcliffe Borough Council. Um, he's been looking for two years to install a Changing Places toilet facility in Westbridge for town centre and is struggling to locate the funding to do so.
I would therefore ask the minister to outline what consideration the Department has given on the merits of bringing forward a new capital fund. I also want to turn to the importance of maintaining changing places toilets. Um, I know I mentioned last year, certainly in my constituency in Bexleyheath town centre, we've had to close a changing places toilet because the level of vandalism it was receiving, people living in it, people dealing drugs in it. Um, and I will continue to call for a greater system, uh, further beyond the current radar key system.
Radar keys are openly available in shops on the internet. And there are too many occasions where changing places, toilets are vandalised as a result of that misuse. I'd also like to thank the chamber engagement team for their hard work in organising a survey for the public to share their experiences of using changing places, toilets and the impact on people's lives, and thank the over 100 people over the last week who've taken the time to answer that survey, and I wanted to read a few of the contributions that we've received, one respondent said.
My daughter is severely disabled. Our first experience of changing places toilets was at Center Parcs. I was amazed and overwhelmed with emotions when I saw how I could finally change my daughter comfortably and how excited she was when she realised this was made for people like her. Another said my son's opportunities to go to new places or anywhere over a certain distance is dependent on the availability of changing places. We work hard all week and want the same opportunities. Other families have to go out as a family and do interesting things without changing places.
We're trapped at home. Other respondents experiences highlighted that there's still a lack of available and well-maintained facilities across the country, with one saying without access to an appropriate facility, I'm left with impossible choices. Ending outings early, avoiding certain venues altogether, or changing my daughter on the floor of an accessible toilet which is neither hygienic, safe nor dignified. And I've read through the responses to the survey, and there was a lot of appreciation for changing places, toilets and the benefit it's had on the lives of severely disabled people and their families.
There is also, however, a number of horror stories of people's experiences where facilities are not available or where they've not been maintained to a suitable standard. I've told one from my own constituency and I could tell others where you go to a venue and you find it's vandalised, it's locked in one occasion, locked after 4 p.m. in the winter in Brighton city centre. On another occasion, a seaside town which locks it from April, October to March. But people still, of course, visit, um, that town.
The new round of funding would ensure that changing places toilets are being maintained and held to a good standard that to see whether training could be provided and new facilities are being opened across the country, because every family deserves to be able to go on days out and partake in everyday activities. I also want to talk about the Scottish Government. They do have a fund managed by Inspiring Scotland in partnership with Pams, which is part of a £10 million investment in the last financial year and in this financial year, which is planning and installing um 150 new additional facilities across Scotland.
I understand the fund maintain it continues to be open for applications which can be found on the inspiring, Can't Speak Inspiring Scotland website. I look forward to seeing more facilities opening um benefiting the people and economy of Scotland. I also want to talk about hospitals. I know it's not in the minister's remit. Um, but changing places. Toilets are important for people when they're out and about. But of course for many people. My daughter is served by four different London hospitals.
Um and in a hospital setting, you would expect to see um people with a profound disability needing to use such facilities. But we continue to see variable information about which hospitals do and don't provide um, such facilities. And also the information available about where they are in those hospitals. Um, so I submitted a written question to inquire about the number of places, hospitals. Unfortunately, there is no assessment made. The Department of Health doesn't hold that information. Um, and it appears that more work does need to be done there.
There is national guidance provided to NHS on designated sanitary spaces and healthcare settings and design facilities to meet the needs of disabled people, but without clear provision of toilets, um needs aren't met for people accessing hospital appointments. In 2019, it was estimated that the average cost of installing a changing places toilet in hospital was between 25 and £35,000. And I would ask that the minister continues conversations across government. Um, so that we can look at those um installation in hospitals. So in my conclusion, Sir Alec, I'd like to ask the minister just to respond to five points that I have made.
Um, firstly, I'd like the government to go back and look at bringing forward a new capital fund for those older and smaller venues. We now have the regulations brought in.
15:25
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Stadium or shopping center over a certain size, you do need to install. Changing places. Toilet. But as I've said, there are examples. I'm sure we're here. Some other examples where constituency. MPs I know in my own. My secondary town centre in my constituency in Crayford. I'm looking long and hard at how we can fund and find a facility for changing places. Toilet there. I have the second largest Sainsbury's in the country there, so I am trying to work with Sainsbury's to look at whether we can provide one there.
But there does remain for many town centres, for honorable friends and members may be able to find a venue, but they can't always find the funding. Secondly, um, I'd like the minister if she could commit or not commit, but comment on working with the Changing Places consortium to look at how we upgrade facilities of the older standard to the current standard. Um, as I say, such as the one that we find in the members lobby here. Uh, will the minister also look at committing to working with other government departments?Um, not only for hospitals, but under the nationalisation of railways, we have a real opportunity to look at our larger railway stations.
I'm hoping we will be having one at London Charing Cross very soon, as we've now got changing places at London Waterloo. But there are real opportunities there as well for people's travel options. Also, um. I would just ask how we are monitoring those larger planning applications and the regulations that were passed under the previous government to ensure that they are being correctly installed and maintained, and also, um, how the government can continue to work with the Changing Places consortium on more modern software to ensure we can get to a situation with an app.
Um, and an easier identification for people to be able to plan their journeys, um, and identify where changing places toilets are located. So I look forward to hearing contributions from colleagues and the minister's comments on the points. And thank you for listening to my contribution to Alec.
But there does remain for many town centres, for honorable friends and members may be able to find a venue, but they can't always find the funding. Secondly, um, I'd like the minister if she could commit or not commit, but comment on working with the Changing Places consortium to look at how we upgrade facilities of the older standard to the current standard. Um, as I say, such as the one that we find in the members lobby here. Uh, will the minister also look at committing to working with other government departments?Um, not only for hospitals, but under the nationalisation of railways, we have a real opportunity to look at our larger railway stations.
I'm hoping we will be having one at London Charing Cross very soon, as we've now got changing places at London Waterloo. But there are real opportunities there as well for people's travel options. Also, um. I would just ask how we are monitoring those larger planning applications and the regulations that were passed under the previous government to ensure that they are being correctly installed and maintained, and also, um, how the government can continue to work with the Changing Places consortium on more modern software to ensure we can get to a situation with an app.
Um, and an easier identification for people to be able to plan their journeys, um, and identify where changing places toilets are located. So I look forward to hearing contributions from colleagues and the minister's comments on the points. And thank you for listening to my contribution to Alec.
15:27
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Before I call our next speaker the Right Honourable Gentleman for Richmond and Northallerton, colleagues may be aware that the right hon. Gentleman is recovering from an operation. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman would like to deliver his speech from a sedentary position, I would be content with that. The question is that this House has considered the capital funding for changing places toilets. Rishi Sunak.
15:27
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Thank you, Sir Alec. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I'll do my best to keep standing. If nothing else, it will make me speak for a lot less than I might otherwise have done, which will be of a relief to everyone. Can I, can I start by both congratulating but also thanking the honourable member from Bexleyheath and Crayford for securing this important debate. Um, he obviously speaks from personal experience, but I thought he also spoke very movingly and very powerfully about the situation, which we'll be discussing today.
And I said, I'm grateful for him for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important topic. You know, politics is, is often about addressing the great matters of state. Many times in this House, we're talking about war and peace, but politics is also about making people's everyday lives that little bit easier. And one of the things that all of us discover being an MP is that we learn a lot from our constituents. And certainly if those constituents are from Yorkshire, as the chairman will appreciate.
Uh, and in 2017, I was profoundly moved after a meeting I had with a group of my own, I had called in at the Dales School in Morton on Swale, near Northallerton, and a group of parents of those most severely disabled children at the school wanted to come and talk to me, and they were telling me about the difficulties that they faced as a family going out, and they explained to me how a lack of suitable toilets and changing facilities meant that the majority of leisure attractions and destinations across the country that most families would take for granted to visit on a day out were simply nigh on impossible for them to do so.
And I vividly remember from that meeting, one mum putting in front of me a magazine of all the events and attractions that were happening across the region that summer in the holidays, and she had gone through with her pen and crossed out 99% of them because they did not have the facilities that her child required. And as a parent myself, I remember looking at that list and seeing all the places that she had crossed out and realising that those were the very experiences, the very places that I had taken my own two young daughters to, uh, to help them fall in love with Yorkshire.
After we first moved there. And I reflected on the huge, huge unfairness of that situation, how this compounded the difficulties that this family and many others were already facing in a way that most of us never will encounter, and how it meant that all these places were just off limits for them. And I sat there, and to me, it just felt that that wasn't right. So another parent at that group, Andrew, he spoke of the physical difficulties similar to the honourable gentleman. Indeed, the indignity of having to change his ten year old daughter, Annie Ella, on rough ground behind a shed and indeed the dirty floor of a public bathroom, because that's all that they could find and use in the circumstances that were available to them on occasion.
Now, I must admit, going into that meeting with these parents, I had complacently assumed that we had largely resolved the issue of access or provision of disabled toilets in our country, and what I hadn't realised until I met and listened to these parents is that for those young children, or indeed adults that require the help of a carer to use a toilet, a disabled toilet isn't sufficient. And of course what they need is a Changing Places facility with a bench, a hoist and a privacy screen. Now, after that meeting, I vowed to those parents that I would do whatever I could to raise this issue, highlight it, and I began to do that in Parliament.
As a backbench MP. Fortuitously, a year later, I was lucky to be appointed local government minister, and here I was actually inspired by the work of my predecessor, the former Member of Parliament for Richmond, William Hague. And that's because William was the Minister for disabled people in one of his first ministerial jobs. And in 1995 he was instrumental in bringing into law under John Major's government the Disability Discrimination Act. And this legislation enshrined in law the principle that institutions had to make reasonable adjustments to ensure equality of opportunity for disabled people.
And 20 years after that, I felt that we needed to renew that spirit for the issue of changing places. And so I set about, as a junior minister, changing the building regulations so that it became mandatory to install changing places facilities in new, large public buildings like shopping centres, cinemas and theme parks. About this time that I also happened to meet Zach Kerr. He was a young campaigner with cerebral palsy who. I'm sure the honourable gentleman knows well and Zach told me at the time, life can be difficult enough in many ways, but when there are no accessible toilet facilities where I can be hoisted safely from my wheelchair and changed in privacy and with dignity, I face the choice between staying at home or restricting my social life because of my needs that.
Is just not fair. Zach rightly pointed out the need to have changing places facilities. As we've heard at motorway service stations, so that families could travel freely across the country. And I was glad that in government we were able to make £4 million available to install changing places, not just at motorway service stations, but also to make a better start at installing them in NHS hospitals to. Next, in 2020, fortuitously or not, depending on your point of view, I became Chancellor of the Exchequer and in my first budget as Chancellor, I was able to launch the £30 million Changing Places fund, which crucially match funded the cost of installing these toilets in existing buildings where the need is.
As we've heard, significant and I'm delighted that over the subsequent years that fund has made possible almost 500 different facilities, changing places, facilities right across the nation, including in my own constituency in Leyburn and at the Dales Countryside Museum in Hawes. And just checking now, as we've heard, there are over 2500 changing places, facilities in place across the country, which we should take a moment to reflect, is three times as many as when I first became aware of this issue a decade or so ago. Now, landmark attractions like Alton Towers, Madame Tussauds, the Tower of London, most Premier League stadiums, cinemas, shopping centres right across the country all now have this vital facility in place.
But of course, the job isn't done. We need more changing places, facilities for the almost quarter of a million people who rely on them. But we have made real progress, and it's worth just taking a moment to thank the people that require praise for that. The consortium, as we've heard now run by Paris and the centre for Accessible Environments. But previously, when I was in post run by Mencap and Muscular Dystrophy UK, supported by many others, deserve enormous credit for their coordination and campaigning on this issue.
But so do the tireless campaigners up and down the country. Families with severely disabled children and other family members, campaigners like dad Andrew Newton and his daughter Angela, who came to see me all those years ago, and certainly for my part, as I reflect on my political career, it will remain one of my proudest achievements to have played just a small part in supporting all of their efforts. And every time a parent gets in touch with me to say that they've been able to enjoy a family day out that most of us take for granted, I feel a real sense of pride now.
We all know that there is much wrong with our politics, but I think this issue does actually show the value of our constituency system. The ability of our community to be able to raise issues directly with their elected representatives and see those issues turned into some action, and also the benefit of working across party lines over years to make changes and make people's lives that little bit easier. Now, I must in conclusion, say I associate myself with the powerful speech from the Right Honourable. The Honourable member for Bexleyheath and Crayford and I.
I know the minister will have listened hard to what he said about the need to help provide some capital funding for existing buildings, and I'm sure she will do what she can do to make other colleagues in government aware of this issue and make representations to them. And in conclusion, Sir Alec, I'll just say this. I know she'll do that because I know all of us here are deeply committed to ensuring that these families can enjoy more opportunities, can enjoy a better quality of life that they deserve, and most importantly, have the chance to live with dignity.
Thank you.
And I said, I'm grateful for him for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important topic. You know, politics is, is often about addressing the great matters of state. Many times in this House, we're talking about war and peace, but politics is also about making people's everyday lives that little bit easier. And one of the things that all of us discover being an MP is that we learn a lot from our constituents. And certainly if those constituents are from Yorkshire, as the chairman will appreciate.
Uh, and in 2017, I was profoundly moved after a meeting I had with a group of my own, I had called in at the Dales School in Morton on Swale, near Northallerton, and a group of parents of those most severely disabled children at the school wanted to come and talk to me, and they were telling me about the difficulties that they faced as a family going out, and they explained to me how a lack of suitable toilets and changing facilities meant that the majority of leisure attractions and destinations across the country that most families would take for granted to visit on a day out were simply nigh on impossible for them to do so.
And I vividly remember from that meeting, one mum putting in front of me a magazine of all the events and attractions that were happening across the region that summer in the holidays, and she had gone through with her pen and crossed out 99% of them because they did not have the facilities that her child required. And as a parent myself, I remember looking at that list and seeing all the places that she had crossed out and realising that those were the very experiences, the very places that I had taken my own two young daughters to, uh, to help them fall in love with Yorkshire.
After we first moved there. And I reflected on the huge, huge unfairness of that situation, how this compounded the difficulties that this family and many others were already facing in a way that most of us never will encounter, and how it meant that all these places were just off limits for them. And I sat there, and to me, it just felt that that wasn't right. So another parent at that group, Andrew, he spoke of the physical difficulties similar to the honourable gentleman. Indeed, the indignity of having to change his ten year old daughter, Annie Ella, on rough ground behind a shed and indeed the dirty floor of a public bathroom, because that's all that they could find and use in the circumstances that were available to them on occasion.
Now, I must admit, going into that meeting with these parents, I had complacently assumed that we had largely resolved the issue of access or provision of disabled toilets in our country, and what I hadn't realised until I met and listened to these parents is that for those young children, or indeed adults that require the help of a carer to use a toilet, a disabled toilet isn't sufficient. And of course what they need is a Changing Places facility with a bench, a hoist and a privacy screen. Now, after that meeting, I vowed to those parents that I would do whatever I could to raise this issue, highlight it, and I began to do that in Parliament.
As a backbench MP. Fortuitously, a year later, I was lucky to be appointed local government minister, and here I was actually inspired by the work of my predecessor, the former Member of Parliament for Richmond, William Hague. And that's because William was the Minister for disabled people in one of his first ministerial jobs. And in 1995 he was instrumental in bringing into law under John Major's government the Disability Discrimination Act. And this legislation enshrined in law the principle that institutions had to make reasonable adjustments to ensure equality of opportunity for disabled people.
And 20 years after that, I felt that we needed to renew that spirit for the issue of changing places. And so I set about, as a junior minister, changing the building regulations so that it became mandatory to install changing places facilities in new, large public buildings like shopping centres, cinemas and theme parks. About this time that I also happened to meet Zach Kerr. He was a young campaigner with cerebral palsy who. I'm sure the honourable gentleman knows well and Zach told me at the time, life can be difficult enough in many ways, but when there are no accessible toilet facilities where I can be hoisted safely from my wheelchair and changed in privacy and with dignity, I face the choice between staying at home or restricting my social life because of my needs that.
Is just not fair. Zach rightly pointed out the need to have changing places facilities. As we've heard at motorway service stations, so that families could travel freely across the country. And I was glad that in government we were able to make £4 million available to install changing places, not just at motorway service stations, but also to make a better start at installing them in NHS hospitals to. Next, in 2020, fortuitously or not, depending on your point of view, I became Chancellor of the Exchequer and in my first budget as Chancellor, I was able to launch the £30 million Changing Places fund, which crucially match funded the cost of installing these toilets in existing buildings where the need is.
As we've heard, significant and I'm delighted that over the subsequent years that fund has made possible almost 500 different facilities, changing places, facilities right across the nation, including in my own constituency in Leyburn and at the Dales Countryside Museum in Hawes. And just checking now, as we've heard, there are over 2500 changing places, facilities in place across the country, which we should take a moment to reflect, is three times as many as when I first became aware of this issue a decade or so ago. Now, landmark attractions like Alton Towers, Madame Tussauds, the Tower of London, most Premier League stadiums, cinemas, shopping centres right across the country all now have this vital facility in place.
But of course, the job isn't done. We need more changing places, facilities for the almost quarter of a million people who rely on them. But we have made real progress, and it's worth just taking a moment to thank the people that require praise for that. The consortium, as we've heard now run by Paris and the centre for Accessible Environments. But previously, when I was in post run by Mencap and Muscular Dystrophy UK, supported by many others, deserve enormous credit for their coordination and campaigning on this issue.
But so do the tireless campaigners up and down the country. Families with severely disabled children and other family members, campaigners like dad Andrew Newton and his daughter Angela, who came to see me all those years ago, and certainly for my part, as I reflect on my political career, it will remain one of my proudest achievements to have played just a small part in supporting all of their efforts. And every time a parent gets in touch with me to say that they've been able to enjoy a family day out that most of us take for granted, I feel a real sense of pride now.
We all know that there is much wrong with our politics, but I think this issue does actually show the value of our constituency system. The ability of our community to be able to raise issues directly with their elected representatives and see those issues turned into some action, and also the benefit of working across party lines over years to make changes and make people's lives that little bit easier. Now, I must in conclusion, say I associate myself with the powerful speech from the Right Honourable. The Honourable member for Bexleyheath and Crayford and I.
I know the minister will have listened hard to what he said about the need to help provide some capital funding for existing buildings, and I'm sure she will do what she can do to make other colleagues in government aware of this issue and make representations to them. And in conclusion, Sir Alec, I'll just say this. I know she'll do that because I know all of us here are deeply committed to ensuring that these families can enjoy more opportunities, can enjoy a better quality of life that they deserve, and most importantly, have the chance to live with dignity.
Thank you.
15:37
15:37
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
Serve under your chair today, and I'd like to thank my honourable friend from Bexleyheath and Crayford for securing this debate. And thank you also for all the work that has been done for championing the rights of disabled people. You are tireless in what you do, saying you. Um, I would also like to put on record that Changing Places toilets were first introduced in Nottingham, the place of my constituency of Broxtowe, and I am proud that Nottinghamshire carries that legacy and innovation. Now.
In previous roles I have been a champion for disabled people and many people have spoken to me about the need for changing places, toilets, because many people with profound and multiple and severe disabilities and neurological conditions have complex needs and are standard accessible. Toilet just is insufficient as many require a change in place facility that's equipped with a hoist and adult sized changing bench, and adequate space for carers to provide sufficient support safely and with dignity. Without these facilities, everyday activities that many of us take for granted just become impossible.
A family day out, a trip to the high street, visiting a museum, going shopping and meeting friends. These are things that we, many of us take for granted. These ordinary experiences are denied to too many people because they do not feel confident that their needs will be met once they leave their home. According to the ONS, there are 10,000 disabled people in my constituency of Broxtowe that require a changing place facility, but there are only two changing places facilities in Broxtowe, meaning people in Eastwood, Oxford, Stafford and Beeston do not have access to suitable facilities and only one of those facilities is modern enough and is regularly open.
Disability rights, charities and organisations across the country talk about disabled people and their carers restricting their journeys or avoiding going out altogether because they cannot find suitable toilet facilities, or cannot be certain that facilities will be open and accessible. Loneliness and poor mental health are often attributed to low social interaction that can lead to anxiety and depression. This is what facilities like this being missing can happen to disabled people. Parents of disabled children frequently report to me, avoiding going out on outings altogether, not because they want their children to be excluded, but because they cannot be certain that they will find a changing facility.
And as a result, people become isolated from their communities and excluded from socialising. No child should be excluded from public spaces because there is nowhere suitable for them to change. When it's necessary. No parent should have to choose between taking their child out and preserving their dignity, and no adult should be prevented from participating in social activities because the basic infrastructure they require is absent. This, the last government rightly addressed some of this by making changes to building regulations that will increase the provision of changing places in new, large non-dwelling buildings, and this is a welcome step and will improve access over the long term.
However, disabled people cannot wait for a future development to solve today's problems. Capital funding is needed now. The reality is that there are still large gaps in provisions across the country, particularly in our transport corridors, town centres, tourist destinations and particularly in rural communities. I urge the government to look at how changing places provision can be embedded with current and future urban planning, and within the government's high street strategy, with capital funding, a capital funding attributed to it, accessible toilet facilities should form part of any strategy to create genuinely accessible high streets, ensuring that disabled people can confidently visit their towns, their cities and public attractions without fear of being left without appropriate facilities.
Capital investment in changing places toilets is not simply an investment in buildings or facilities themselves. It is an investment in an inclusive society where disabled people can enjoy the same opportunities, freedoms and quality of life as anyone else.
In previous roles I have been a champion for disabled people and many people have spoken to me about the need for changing places, toilets, because many people with profound and multiple and severe disabilities and neurological conditions have complex needs and are standard accessible. Toilet just is insufficient as many require a change in place facility that's equipped with a hoist and adult sized changing bench, and adequate space for carers to provide sufficient support safely and with dignity. Without these facilities, everyday activities that many of us take for granted just become impossible.
A family day out, a trip to the high street, visiting a museum, going shopping and meeting friends. These are things that we, many of us take for granted. These ordinary experiences are denied to too many people because they do not feel confident that their needs will be met once they leave their home. According to the ONS, there are 10,000 disabled people in my constituency of Broxtowe that require a changing place facility, but there are only two changing places facilities in Broxtowe, meaning people in Eastwood, Oxford, Stafford and Beeston do not have access to suitable facilities and only one of those facilities is modern enough and is regularly open.
Disability rights, charities and organisations across the country talk about disabled people and their carers restricting their journeys or avoiding going out altogether because they cannot find suitable toilet facilities, or cannot be certain that facilities will be open and accessible. Loneliness and poor mental health are often attributed to low social interaction that can lead to anxiety and depression. This is what facilities like this being missing can happen to disabled people. Parents of disabled children frequently report to me, avoiding going out on outings altogether, not because they want their children to be excluded, but because they cannot be certain that they will find a changing facility.
And as a result, people become isolated from their communities and excluded from socialising. No child should be excluded from public spaces because there is nowhere suitable for them to change. When it's necessary. No parent should have to choose between taking their child out and preserving their dignity, and no adult should be prevented from participating in social activities because the basic infrastructure they require is absent. This, the last government rightly addressed some of this by making changes to building regulations that will increase the provision of changing places in new, large non-dwelling buildings, and this is a welcome step and will improve access over the long term.
However, disabled people cannot wait for a future development to solve today's problems. Capital funding is needed now. The reality is that there are still large gaps in provisions across the country, particularly in our transport corridors, town centres, tourist destinations and particularly in rural communities. I urge the government to look at how changing places provision can be embedded with current and future urban planning, and within the government's high street strategy, with capital funding, a capital funding attributed to it, accessible toilet facilities should form part of any strategy to create genuinely accessible high streets, ensuring that disabled people can confidently visit their towns, their cities and public attractions without fear of being left without appropriate facilities.
Capital investment in changing places toilets is not simply an investment in buildings or facilities themselves. It is an investment in an inclusive society where disabled people can enjoy the same opportunities, freedoms and quality of life as anyone else.
15:41
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Our. A pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and a big thank you to the honourable gentleman for Bexleyheath and Crayford for a topic that touches the very core, as he says. And as we all know, human dignity, equality, and basic compassion. It's a pleasure to follow the honourable lady as well and thank her for her contribution today. And if I can, uh, perhaps, um, say what a pleasure it is to, to, to hear the story, by the way, on the Right honourable member told the story today and how he was approached by his constituents and how he and his position as he rose up the ladder of a of authority and and minister, that he used that position to ensure that the very things that his constituent had asked for were able to be delivered.
So I think I would wish to put on record my thanks to him, uh, for using his position for his people and for our people, because ultimately we all benefit from that £50 million that the gentleman. Right, hon. Gentleman referred to. It's also, um, a pleasure to see the Minister and peers again. Minister, I'm not sure what's going on here, but whenever you turn up, I seem to turn up as well. Uh, Westminster has been well used this week on numerous occasions for both of us and for many others as well.
But we seem to be featuring in similar debates. When it comes to the welfare of vulnerable people, of course I will knock on any door and speak in any chamber to ensure that they're not forgotten. And that's why it's so important today. I hope that there'll be just a few weeks ago, my stomach care facilities and public tolerance. But today we're talking about something slightly different. Uh, it's changing places, toilets. We're not talking about standard disabled toilets.
We're talking about life changing essential facilities that provide an adult sized, height adjustable changing bench, a tracking hoist system, a centrally placed toilets and room for two carers. Just a physical room to be able to to help. Without these. Sort of like thousands of our fellow citizens cannot leave their homes for more than a couple of hours without facing the horrific, unsanitary and utterly degrading reality of being changed on a dirty public toilet floor. I wouldn't like that. And I was, and that's why I'm here today to speak up.
So I, I thank the honourable gentleman very much for his contribution. Um, it's quite moving contribution. Uh, and also his personal story, which I think often Sir Alex says we all agree personal stories seem to carry the weight. And today the gentleman has shared his personal story with us all. And I thank him for doing just that. Government previously announced capital funding pots for changing places and toilets across England. As a member for Strangford, I must look and I want to tell the story from Northern Ireland.
Not a great story, I have to say. Disappointing, maybe not disappointment for my constituency, but across Northern Ireland it certainly is um to ensure that capital funding reaches the places that are falling desperately behind. Stats for Northern Ireland. It's estimated around 7000 people across our province rely entirely on changing places, facilities to live a normal life. Yet the figures, Sir Alex. The figures show that Northern Ireland has historically been one of the worst performing regions in the entire United Kingdom for provision.
Excuse me, with a shocking lack of options outside of the major city hubs. Um, in fact, campaign groups have highlighted that four out of five hospitals in Northern Ireland almost cringes me to say this. Um, I still have no registered changing places facilities leaving vulnerable patients, staff and visitors completely stranded in the very places that's meant to care for them. It's quite incredulous. Um, I did a follow up, a visit to Northern Ireland, and minister in relation to this debate, and I will do the same now.
And to reinforce the needs for change. Now, I'm very fortunate, Sir Alex, in my own constituency of Strangford and the borough of Ards and North down, uh, that that we have been able, according to data, out of nearly 40 publicly available toilets across the Ards and North Down area, only about a dozen are standard accessible toilets. Now, that's only a dozen that actually come to the what's expected. But when you look for to fully compliant, registered changing places toilets, the list shrinks even further.
So I want to commend and I do mean this because I know my Ards and North Down Council and my constituency, uh, have, uh, have. Been doing many things I had the distinct honor of serving on the, on the Ards counter for some 26 years. And they have shown real leadership. They were the first council in Northern Ireland to ensure all council accessible toilets were still more friendly. So that's a good news story when I when I brought the debate to this place about three weeks ago, they have successfully put, uh, standard changing places, facilities and the key hubs like the Bangor Aurora Aquatics Complex, the Cumber Leisure Centre and the magnificent Ards Blair main wellbeing and leisure complex.
I say that because the council's. My council has moved, has moved mountains to make sure that some of these things can happen. But local councils cannot carry this weight alone and strain rate payers money. So if a family wants to enjoy the beautiful shores of the peninsula where I live, if they want to visit Ballyhalbert or Portavogie or the facilities simply don't exist, so it's nearly off limits for those who like the honourable gentleman for Bexleyheath and Crayford have referred to you to take your family on a day out, even if it's only two hours down the road and back again.
Families are forced reality, are forced to cut their days short, rush back to Newtownards or to Bangor just so a loved one can use a bathroom in a dignified manner. We're talking about dignity here. This is an absolutely crying shame. I believe in this day and age. And while Northern Ireland introduced legislative changes to building regulations in recent years to mandate these toilets and any new major public buildings which have done and new shopping centres has done, uh, honourable gentleman referred to that there.
Uh, they they do that right away. The Department of Health and local authorities back home are facing severe financial constraints. Uh, and they explicitly state they lack the capital budget. Um, central capital budget, and to retrofit existing hospitals, transport hubs, and indeed some, even the town centres. So I asked the minister, ever mindful of the minister's responsibilities and considering that the honourable lady always tries to give us something helpful in relation to the questions we have, will the Minister take up the cause with the Chancellor, please, and the Northern Ireland Executive as well, to ensure that regional capital funding formulas allow for dedicated, ring fenced, ring fenced resources to expand their Changing places network.
I'm presuming the honourable member for Richmond can tell me if I'm right or wrong, but the 50 million that was earmarked for that project, I presume that was Barney Barnett consequentials as well. So we got some. But what we need to have is ring fence. So, Minister, if the money's coming through through Barnett, consequentials. Uh, ensure that the monies are used for that purpose. We need central capital funding that can be accessed by local councils like Ards and North Down to retrofit our coastal towns, our tourist hotspots and our community centres, which I believe many are ready.
They're a civilised society is judged by how it treats the most vulnerable. This is not a political issue, Sir Alec. We all know that it's about personal dignity and equality and what's right. So it's about independence. It's about inclusion. It's about the basic right to go out for a cup of tea or a walk by the sea without losing your dignity. So I urge the minister to work. Please, hand in hand with the devolved administrations to ensure that capital funding flows to where it's needed most, so that no child or adult in Northern Ireland is ever forced onto a public toilet floor.
Again.
So I think I would wish to put on record my thanks to him, uh, for using his position for his people and for our people, because ultimately we all benefit from that £50 million that the gentleman. Right, hon. Gentleman referred to. It's also, um, a pleasure to see the Minister and peers again. Minister, I'm not sure what's going on here, but whenever you turn up, I seem to turn up as well. Uh, Westminster has been well used this week on numerous occasions for both of us and for many others as well.
But we seem to be featuring in similar debates. When it comes to the welfare of vulnerable people, of course I will knock on any door and speak in any chamber to ensure that they're not forgotten. And that's why it's so important today. I hope that there'll be just a few weeks ago, my stomach care facilities and public tolerance. But today we're talking about something slightly different. Uh, it's changing places, toilets. We're not talking about standard disabled toilets.
We're talking about life changing essential facilities that provide an adult sized, height adjustable changing bench, a tracking hoist system, a centrally placed toilets and room for two carers. Just a physical room to be able to to help. Without these. Sort of like thousands of our fellow citizens cannot leave their homes for more than a couple of hours without facing the horrific, unsanitary and utterly degrading reality of being changed on a dirty public toilet floor. I wouldn't like that. And I was, and that's why I'm here today to speak up.
So I, I thank the honourable gentleman very much for his contribution. Um, it's quite moving contribution. Uh, and also his personal story, which I think often Sir Alex says we all agree personal stories seem to carry the weight. And today the gentleman has shared his personal story with us all. And I thank him for doing just that. Government previously announced capital funding pots for changing places and toilets across England. As a member for Strangford, I must look and I want to tell the story from Northern Ireland.
Not a great story, I have to say. Disappointing, maybe not disappointment for my constituency, but across Northern Ireland it certainly is um to ensure that capital funding reaches the places that are falling desperately behind. Stats for Northern Ireland. It's estimated around 7000 people across our province rely entirely on changing places, facilities to live a normal life. Yet the figures, Sir Alex. The figures show that Northern Ireland has historically been one of the worst performing regions in the entire United Kingdom for provision.
Excuse me, with a shocking lack of options outside of the major city hubs. Um, in fact, campaign groups have highlighted that four out of five hospitals in Northern Ireland almost cringes me to say this. Um, I still have no registered changing places facilities leaving vulnerable patients, staff and visitors completely stranded in the very places that's meant to care for them. It's quite incredulous. Um, I did a follow up, a visit to Northern Ireland, and minister in relation to this debate, and I will do the same now.
And to reinforce the needs for change. Now, I'm very fortunate, Sir Alex, in my own constituency of Strangford and the borough of Ards and North down, uh, that that we have been able, according to data, out of nearly 40 publicly available toilets across the Ards and North Down area, only about a dozen are standard accessible toilets. Now, that's only a dozen that actually come to the what's expected. But when you look for to fully compliant, registered changing places toilets, the list shrinks even further.
So I want to commend and I do mean this because I know my Ards and North Down Council and my constituency, uh, have, uh, have. Been doing many things I had the distinct honor of serving on the, on the Ards counter for some 26 years. And they have shown real leadership. They were the first council in Northern Ireland to ensure all council accessible toilets were still more friendly. So that's a good news story when I when I brought the debate to this place about three weeks ago, they have successfully put, uh, standard changing places, facilities and the key hubs like the Bangor Aurora Aquatics Complex, the Cumber Leisure Centre and the magnificent Ards Blair main wellbeing and leisure complex.
I say that because the council's. My council has moved, has moved mountains to make sure that some of these things can happen. But local councils cannot carry this weight alone and strain rate payers money. So if a family wants to enjoy the beautiful shores of the peninsula where I live, if they want to visit Ballyhalbert or Portavogie or the facilities simply don't exist, so it's nearly off limits for those who like the honourable gentleman for Bexleyheath and Crayford have referred to you to take your family on a day out, even if it's only two hours down the road and back again.
Families are forced reality, are forced to cut their days short, rush back to Newtownards or to Bangor just so a loved one can use a bathroom in a dignified manner. We're talking about dignity here. This is an absolutely crying shame. I believe in this day and age. And while Northern Ireland introduced legislative changes to building regulations in recent years to mandate these toilets and any new major public buildings which have done and new shopping centres has done, uh, honourable gentleman referred to that there.
Uh, they they do that right away. The Department of Health and local authorities back home are facing severe financial constraints. Uh, and they explicitly state they lack the capital budget. Um, central capital budget, and to retrofit existing hospitals, transport hubs, and indeed some, even the town centres. So I asked the minister, ever mindful of the minister's responsibilities and considering that the honourable lady always tries to give us something helpful in relation to the questions we have, will the Minister take up the cause with the Chancellor, please, and the Northern Ireland Executive as well, to ensure that regional capital funding formulas allow for dedicated, ring fenced, ring fenced resources to expand their Changing places network.
I'm presuming the honourable member for Richmond can tell me if I'm right or wrong, but the 50 million that was earmarked for that project, I presume that was Barney Barnett consequentials as well. So we got some. But what we need to have is ring fence. So, Minister, if the money's coming through through Barnett, consequentials. Uh, ensure that the monies are used for that purpose. We need central capital funding that can be accessed by local councils like Ards and North Down to retrofit our coastal towns, our tourist hotspots and our community centres, which I believe many are ready.
They're a civilised society is judged by how it treats the most vulnerable. This is not a political issue, Sir Alec. We all know that it's about personal dignity and equality and what's right. So it's about independence. It's about inclusion. It's about the basic right to go out for a cup of tea or a walk by the sea without losing your dignity. So I urge the minister to work. Please, hand in hand with the devolved administrations to ensure that capital funding flows to where it's needed most, so that no child or adult in Northern Ireland is ever forced onto a public toilet floor.
Again.
15:50
15:50
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
Thank you, Sir Alec, and it is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair. I congratulate the honourable member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for securing this very important debate, and I thank him for sharing his own personal story. And lived experience is always the most moving and powerful, but it's also very difficult often to share it because so many emotions come with it. No parent, and indeed no child should be faced with the indignity of changing a loved one on a floor of a toilet or behind a shed.
Uh, and, you know, I feel very much for him and his experience. And I, I know that they continue, uh, it's not something that has been resolved everywhere. And this is why we are here today. To debate it, the issue before us, Sir Alec, is simple. If a person cannot safely use the toilet when they're away from home, they do not have equal access to public life. For most people, planning a day out means deciding where to go and how to get there.
For many disabled people and their families, it means checking whether the journey is accessible, whether the venue can accommodate them and, crucially, whether there will be a toilet they can use. Too often. The answer to the last question is no. That means cutting a day out short, turning down an invitation, avoiding a long journey, or simply staying at home. One should be excluded from everyday life because the facilities they need have not been adequately provided. As we have heard today, changing places.
Toilets are not the same as standard, accessible toilets. They include an adult sized changing bench, a ceiling track hoist and enough space for carers to provide support safely. Without those facilities, some disabled people are left with completely unacceptable choices. They may have to be changed on a toilet floor. Their families or carers may have to attempt unsafe lifting. Some people restrict what they eat or drink before going out because they are worried that they will be nowhere suitable for them to use.
This is undignified, unsafe and entirely avoidable. As legislators, we often talk in this place about inclusion, independence and equal access. But those principles must mean something in practice, not just talk. A building is not truly accessible. If a disabled person can enter it but cannot safely use the toilet, while they're there. There has been progress. There are now 2665 registered changing places toilets across the United Kingdom, compared with around 140 in 2007. That is good, but the previous government's 3030 million Changing Places toilets Fund supported installation of nearly 500 new facilities across England.
But now the fund is no longer there. The funding made a genuine difference and shows what can be achieved when the government provides the right support. The fund was closed in March 2025 and the job is not finished. There are still too many town centres, transport hubs, parks, hospitals, tourist attractions and community venues without a changing places. Toilet provision is also very uneven. A toilet might exist somewhere within a local authority area, but that does not mean it is in the right place.
Open at the same time or easily accessible to the people who need it. The changes to building regulations were welcome, but they are not enough on their own. They may only help when new buildings are constructed or major developments developments take place. They do little to address a large number of existing public buildings and venues that disabled people use every day. Wait decades for those gaps to be filled gradually throughout redevelopment. The main barrier is often cost. Installing a changing places toilets can cost tens of thousands of pounds for a major development that may be a relatively small part of the overall budget.
For a charity community venue, small visitor attraction or local council. It can be impossible without additional support. Local authorities are already under severe financial pressure. As we all know, they are facing growing costs and social care, temporary accommodation and special educational needs provision. Councils may want to improve accessibility but without dedicated capital funding, projects are delayed or even abandoned. That is why Liberal Democrats are calling on the government to review the long term capital funding available for changing places toilets.
We need a proper assessment of where the gaps are. The government should work with disabled people, families, carers, local authorities and the Changing Places Consortium to identify the areas and venues where provision is most urgently needed. That assessment should lead to a properly funded long term programme. Local authorities and community organisations should not have to rely on occasional short term pots or money, or of money, or compete against one another for limited funding. Changing places toilets should also be included from the beginning in major transport projects.
Town centre regeneration schemes and investment in public buildings, it is far easier and less expensive to design these facilities into a project than to add them afterwards. Funding and guidance must take account of maintenance, signage, staffing and opening hours. I would therefore like to ask the minister three questions. First, does she accept that changes to building regulations alone will not deliver the number of changing places, toilets that disabled people and their families need?Secondly, will the government carry out a national assessment of gaps in provision working directly with disabled people and the organisations that represent them?And thirdly, will the government establish a successor to the previous capital fund with long term and predictable funding for local authorities and community organisations?Changing places toilets are essential infrastructure, essential infrastructure.
We would not describe an accessible entrance or ramp or lift as an optional extra. We should not treat appropriate toilet facilities differently. Everyone should be able to go shopping, travel, attend an appointment, visit a park, an attraction, spend good time with your family without having to worry about whether their most basic needs can be met. The previous funding programme showed that progress is possible. The government must now build on that work, and I hope the minister is listening to the cross-party consensus on this issue.
Thank you.
Uh, and, you know, I feel very much for him and his experience. And I, I know that they continue, uh, it's not something that has been resolved everywhere. And this is why we are here today. To debate it, the issue before us, Sir Alec, is simple. If a person cannot safely use the toilet when they're away from home, they do not have equal access to public life. For most people, planning a day out means deciding where to go and how to get there.
For many disabled people and their families, it means checking whether the journey is accessible, whether the venue can accommodate them and, crucially, whether there will be a toilet they can use. Too often. The answer to the last question is no. That means cutting a day out short, turning down an invitation, avoiding a long journey, or simply staying at home. One should be excluded from everyday life because the facilities they need have not been adequately provided. As we have heard today, changing places.
Toilets are not the same as standard, accessible toilets. They include an adult sized changing bench, a ceiling track hoist and enough space for carers to provide support safely. Without those facilities, some disabled people are left with completely unacceptable choices. They may have to be changed on a toilet floor. Their families or carers may have to attempt unsafe lifting. Some people restrict what they eat or drink before going out because they are worried that they will be nowhere suitable for them to use.
This is undignified, unsafe and entirely avoidable. As legislators, we often talk in this place about inclusion, independence and equal access. But those principles must mean something in practice, not just talk. A building is not truly accessible. If a disabled person can enter it but cannot safely use the toilet, while they're there. There has been progress. There are now 2665 registered changing places toilets across the United Kingdom, compared with around 140 in 2007. That is good, but the previous government's 3030 million Changing Places toilets Fund supported installation of nearly 500 new facilities across England.
But now the fund is no longer there. The funding made a genuine difference and shows what can be achieved when the government provides the right support. The fund was closed in March 2025 and the job is not finished. There are still too many town centres, transport hubs, parks, hospitals, tourist attractions and community venues without a changing places. Toilet provision is also very uneven. A toilet might exist somewhere within a local authority area, but that does not mean it is in the right place.
Open at the same time or easily accessible to the people who need it. The changes to building regulations were welcome, but they are not enough on their own. They may only help when new buildings are constructed or major developments developments take place. They do little to address a large number of existing public buildings and venues that disabled people use every day. Wait decades for those gaps to be filled gradually throughout redevelopment. The main barrier is often cost. Installing a changing places toilets can cost tens of thousands of pounds for a major development that may be a relatively small part of the overall budget.
For a charity community venue, small visitor attraction or local council. It can be impossible without additional support. Local authorities are already under severe financial pressure. As we all know, they are facing growing costs and social care, temporary accommodation and special educational needs provision. Councils may want to improve accessibility but without dedicated capital funding, projects are delayed or even abandoned. That is why Liberal Democrats are calling on the government to review the long term capital funding available for changing places toilets.
We need a proper assessment of where the gaps are. The government should work with disabled people, families, carers, local authorities and the Changing Places Consortium to identify the areas and venues where provision is most urgently needed. That assessment should lead to a properly funded long term programme. Local authorities and community organisations should not have to rely on occasional short term pots or money, or of money, or compete against one another for limited funding. Changing places toilets should also be included from the beginning in major transport projects.
Town centre regeneration schemes and investment in public buildings, it is far easier and less expensive to design these facilities into a project than to add them afterwards. Funding and guidance must take account of maintenance, signage, staffing and opening hours. I would therefore like to ask the minister three questions. First, does she accept that changes to building regulations alone will not deliver the number of changing places, toilets that disabled people and their families need?Secondly, will the government carry out a national assessment of gaps in provision working directly with disabled people and the organisations that represent them?And thirdly, will the government establish a successor to the previous capital fund with long term and predictable funding for local authorities and community organisations?Changing places toilets are essential infrastructure, essential infrastructure.
We would not describe an accessible entrance or ramp or lift as an optional extra. We should not treat appropriate toilet facilities differently. Everyone should be able to go shopping, travel, attend an appointment, visit a park, an attraction, spend good time with your family without having to worry about whether their most basic needs can be met. The previous funding programme showed that progress is possible. The government must now build on that work, and I hope the minister is listening to the cross-party consensus on this issue.
Thank you.
15:56
15:56
Speaker 26
-
Speaker 26
Thank you, Sir Alec. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And let me start by thanking the member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for securing this important debate and for sharing his family's experience. I want to recognise the vital work of the Changing Places consortium, established in 2005, who continue to ensure that this issue is raised in this place. The chamber town halls and across Whitehall. Sir Alec, I also want to pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Member for Richmond and Northallerton, who began so much of the work on this topic.
As member as Minister at Mhclg, when in government, we've heard from members today about how vital changing places toilet facilities are in our cities, towns and villages for those in need of their larger and more accessible facilities. This has included powerful testimonies from constituents on how their lives are impacted every day by the inaccessibility of many public toilets and how this affects them both physically and mentally. If I may, chair, I would like to add one more example from my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury. It's already been mentioned today, but it's worth reinforcing how vital changing places facilities are for older disabled children and for adults.
My constituents, Radhika and Shyam, told me that a standard accessible toilet simply does not meet the needs of their son, Id-nat. Without appropriate facilities, families can face the undignified and distressing choice of changing a loved one. As we've heard on a toilet floor, or having to cut short a day out. And no family should ever have to make that choice. That's why I also want to recognise the work of Chester Zoo. Radhika and Shyam told me what a difference the zoo's changing places toilet has made to their family.
It meant Id-nat could be changed safely and with dignity, allowing them to enjoy a day out together like any other family. That's exactly the sort of forward thinking approach we should be encouraging. Accessible public toilets are not a luxury or convenience. They are an essential part of ensuring that everyone, regardless of age or disability, can participate in life with dignity. And I'm therefore delighted that Chester Zoo is looking at increasing the number of changing places, toilets on site, changing place toilets provide an indispensable private space for people with profound and multiple learning disabilities, as well as people with other physical disabilities such as spinal injuries, muscular dystrophy, and multiple sclerosis.
This includes essential equipment for making daily life that bit easier. For an estimated 250 000 people. Changing place toilet users. They have found that this equipment, which includes height adjustable adult sized changing benches, ceiling track hoists, a peninsula, WC with room either side, a safe and clean environment including tear off paper to cover the bench, a large waste bin and a non-slip floor and space for multiple carers is invaluable. This is so crucial because for too many people, more typical public toilet spaces are just not just inconvenient, but not fit for purpose.
Rendering the space effectively unusable. And as we know, many disabilities may not be visible and this can lead to an unfortunate and exacerbating ignorance of the issues facing people in need of changing places. Toilets. These toilets allow for those with needs that make a regular lavatory inaccessible. To find the privacy, dignity, liberty and safety required. This has long been keenly recognised on this side of the House, and that's why I was proud to see the previous conservative government make changing places.
Toilets compulsory in new public buildings. This change, made in 2020, has allowed more people to have greater access to public places by providing the essential facilities to make such everyday trips viable. It's also why I was proud to see the last conservative government launch the Changing Places Toilets Fund, which, as we've heard, was worth £30.5 million. The fund enabled local authorities to increase the number of changing places toilets in England, meaning that across the country there are now, as we've heard, around 2665 registered active changing places toilets.
This is up from just 140 in 2007, thanks to local campaigners. And as we've heard from the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton and the last conservative government as a nation, we've gone up from just one toilet per 1786 users to one toilet for every 94 users. That is a remarkable steer down the road to equality, and it's vital that the government continues driving progress in the right direction. The 2019 consultation showed that the vast majority of the individuals and organisations that responded believed that an increase in the number of changing spaces toilets would give individuals with more with multiple or complex disabilities, as well as their carers and families greater ability to leave their home and visit different places would remove the risk of unsafe lifting from carers, offer a dignified space for users and be more suitable for use than simply wheelchair accessible unisex toilets.
The £30.5 million provided to local authorities by the conservative government was divided into two rounds, a first and an initial round of funding totalled a £23.5 million allocation to 191 local authorities in England, and this was followed by the remaining £7 million, which was spread to 64 local authorities. After the fund closed, the current Labour government was petitioned on this matter in December last year and concluded that local authorities are best placed to assess and manage toilet provision, as members here today will know, local authorities will have valuable local knowledge of where to provide essential services in their area, and this highlights why the last conservative government's Changing Places Toilets Fund was allocated to local leaders to decide how best and where best to spend the vital funds for these life changing spaces.
Perhaps the minister can set out how their current view appears to be a U-turn from their policy when in opposition, during the passage of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2022, the then Shadow Minister, the member for Nottingham North and Kimberley, proposed an amendment for a review of public conveniences, which is the former conservative Parliamentary Under-Secretary of state noted at the time would require the appointment of a commissioner to consider the level of need for conveniences. The former government felt that such a change would risk increasing bureaucracy, while decreasing the importance of local decision making.
It was felt that it would be disproportionate for the government of the day to legislate on such a fundamentally local issue, as many local authorities already operate. Local community toilet schemes. Is it now the policy, therefore, of the current government, for such a Commissioner to be appointed to review public conveniences, or do they now agree that the best place authorities are local authorities?I hope the Minister will address this after I conclude in just a moment. And furthermore, regarding the funding that has now concluded, I also hope the Minister will also confirm what plans the government has for any future support for changing places toilets.
This is essential for those watching the government and waiting for answers, who every day must live with disabilities, some of which are debilitating, incapacitating and severe. Hoping to have the necessary basic facilities to change, leaving the house from being daunting to being routine. Thank you sir.
As member as Minister at Mhclg, when in government, we've heard from members today about how vital changing places toilet facilities are in our cities, towns and villages for those in need of their larger and more accessible facilities. This has included powerful testimonies from constituents on how their lives are impacted every day by the inaccessibility of many public toilets and how this affects them both physically and mentally. If I may, chair, I would like to add one more example from my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury. It's already been mentioned today, but it's worth reinforcing how vital changing places facilities are for older disabled children and for adults.
My constituents, Radhika and Shyam, told me that a standard accessible toilet simply does not meet the needs of their son, Id-nat. Without appropriate facilities, families can face the undignified and distressing choice of changing a loved one. As we've heard on a toilet floor, or having to cut short a day out. And no family should ever have to make that choice. That's why I also want to recognise the work of Chester Zoo. Radhika and Shyam told me what a difference the zoo's changing places toilet has made to their family.
It meant Id-nat could be changed safely and with dignity, allowing them to enjoy a day out together like any other family. That's exactly the sort of forward thinking approach we should be encouraging. Accessible public toilets are not a luxury or convenience. They are an essential part of ensuring that everyone, regardless of age or disability, can participate in life with dignity. And I'm therefore delighted that Chester Zoo is looking at increasing the number of changing places, toilets on site, changing place toilets provide an indispensable private space for people with profound and multiple learning disabilities, as well as people with other physical disabilities such as spinal injuries, muscular dystrophy, and multiple sclerosis.
This includes essential equipment for making daily life that bit easier. For an estimated 250 000 people. Changing place toilet users. They have found that this equipment, which includes height adjustable adult sized changing benches, ceiling track hoists, a peninsula, WC with room either side, a safe and clean environment including tear off paper to cover the bench, a large waste bin and a non-slip floor and space for multiple carers is invaluable. This is so crucial because for too many people, more typical public toilet spaces are just not just inconvenient, but not fit for purpose.
Rendering the space effectively unusable. And as we know, many disabilities may not be visible and this can lead to an unfortunate and exacerbating ignorance of the issues facing people in need of changing places. Toilets. These toilets allow for those with needs that make a regular lavatory inaccessible. To find the privacy, dignity, liberty and safety required. This has long been keenly recognised on this side of the House, and that's why I was proud to see the previous conservative government make changing places.
Toilets compulsory in new public buildings. This change, made in 2020, has allowed more people to have greater access to public places by providing the essential facilities to make such everyday trips viable. It's also why I was proud to see the last conservative government launch the Changing Places Toilets Fund, which, as we've heard, was worth £30.5 million. The fund enabled local authorities to increase the number of changing places toilets in England, meaning that across the country there are now, as we've heard, around 2665 registered active changing places toilets.
This is up from just 140 in 2007, thanks to local campaigners. And as we've heard from the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton and the last conservative government as a nation, we've gone up from just one toilet per 1786 users to one toilet for every 94 users. That is a remarkable steer down the road to equality, and it's vital that the government continues driving progress in the right direction. The 2019 consultation showed that the vast majority of the individuals and organisations that responded believed that an increase in the number of changing spaces toilets would give individuals with more with multiple or complex disabilities, as well as their carers and families greater ability to leave their home and visit different places would remove the risk of unsafe lifting from carers, offer a dignified space for users and be more suitable for use than simply wheelchair accessible unisex toilets.
The £30.5 million provided to local authorities by the conservative government was divided into two rounds, a first and an initial round of funding totalled a £23.5 million allocation to 191 local authorities in England, and this was followed by the remaining £7 million, which was spread to 64 local authorities. After the fund closed, the current Labour government was petitioned on this matter in December last year and concluded that local authorities are best placed to assess and manage toilet provision, as members here today will know, local authorities will have valuable local knowledge of where to provide essential services in their area, and this highlights why the last conservative government's Changing Places Toilets Fund was allocated to local leaders to decide how best and where best to spend the vital funds for these life changing spaces.
Perhaps the minister can set out how their current view appears to be a U-turn from their policy when in opposition, during the passage of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2022, the then Shadow Minister, the member for Nottingham North and Kimberley, proposed an amendment for a review of public conveniences, which is the former conservative Parliamentary Under-Secretary of state noted at the time would require the appointment of a commissioner to consider the level of need for conveniences. The former government felt that such a change would risk increasing bureaucracy, while decreasing the importance of local decision making.
It was felt that it would be disproportionate for the government of the day to legislate on such a fundamentally local issue, as many local authorities already operate. Local community toilet schemes. Is it now the policy, therefore, of the current government, for such a Commissioner to be appointed to review public conveniences, or do they now agree that the best place authorities are local authorities?I hope the Minister will address this after I conclude in just a moment. And furthermore, regarding the funding that has now concluded, I also hope the Minister will also confirm what plans the government has for any future support for changing places toilets.
This is essential for those watching the government and waiting for answers, who every day must live with disabilities, some of which are debilitating, incapacitating and severe. Hoping to have the necessary basic facilities to change, leaving the house from being daunting to being routine. Thank you sir.
16:04
16:04
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
Thank you very much, chair. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. And I think that Sir Alex is the second or third time we've been in this same debate this week. Um, so members are in competition with me. Um, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for securing this incredibly important debate and his ongoing efforts to speak up for issues that not just matter to him, but to so many of our constituents across the country.
I know that he's been a committed advocate for changing places, toilets and so many issues that others find difficult to talk about. But he's the voice of so many constituents around the country, as I say, and I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the government on this important debate, which I have to say comes on the back of another important recent debate about public toilets for people with Stomas that members some members in this debate took part in. Two. Can I also thank all members for their contribution in the debate, including the Shadow Minister?For everyone's thoughtful, emotional and challenging speeches.
Often those are the sorts of debates that have a real impact on policy change, as members have pointed out, for too many people, the availability of an accessible public toilet that is clean and safe can be the deciding factor in whether they feel able to visit a town centre, a high street or a local attraction, their park, or just something to do that weekend. Such facilities support dignity and independence for people with disabilities and accessibility needs. It also has an impact on the families that support those with a disability to, however, for some individuals with profound and multiple disabilities or other conditions that severely limit mobility, standard accessible toilets may not provide the support that they need.
They may lack essential features such as adult sized changing benches, hoists, and enough space for a disabled person and one or more carers as. The honourable members have highlighted, that is exactly why changing places toilets are so important. They provide the space, equipment and dignity that standard provision simply cannot provide. I know this from my own experience as a Member of Parliament that has visited so many special educational needs provisions and spoken to so many parents who have spoken about their own lived experience and the need for this gap to be fixed.
The government wants people to be able to live well, to work and to enjoy days out, to shop, to socialise. And of course, we recognise that access to appropriate public facilities can be an important part of enabling that. Reasonable adjustments, as has already been mentioned, is instrumental to changing lives and allowing everybody to be able to live fulfilled lives as. Members have said and acknowledged. In recognition of the importance of the issue, the government delivered 30/30,000,000 pounds for Changing Places Toilets programme and I'm delighted that the right hon.
Member for Richmond. And, um, it's not just Richmond. Joins the debate. Um it's the targeted installation of well over 400 new disabled toilet facilities in the area where they were most needed across England. And although that programme closed last year, the change is made in January 2021 to the statutory guidance accompanying building regulations. Happy to give way.
I know that he's been a committed advocate for changing places, toilets and so many issues that others find difficult to talk about. But he's the voice of so many constituents around the country, as I say, and I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the government on this important debate, which I have to say comes on the back of another important recent debate about public toilets for people with Stomas that members some members in this debate took part in. Two. Can I also thank all members for their contribution in the debate, including the Shadow Minister?For everyone's thoughtful, emotional and challenging speeches.
Often those are the sorts of debates that have a real impact on policy change, as members have pointed out, for too many people, the availability of an accessible public toilet that is clean and safe can be the deciding factor in whether they feel able to visit a town centre, a high street or a local attraction, their park, or just something to do that weekend. Such facilities support dignity and independence for people with disabilities and accessibility needs. It also has an impact on the families that support those with a disability to, however, for some individuals with profound and multiple disabilities or other conditions that severely limit mobility, standard accessible toilets may not provide the support that they need.
They may lack essential features such as adult sized changing benches, hoists, and enough space for a disabled person and one or more carers as. The honourable members have highlighted, that is exactly why changing places toilets are so important. They provide the space, equipment and dignity that standard provision simply cannot provide. I know this from my own experience as a Member of Parliament that has visited so many special educational needs provisions and spoken to so many parents who have spoken about their own lived experience and the need for this gap to be fixed.
The government wants people to be able to live well, to work and to enjoy days out, to shop, to socialise. And of course, we recognise that access to appropriate public facilities can be an important part of enabling that. Reasonable adjustments, as has already been mentioned, is instrumental to changing lives and allowing everybody to be able to live fulfilled lives as. Members have said and acknowledged. In recognition of the importance of the issue, the government delivered 30/30,000,000 pounds for Changing Places Toilets programme and I'm delighted that the right hon.
Member for Richmond. And, um, it's not just Richmond. Joins the debate. Um it's the targeted installation of well over 400 new disabled toilet facilities in the area where they were most needed across England. And although that programme closed last year, the change is made in January 2021 to the statutory guidance accompanying building regulations. Happy to give way.
16:08
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
She's just acknowledged that the fund was closed. Uh, I'm not quite sure whether all the money was spent, but can she perhaps explain a little bit why the fund was closed when we all agree, and she agrees as well that they they provided and delivered a very, very important human dignity, rights facility. You've all talked about it. So can she please explain why this fund that actually provided us to be human and dignified was fun?Was, was, uh, cut.
16:09
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
I thank the member and her, um, passionate advocacy for it. As I'm about to go on to just further highlight and she will recognise we have, since the fund was allocated, had a significant spending review, um, through which there was monies allocated to local government and I'll, and I'll make the case as to why I think decisions around spending is best made locally. That's not to say I don't recognise the important cases that have been made and recognise that the monies that had been allocated to changing places, toilets delivered the change on the ground with facilities across the country and I absolutely accept the important point that my Right Honourable member has made, in the speed of which additional provision is being provided, and that there is clearly a case in recognising that there has been a slow reduction in the speed of more facilities across the country.
I'm not in the business of rejecting what evidence is in front of us. Um, but you would expect me to also recognise the important spending review that took place under this government and make the case that spending decisions should be taken locally with what was a record spending settlement for local government. But if I could just go back to the regulations, because I do think that the regulations from 2021 were significant. I remember them well. Having been a council leader and following building regulations changes because they have an impact on local government budgets as well as anything else.
Um, and all building works because of those regulations must also meet the functional requirements of the building regulations from 2010, um, including part M, which addresses accessibility. And in addition to this, as I said, alluded to earlier at the 2025 spending review, the government committed more than £5 billion in new grant funding for over three years for essential local services, including public toilets. And we continue to to provide 100% mandatory business rates relief for separately accessible, accessible toilets. Although I accept that is a slightly different conversation.
But I wanted to give a sense of the broader conversation and commitment of government to ensuring that there is accessible toilets for everybody in our communities, and taken together, these measures are intended to increase the availability of these vital facilities over time and to ensure that accessibility is treated as a mainstream consideration. In a way, we plan and build our public spaces. But Sir Alec, as I've said, I hear and I accept the powerful cases that members have made. Um, and and I, and I acknowledge that the calls for a new capital funding pot for changing places.
But if I may just say, members will absolutely appreciate, um, it'll, it would be a little beyond my ability to be able to make a spending commitment, although I am reminded that ministers in Mhclg have gone on to hold offices that have held the power to make such commitments. But you'll take the point that I'm making the government believe that local authorities are best placed to understand, as I've said, where facilities need to be. And so our approach to funding local authorities is really important. And the government absolutely encourages local authorities to allocate funding necessary to deliver public toilet provision.
Um, yes. I think decisions are best placed, best made locally. I'm happy to give way.
I'm not in the business of rejecting what evidence is in front of us. Um, but you would expect me to also recognise the important spending review that took place under this government and make the case that spending decisions should be taken locally with what was a record spending settlement for local government. But if I could just go back to the regulations, because I do think that the regulations from 2021 were significant. I remember them well. Having been a council leader and following building regulations changes because they have an impact on local government budgets as well as anything else.
Um, and all building works because of those regulations must also meet the functional requirements of the building regulations from 2010, um, including part M, which addresses accessibility. And in addition to this, as I said, alluded to earlier at the 2025 spending review, the government committed more than £5 billion in new grant funding for over three years for essential local services, including public toilets. And we continue to to provide 100% mandatory business rates relief for separately accessible, accessible toilets. Although I accept that is a slightly different conversation.
But I wanted to give a sense of the broader conversation and commitment of government to ensuring that there is accessible toilets for everybody in our communities, and taken together, these measures are intended to increase the availability of these vital facilities over time and to ensure that accessibility is treated as a mainstream consideration. In a way, we plan and build our public spaces. But Sir Alec, as I've said, I hear and I accept the powerful cases that members have made. Um, and and I, and I acknowledge that the calls for a new capital funding pot for changing places.
But if I may just say, members will absolutely appreciate, um, it'll, it would be a little beyond my ability to be able to make a spending commitment, although I am reminded that ministers in Mhclg have gone on to hold offices that have held the power to make such commitments. But you'll take the point that I'm making the government believe that local authorities are best placed to understand, as I've said, where facilities need to be. And so our approach to funding local authorities is really important. And the government absolutely encourages local authorities to allocate funding necessary to deliver public toilet provision.
Um, yes. I think decisions are best placed, best made locally. I'm happy to give way.
16:12
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
I understand that money argument, but will she not also acknowledge that local authorities are stuck to have to provide mandatory services?They have to provide them. When it comes to social care, children and adult social care. Whereas this one then becomes optional. And that is a problem. And in this dilemma, local authorities cannot fund or cannot make that money available that today we have discussed are so very important.
16:13
16:13
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
I thank the Right Honourable member for making the point and the case. Um, having spent a long time in local government with my right hon. Friend, we know too well that statutory services are under a huge amount of pressure, and choices have to be made. So I accept the argument that if you sometimes don't reinvent, things don't get done. However, this government is committed to funding local authorities well, which we have done through a spending review. We're also committed to saying to local authorities, you are best placed to make decisions for your area, to be able to assess what is needed, and we will support you and encourage you to make those right decisions.
It is a balancing act, but I accept that debates like this give us an opportunity to reinforce an important message from government that access to facilities, public toilets for all those who need those facilities are a crucial part of what local government should be doing.
It is a balancing act, but I accept that debates like this give us an opportunity to reinforce an important message from government that access to facilities, public toilets for all those who need those facilities are a crucial part of what local government should be doing.
16:14
16:14
16:14
16:14
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
And as my honourable friend has said, we were friends for many years in London local government prior to being elected to this place. But there are two things. Firstly, there is the issue about those changing places that have been provided in recent years and the level of information out there about them. You know, I've written in the last week to a number of providers where the money was provided or they were provided due to the new regulations, and yet they're not advertising. They exist or not making them available.
So would my hon. Friend commit to working with me to write to local authorities to remind them about getting that level of information out there, to providing that. And secondly, that cross working, because, as I've said earlier, it needs to be provided not just by local government, but by the Department for Health and Transport as well. So I very much hope my hon. Friend is in the same position next week. Um, but working again, securing a meeting for me with that cross, working through departments to try and see how we can continue that spend across departments.
So would my hon. Friend commit to working with me to write to local authorities to remind them about getting that level of information out there, to providing that. And secondly, that cross working, because, as I've said earlier, it needs to be provided not just by local government, but by the Department for Health and Transport as well. So I very much hope my hon. Friend is in the same position next week. Um, but working again, securing a meeting for me with that cross, working through departments to try and see how we can continue that spend across departments.
16:15
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
Thank you very much to my hon. Friend, and he is right to highlight the important point he made earlier. And I and I, and I was going to come on to say that of course, I absolutely welcome a dialogue with him, but also the consortium that has always already been referenced in the debate that does such good work already. I'm happy to meet with the consortium myself, but I'm also confident that Mhclg and all ministers, current or future ministers would welcome that engagement and dialogue, because he's right.
These sorts of facilities are only successfully delivered if there is a cross-governmental commitment to it. Regulation is part of that challenge. Um, funding is part of that challenge, but also a joint recognition of what the challenges are in our communities in order to be able to see things delivered. And the consortium is clearly playing a valuable role in being able to articulate what those challenges are. So it is absolutely right at Mhclg. Does that engagement, has that engagement, and I'm confident that they will going forward.
And I'm happy to discuss with my right hon. Friend. Um, any letters, correspondence or meetings that we need to have. Um as a department in the coming weeks and months to make sure that we can continue to make the case for, um, these facilities. Can I also just address the point, um, on, uh, specific government departments and the opportunities that we face now because of government initiatives and changes that we don't want to lose in order to be able to improve facilities.
Um, for those who have needs. So I was shocked to hear that so many NHS hospitals don't have the provisions that we're talking about. I don't think that is acceptable. And I think that all of our constituents would be surprised to hear that. I'm very happy to take that away and speak to colleagues in other departments in the government. Um, I think they too will be surprised, if I'm honest with you, but it is a good example of where we need cross-governmental working.
And I would welcome member's input into how we might be able to do that. And I also recognise the important points made about transport, the government's commitment to accessible transport is demonstrated in the spending that we're committed to railway. Um, but I think there is an opportunity because of that to make sure that they are accessible and are transport hubs will play a key part in that. Um, so I will take specifically those two things away. I also want to recognise the point that my right hon.
Friend made in terms of modernising software and maps a needs map, if you will, feels like quite an obvious thing that we could do that would really make a difference to constituents across this country who simply don't know if there is a facility. Um, and, and actually an ability to be able to map out the gaps. Perhaps will give the encouragement that is necessary to both government, but also local authorities to allocate the monies that are required to see these facilities. Um, be set up.
Um. I recognise the strength of feeling across the house. In this very, very important debate, um ensuring that public spaces are accessible, inclusive and supportive of people's dignity and independence. And if I may, Sir Alec, um, can I just pay tribute to my good friend, the member for Bexleyheath and Crayford?Um, the very best of politics are people that just get things done, to be honest with you. And I saw that many years in local government when he got things done.
Um, he gets things done as a member of Parliament too, but nobody who knows him will tell you he's a soft touch in any way. He's formidable and effective. He's my right hon. Friend. But I tell you, he will tell me if we are doing something wrong as a government, as he has very happy to give way.
These sorts of facilities are only successfully delivered if there is a cross-governmental commitment to it. Regulation is part of that challenge. Um, funding is part of that challenge, but also a joint recognition of what the challenges are in our communities in order to be able to see things delivered. And the consortium is clearly playing a valuable role in being able to articulate what those challenges are. So it is absolutely right at Mhclg. Does that engagement, has that engagement, and I'm confident that they will going forward.
And I'm happy to discuss with my right hon. Friend. Um, any letters, correspondence or meetings that we need to have. Um as a department in the coming weeks and months to make sure that we can continue to make the case for, um, these facilities. Can I also just address the point, um, on, uh, specific government departments and the opportunities that we face now because of government initiatives and changes that we don't want to lose in order to be able to improve facilities.
Um, for those who have needs. So I was shocked to hear that so many NHS hospitals don't have the provisions that we're talking about. I don't think that is acceptable. And I think that all of our constituents would be surprised to hear that. I'm very happy to take that away and speak to colleagues in other departments in the government. Um, I think they too will be surprised, if I'm honest with you, but it is a good example of where we need cross-governmental working.
And I would welcome member's input into how we might be able to do that. And I also recognise the important points made about transport, the government's commitment to accessible transport is demonstrated in the spending that we're committed to railway. Um, but I think there is an opportunity because of that to make sure that they are accessible and are transport hubs will play a key part in that. Um, so I will take specifically those two things away. I also want to recognise the point that my right hon.
Friend made in terms of modernising software and maps a needs map, if you will, feels like quite an obvious thing that we could do that would really make a difference to constituents across this country who simply don't know if there is a facility. Um, and, and actually an ability to be able to map out the gaps. Perhaps will give the encouragement that is necessary to both government, but also local authorities to allocate the monies that are required to see these facilities. Um, be set up.
Um. I recognise the strength of feeling across the house. In this very, very important debate, um ensuring that public spaces are accessible, inclusive and supportive of people's dignity and independence. And if I may, Sir Alec, um, can I just pay tribute to my good friend, the member for Bexleyheath and Crayford?Um, the very best of politics are people that just get things done, to be honest with you. And I saw that many years in local government when he got things done.
Um, he gets things done as a member of Parliament too, but nobody who knows him will tell you he's a soft touch in any way. He's formidable and effective. He's my right hon. Friend. But I tell you, he will tell me if we are doing something wrong as a government, as he has very happy to give way.
16:19
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
I, uh, I add my thanks and congratulations to the honourable member as well. And can I just say before she wraps up to thank her for what has been a very considered, informed and thoughtful response, I think, to the debate. And if I might just add, whatever happens next week, I very much hope that she is in a position continuing in government to be a champion of this cause, because I think she would do it very well.
16:20
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you, Sir Alec. Well, as as my honourable friend from barking has said, she knows that the minister knows that I will hold her to account on this and continue to pursue that. And I thank you very much for the commitments that she's given today that we can continue to pursue. Can I thank the honourable members from Chester South and Eddisbury, from bath, from Strangford, from Broxtowe and the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton for their contributions um this afternoon and those outlines of family experiences that I know only too well, an issue that I knew very little about ten years ago.
And when you start that path as the parent of a disabled child, you find out these things. Um, and I did become a campaigner of on this cause in my time in local government and will continue, um, to do that all the time that I'm in this house, you know, we are very thankful in this country for the progress we've made on this matter. There are more changing places, toilets in this country than there are in the whole of the European Union. We need to remember, um, and if you are travelling abroad, the real, real progress we have made, um and certainly in some of our um neighbouring countries, you can count on one hand how many changing places there are in the entire country.
Um and so we have made great progress, but there is still more to be done. I'd like to thank the right hon. Member for Richmond, Northallerton, for paying tribute to Zach Kerr. I know he continues to lobby the honourable member for Hyndburn, where he lives. Um, on this matter. Um and I know um he and I have written to each other um on this issue. Um and I know he, the, the great involvement he had um in the campaign on motorway service stations and the great credit that he rightly um should be taking for that.
Um, so I'd just like again to thank all members for their contributions today. And as I say, I think there is that piece of work that consortium do have a map. They are looking at how you roll that out. But there is a, the issue about gaps in provision, particularly if you're in a more rural constituency. If my hon. Friend for Congleton have been here today, she would have spoken about the real gaps in her rural constituency, about how we can bring that information together, though in terms of accessibility today, much more so than ten years ago.
You can bring that information together, but I will push to sit down and look at how we bring government departments together. Um, and also, as I say, go back to local government across the country and make sure they are doing all they can, not only to provide new facilities, but to advertise the facilities they already have. Thank you, Sir Alec.
And when you start that path as the parent of a disabled child, you find out these things. Um, and I did become a campaigner of on this cause in my time in local government and will continue, um, to do that all the time that I'm in this house, you know, we are very thankful in this country for the progress we've made on this matter. There are more changing places, toilets in this country than there are in the whole of the European Union. We need to remember, um, and if you are travelling abroad, the real, real progress we have made, um and certainly in some of our um neighbouring countries, you can count on one hand how many changing places there are in the entire country.
Um and so we have made great progress, but there is still more to be done. I'd like to thank the right hon. Member for Richmond, Northallerton, for paying tribute to Zach Kerr. I know he continues to lobby the honourable member for Hyndburn, where he lives. Um, on this matter. Um and I know um he and I have written to each other um on this issue. Um and I know he, the, the great involvement he had um in the campaign on motorway service stations and the great credit that he rightly um should be taking for that.
Um, so I'd just like again to thank all members for their contributions today. And as I say, I think there is that piece of work that consortium do have a map. They are looking at how you roll that out. But there is a, the issue about gaps in provision, particularly if you're in a more rural constituency. If my hon. Friend for Congleton have been here today, she would have spoken about the real gaps in her rural constituency, about how we can bring that information together, though in terms of accessibility today, much more so than ten years ago.
You can bring that information together, but I will push to sit down and look at how we bring government departments together. Um, and also, as I say, go back to local government across the country and make sure they are doing all they can, not only to provide new facilities, but to advertise the facilities they already have. Thank you, Sir Alec.
16:22
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
The question is that this House has considered the capital funding for changing places, toilets, as many of that opinion say. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Can I just take this opportunity to wish all honourable and right honourable members a very pleasant recess, along with departmental staff, doorkeepers, clerks and Hansard reporters. Order, order!The sitting stands adjourned.