Planning and Development: Bedfordshire

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this debate and on so clearly setting out his case and his concerns about the type of development and infrastructure provision he wants to see in his constituency.

Sustained economic growth is the only route to delivering the improved prosperity our country needs and the higher living standards that working people deserve. That is why it is this Government’s No. 1 mission and why our plan for change commits us to build 1.5 million new homes and fast-track 150 planning decisions on major infrastructure projects in this Parliament.

To support the achievement of those milestones, the Government are progressing an ambitious planning reform agenda. In our first six months in office we overhauled the national planning policy framework to reverse the anti-supply changes made by the previous Government in December 2023 and to introduce a range of new pro-growth measures. Our landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, had its Second Reading on 24 March and begins its Commons Committee stage tomorrow. We have made a series of other changes, including taking steps to implement a new plan-making system that will help to facilitate sustainable growth, and we intend to announce, and in many cases consult on, further changes to the planning system over the coming weeks and months.

The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire raises a wide range of distinct issues, and I intend to cover as many points I can in the time available. However, he will forgive me if I set out at the start that, as I know he will appreciate, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process and the potential decision-making role of the Deputy Prime Minister, I will not be able to comment on individual local development plans or individual planning applications, or for that matter on how individual local planning authorities may interpret national planning policy.

We believe in a plan-led system. As I never fail to say, it is primarily through local development plans that communities can shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development that their areas need, and those plans must remain the cornerstone of our planning system. However, we are clear that local decisions must be about how to meet housing need, not whether to do so at all. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, through the revised national planning policy framework, published on 12 December last year, the Government implemented a new standard method for addressing housing needs to increase supply and better direct new homes to the areas where they are currently least affordable and therefore most needed. I certainly recognise—it is a point well made—the contribution that his constituency and neighbouring constituencies have made to housing supply over recent years.

The revised standard method is now the mandatory starting point for planning for homes. Local planning authorities, including those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, are expected to use it, although as I am sure he will be aware, they can seek to justify a lower housing requirement on the basis of local constraints on land availability, development and other relevant matters such as national landscapes, protected habitats and flood-risk areas. We expect local planning authorities to explore all the options to deliver the homes their communities need, including by maximising brownfield land—he will know that we have set out proposals for a brownfield passport to prioritise and accelerate the development of such land—and also by working with neighbouring authorities on cross-boundary housing growth and, where necessary, reviewing green belt.

It is probably worth touching very briefly on the specific areas the hon. Gentleman highlighted about villages and rural areas. The Government are committed to supporting rural communities to build new homes for local people and, in particular, to boost the supply of rural affordable housing. It cannot be right that young people in particular are often unable to remain in the villages they grew up in. That harms not only them and their families, but the vibrancy and long-term viability of those rural communities. That is why national policy promotes sustainable development in rural areas and why we want to see more affordable housing in them. That will also contribute to our wider ambition to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation.

National policy makes it clear that local authorities should ensure that their planning policies and decisions respond to local circumstances and support housing that reflects local needs. That includes promoting sustainable development in local areas and ensuring that housing is located in areas where it will maintain and enhance the vitality of rural communities.

We also want more affordable housing in rural areas, and have already taken steps to support the delivery of that. For example, our golden rules for green development will ensure an affordable housing contribution 15 percentage points above the highest existing affordable housing requirement that would otherwise apply to the development, subject to a cap of 50%. That will unlock new affordable housing provision in a range of rural locations. Other measures, such as rural exception sites, can also make an important contribution. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, they allow local authorities to address the housing needs of rural communities by creating sites where local residents and others with a strong family or employment connection can live in affordable homes in perpetuity.

We recognise the strong support for those measures and the potential for strengthening policy in this area. That is why we made clear in our response to the consultation on the revised NPPF that we are giving further consideration to how we can better support rural affordable housing, including through the use of exception sites. That will include consideration of how we can drive greater uptake of rural exception sites and introduce a more streamlined approach. I will set out further details about our thinking on that matter in due course.

The hon. Gentleman and others rightly spoke about the need for up-front infrastructure for development. We recognise the importance of ensuring that new housing development is supported with appropriate infrastructure. He was wrong to say that we have taken no action in this area to date. The revised NPPF, published last year, includes changes designed to improve the provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure. He was absolutely right that we need to strengthen the existing system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide the necessary infrastructure that communities expect.

[Richard Fuller]

I am very grateful for the Minister’s thoughtful speech. One of the problems with the provision of public services in Bedfordshire—and, I am sure, some other high-growth areas—is that we are dealing with a backlog, due to the fact that for many years the population has grown too fast for us to provide the additional services. If the Government come forward with a new town in Tempsford, it is important that the Minister addresses the legacy issue—the backlog—as well as the provision for the additional houses that will come with the new town.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, which is well made. I will certainly note that. We have had discussions about the matter previously.

In general terms, I will make a couple of points about infrastructure provision. First, local development plans should address needs and opportunities in relation to infrastructure, and identify what infrastructure is required and how it can be funded and brought forward. When a local plan is being prepared, practice guidance recommends that local authorities use available evidence about infrastructure requirements to prepare an infrastructure funding statement. I have mentioned some of the other changes that we have made in terms of the NPPF, and hon. Members know that the Government also provide financial support for essential infrastructure in areas of the greatest housing demand through land and infrastructure funding programmes, such as the housing infrastructure fund.

I want to be clear that what we have announced so far is just a first step. We recognise that there is more to do in this area across Government and with the sector to ensure that the right infrastructure gets built. I say gently to Conservative Members that the previous Government did not manage to find a solution to this thorny problem in 14 years. There is no simple and straightforward answer, but we are cognisant of the need to do more in this area, not least to ensure that we get more buy-in from communities for the development we need.

I agree that there is too much bad development, which unhelpfully plays into the yimby/nimby debate— I have never engaged in it because I find it reductive in many ways. Although there is a group of people in the country who want no development whatever anywhere near them—we will happily take them on—there is a far larger group that wants good development, with good amenities and infrastructure. We must therefore ensure that exemplary development is the norm, not the exception, as it is now.

I want to quickly touch on green belt, because the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire mentioned urban sprawl. The manifesto on which the Government were elected is clear that the green belt has an important role to play, and that a number of the intentions behind it, including preventing urban sprawl, have served our towns and cities very well over many decades. We will always look to brownfield first. Ours is a brownfield-first approach, as was the previous Government’s, and as I said, we took measures in the NPPF last year to strengthen that approach to brownfield land. We are also consulting on brownfield passports.

However, we have also been clear that there is not enough brownfield land in the country on brownfield registers, let alone in locations that are viable and that can be brought forward, to meet housing demand and need in full. We therefore need to look for a more strategic and smart way to release the right parts of the green belt—primarily and in the first instance low-quality, grey-belt land. Then, because of the value that the public attach to the green belt, we need a clear quid pro quo in terms of golden rules to ensure that sufficient rates of affordable housing and infrastructure come forward.

In the time left to me, I will cover a couple of the other issues raised by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire: the environment, new towns and Universal Studios, although I am limited in what I can say on that final point. He will know that when it comes to development and the environment, we are absolutely convinced that we can do better than the status quo, which too often means both sustainable house building and nature recovery stalling. Instead of seeing environmental protections as a barrier to growth, we want to unlock a win-win for the economy and nature. As he will know, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will introduce a new nature restoration fund, which will unlock and accelerate development while going beyond neutrality to unlock the positive impact that development can have in driving nature recovery. He has submitted many written questions to me on this point, so he is familiar with our approach, but I look forward to his engagement as the Bill progresses.

[Blake Stephenson]

Will the Minister take this opportunity to talk about building on flood plains? He may be coming on to this matter, but it is close to the hearts of my constituents and, particularly, constituents in North Bedfordshire. It is important that we do not build houses in areas that are going to flood.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will turn to that point briefly in a moment.

On Universal Studios, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has agreed in principle to consider any proposal. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, given that the proposals remain subject to a planning decision, I cannot comment on any proposal, because to do so could prejudice the position of the Deputy Prime Minister. However, should the Department receive such a request, it will carry out a proper and impartial consideration of the planning merits of the proposed development.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to address flooding. We are clear that all local plans should be based on the best available flood risk data. The revised NPPF, which we published last year, makes it clear that developments of all sizes should use sustainable drainage techniques where the development could have drainage impacts, and should have appropriate maintenance arrangements in place. These changes will mean that sustainable drainage technologies are taken up more widely in new developments, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we continue to explore what further changes might be necessary. On a related matter, to avoid the issue of existing sewers not being able to adequately cope with new developments—we had an extensive debate just a few weeks ago about the investment cycle around the water sector being somewhat out of line with the planning cycle—there is more we can do in this area, and we are giving due consideration to that.

Finally, hon. Members are aware that the Government are committed to bringing forward the next generation of new towns. This Government’s new towns programme will include large-scale stand-alone new communities, as well as a large number of urban extensions and urban regeneration schemes, which will work with the grain of development in a given area. The unifying principle will be that each of the new settlements will contain at least 10,000 homes, although we expect a number to be far larger. Collectively, we expect that they could provide hundreds of thousands more homes in the decades to come.

As I have said in relation to development more generally, we want exemplary development to be the norm, not the exception. The next generation of new towns must be well connected, well designed, sustainable and attractive places where people want to live, and must have all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities. The new towns code will ensure that they deliver to the highest standards and help to meet housing need by targeting rates of 40% affordable housing, with a focus on genuinely affordable social rented homes.

As hon. Members are aware, last year we established the independent new towns taskforce, which is chaired by Sir Michael Lyons, to support this mission. It will submit its final report, including its final shortlist of recommended sites—I do not have that shortlist to hand, so I cannot tell the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) whether Tempsford or any other site in the country will be the location of a new town—this summer, and then Ministers will select from the recommendations. There will be local buy-in where appropriate, but we are clear that we will make the decisions in the national interest where we need to do so.

[Blake Stephenson]

Will the Minister confirm whether new towns will contribute to current house building targets or be in addition to them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think I have answered a written question on this matter, but I put it on the record again, because I understand the need for clarity in this area. The Government have been clear, not least because the new towns will begin construction only towards the end of the Parliament, that new towns will deliver over and above the targets produced by the standard method. We will keep under review how the taskforce’s forthcoming recommendations on new towns interact with housing targets across the country.

To conclude, I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire once again on securing the debate. I thank him for outlining his views on planning and development in his constituency. The Government are committed to establishing a planning system that delivers the homes—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects Regime: Further Reforms

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

Sustained economic growth is the only route to delivering the improved prosperity our country needs and the higher living standards working people deserve. That is why it is this Government’s No. 1 mission and why our plan for change committed us to fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament.

While nationally significant infrastructure projects applications are already being processed on average 50 days quicker than in the last Parliament, achieving that milestone is going to require the planning regime for NSIP to be firing on all cylinders. Yet we know that the current system is too slow and that its performance has deteriorated sharply in recent years. Inefficiencies in the system are delaying the delivery of much-needed infrastructure and driving up costs for industry, billpayers and taxpayers.

The Government are determined to improve the system and to that end the Planning and Infrastructure Bill includes a range of measures—from mandatory and faster updates to national policy statements to reducing the scope for meritless judicial reviews—designed to deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for critical infrastructure.

As the Deputy Prime Minister and I made clear on Second Reading, the measures included at introduction are not the limit of our ambitions when it comes to streamlining the NSIP regime. In responding to the debate, I committed to giving further consideration to addressing the significant elongation of pre-application periods resulting from the way in which statutory procedures are now being applied and made clear that the Government would not hesitate to act boldly if there is a compelling case for reform in this area. Having considered the matter further as promised, we have decided to act.

A key objective of any planning consent regime must be to encourage the submission of high-quality applications that deliver benefits at both the national and local level. High-quality applications should be underpinned by early, meaningful and constructive engagement with those affected—including with local authorities, statutory consultees, landowners, and local communities. When such engagement does take place, the benefits are felt in terms of better schemes, greater local benefits and improved mitigation.

However, the successful functioning of any planning consent regime also requires that it ensure proportionate and timely processes for decision making. This is particularly important for the NSIP regime, which is the primary route for consenting critical infrastructure projects in the national interest. Yet the evidence clearly indicates that the system’s performance has deteriorated sharply in recent years.

In 2021, it took on average 4.2 years for a project to secure development consent, compared with 2.6 years in 2012. The National Infrastructure Commission has highlighted that uncertainty around the time and volume of consultation required resulted in the doubling of the preapplication period for Hinkley Point C to Sizewell C from three to seven years. An Anglian Water application for a new Fens reservoir—to supply 250,000 homes with water—has spent over 1,000 days in pre-application stage. It is essential that we take all necessary steps to drive timescales of this kind back down.

Unique to planning consent regimes, the NSIP system established by the Planning Act 2008 includes statutory requirements for applicants to undertake consultation before submitting an application. These statutory pre-application procedures were created for a regime that originally saw decisions taken by commissioners rather than Ministers. Subsequent to that democratic deficit being addressed through the Localism Act 2011, they were retained on the basis that they helped improve applications prior to submission.

However, there is considerable evidence to attest to the fact that these statutory requirements are driving perverse outcomes. Rather than providing a means by which engagement drives better outcomes, statutory pre-application procedures have become a tick-box exercise that encourages risk aversion and gold-plating. The result is consultation fatigue and confusion for communities, longer, more technical and less accessible documentation, and an arrangement that actively disincentivises improvements to applications—even if these are in a local communities’ interest—because applicants worry this will require a further repeat consultation.

The Government have concluded that these statutory requirements, absent from other planning regimes, including those used to determine applications for new housing, now serve to slow down projects and deter improvements to them—wholly contrary to their nominal purpose of producing better outcomes.

I am, therefore, today announcing that the Government will amend the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to remove the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for NSIP applications, bringing requirements in line with all other planning regimes. This will include removing the requirement for developers to prepare and consult on preliminary environmental information, which currently often leads to applicants duplicating content already required through existing environmental regulation.

This change could reduce the typical time spent in pre-application by up to 12 months, speeding up the delivery of major economic infrastructure—including our electricity networks and clean energy sources, roads, public transport links and water supplies—that is essential to delivering basic services, growing the economy, supporting the UK’s mission to achieve clean power by 2030, and enabling 1.5 million safe and decent homes to be built over this Parliament. Over this Parliament, the change could result in a cost saving of over £1 billion across the pipeline of projects. By speeding up delivery, increasing capacity and reducing constraint costs, it will also contribute to lower household bills.

Following these changes, affected local communities and local authorities will, of course, still be able to object to applications, provide evidence of adverse impacts, and have their say as part of the post-submission NSIP process. The Government are clear that removing these statutory requirements does not signify that pre-submission consultation and high-quality engagement is no longer important—such engagement and consultation will remain vital to delivering successful major infrastructure projects. However, the current system is not working for communities or developers.

We still want the NSIP regime to function on the basis of a front-loaded approach in which development proposals are thoroughly scoped and refined prior to being submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. And we still expect high-quality early, meaningful and constructive engagement and consultation to take place with those affected as part of that process, thereby enabling positive changes to be made to proposals without causing undue delays. Given that such engagement and consultation routinely takes place and leads to improved proposals in other planning regimes without such statutory requirements, and because the development consent order examination procedure rewards high-quality applications, we are confident that developers will continue to be incentivised to undertake it.

To support this change, the Government intend to publish statutory guidance setting out strong expectations that developers undertake consultation and engagement prior to submitting an application. We will work with stakeholders to design this guidance, launching a public consultation in the summer, so that it encourages best practice without recreating the flaws of the current system.

Principles that we intend to reflect in this guidance will include the benefits of consultation to developing high-quality schemes and the importance of developers taking a proportionate approach to avoid repeated consultations. As the NSIP process will continue to be one built on the principle of front-loading engagement, pre-application services provided by the Planning Inspectorate, statutory consultees and local authorities will continue and be encouraged by guidance, but these services will be reshaped to reflect a renewed focus on the quality of applications and their readiness for examination rather than meeting a statutory test.

Alongside these changes, we will retain the invitation to local authorities to submit a local impact report to the Planning Inspectorate in advance of an examination. We will also retain the requirement for applicants to notify the Planning Inspectorate when they intend to submit an application and extend this requirement to include host local authorities. Publicity requirements, essential to support good quality engagement, will remain in place.

The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, will continue to assess whether applications are suitable to proceed to examination. We expect guidance to emphasise that without adequate engagement and consultation, applications are unlikely to be able to proceed to examination. Both guidance and advice from the Planning Inspectorate will be aimed at helping applications demonstrate that they are of a satisfactory standard.

[HCWS594]

Residential Estate Management Companies

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this debate. I commend her for giving the House a much-needed opportunity to discuss the important matter of residential estate management companies in detail. I thank her for so clearly highlighting the pertinent issues in her opening remarks. I also thank all the other hon. Members who have spoken for the insight they have provided. I assure them that I well understand the strength of feeling when it comes to this issue.

The debate as a whole has not only underscored the case for acting to tackle the problems associated with freehold estate management arrangements, but highlighted that those problems take various forms. Part of the challenge facing the Government, and why we believe appropriate consultation in this area is essential, is ensuring that the interventions we make in due course capture the diversity of models and challenges.

We have covered a large range of specific issues today. I will address as many as I can in my response. We have also strayed into leasehold and commonhold. The White Paper is very distinct from the freehold estate issues that the majority of hon. Members have spoken about today and on which I will therefore mainly focus my remarks.

The Government estimate that there may now be as many as 1.75 million homes on privately managed estates in England, although I must make clear that not all of them are liable to pay charges. As the debate has made abundantly clear, the prevalence of such freehold estates creates a wide range of problems—problems that, not least as a result of the dogged campaigning by groups such as the National Leasehold Campaign and the Home Owners Rights Network, are now well known and well understood by the public.

Historically, any given local authority and water company would adopt the respective parts of a new residential estate. They would set clear, adoptable standards and provide oversight to ensure those were delivered, but more recently, and especially over the past 10 to 15 years, we have witnessed the growth of private management arrangements, where shared infrastructure, amenities and open spaces are not adopted and responsibility for the costs of ongoing maintenance instead falls on the residents of the estate through an estate rent charge, which residents pay in addition to council tax. The infrastructure and amenities provided on these estates all too often do not meet the minimum standards for adoption. In the worst cases, residents are left living in unfinished and sometimes dangerous developments.

The problem of unfinished housing developments is obviously not confined to freehold estates, and part of the answer is the proper enforcement of planning obligations, but private management models clearly exacerbate the problems faced by many homeowners in this scenario by leaving them liable for the upkeep of the partially completed or unfinished infrastructure.

That is just one of the many problems that residential freeholders living on freehold estates across the country are struggling with. Others include poor service and abuse at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents—we have heard many such examples in the debate today—as well as limited to no transparency about how the charges they pay are spent, onerous restrictions placed on the title deeds of their properties, and a general lack of control over how their estate is managed. These problems are more acute in some cases than others. For example, the absence of any measure of control is most acute in the case of the approximately 20% of freehold estates that have what is known as an embedded management company set in the title deeds of the relevant properties. To take another example, the challenges associated with opaque fees are magnified in estates where management arrangements are fragmented, with more than one managing company; residents have to navigate multiple companies, each of which levy fees for services in a way that significantly increases the potential for abuse.

As many hon. Members mentioned, last year, the Competition and Markets Authority published its study into the housebuilding industry. I encourage any hon. Member who has not yet had the time to read that report in full to do so. The CMA identified the private management of public amenities on housing estates as a detriment to consumers and concluded that

“the root cause of the aggregate detriment…is the decrease in levels of adoption of amenities by relevant authorities”.

The Government agree with the CMA’s conclusion that the housebuilding market is not delivering for consumers and has consistently failed to do so over successive decades.

As hon. Members will be aware, the report made a number of recommendations to Government and we published a response in full. It called for measures to strengthen protection for existing homeowners, as well as for the Government to mandate adoption of all new estates and to implement common adoptable standards for infrastructure. The Government have accepted many of the recommendations in principle, but we recognise that further work is required in a number of areas.

In the immediate term, we need to introduce protections for residential freeholders on already constructed freehold estates. As hon. Members mentioned many times, part 5 of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2004 contains powers to establish a regulatory framework that to provide such protections, including the provision of standardised demands and an annual report; giving homeowners the right to challenge the reasonableness of charges levied; requiring estate managers to consult homeowners where the anticipated costs exceed an appropriate amount; and giving residential freeholders the right to apply to a tribunal to appoint a manager in the event of serious management failure. Taken together, these measures will vastly improve the situation for many residential freeholders, improving transparency and driving accountability among estate management companies.

As I set out in my written ministerial statement last November, the Government recognise the importance of acting as quickly as is feasible to implement these provisions, but the establishment of a new regulatory framework through detailed secondary legislation requires us to grapple with a range of technical questions. It is important that we carry out appropriate consultation to make sure that the new system operates effectively and to the lasting benefit of residential freeholders.

[John Glen]

The Minister is setting out a thorough analysis of the challenge that he faces. Could he say something about the distinction between existing entities and those that are yet to be set up? One of the concerns is that the Government’s legislation will not deal fully with existing arrangements, and that the none of the cases that we have heard about today will get redress from the Government’s intervention.

[Matthew Pennycook]

To be clear, the protections we are talking about, which we intend to switch on as soon as is feasible and were provided for by powers under the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act passed by the previous Government, will benefit existing residential freeholders on existing estates. I will come to the prevalence of those arrangements in due course, but I can reassure hon. Members that we intend to carry out that consultation this year, as promised, and that I am doing everything I can to expedite it.

Beyond the short-term need to protect residential freeholders better, we have to take steps to reduce the prevalence of private estate management arrangements, which are the root cause of the problems we are considering today. In my written ministerial statement, I committed the Government to consulting on legislative and policy options to achieve that objective. I hope that hon. Members appreciate that this is not a simple and straightforward area of policy and that the implications of policy choices are potentially far-reaching.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Yes. I will try to give way to as many hon. Members as I can.

[Lewis Cocking]

I want to make a point about solicitors’ practices and what information people get when they buy their properties. I think that a number of people go into these contracts under false pretences and do not fully understand what they are responsible for and what they may end up paying for.

[Matthew Pennycook]

There are undoubtedly issues around the purchase of homes on these estates. For example, it appears to be fairly common for residential freeholders not to be notified of their future liability for charges early in the conveyancing process. We are giving due consideration to those issues as well.

On the prevalence of future arrangements, the Government intend to seek views from a wide range of interested parties, including local authorities, management companies, developers and residential freeholders themselves. Our consultation will need to consider a wide range of trade-offs, including costs to homeowners, costs to local authorities, potential impacts on housing supply and the links with the planning system. As promised, we will consult on that matter this year.

[Jim Shannon]

Hon. Members have referred to opting out—in other words, if someone is unhappy with their management company, they can opt for another one. Would the Minister consider that, and would it be considered in the discussions he has with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the pertinent Minister?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Given the time available to me, I will have a separate conversation with the hon. Gentleman outside.

Before I conclude, I want to touch on the issue of managing agents, whose performance can present significant challenges, whether they are chosen by residents or employed by developers. Managing agents perform a critical role in managing and maintaining freehold estates as well as leasehold buildings, and the Government are determined to raise standards among them and drive out abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous agents. We remain fully committed to strengthening the regulation of managing agents of leasehold properties and estate managers of freehold estates. We are looking again at the report published in 2019 by the regulation of property agents working group chaired by Lord Best. At a minimum, we believe that the regulation of managing agents should include mandatory professional qualifications. That will apply whether the agent manages a building or an estate. We will consult on the detail of that matter this year and remain committed to publishing a draft leasehold and commonhold reform Bill in the second half of this year to provide for enhanced scrutiny on the part of Parliament.

I again thank the hon. Member for South Devon for securing the debate and all those who have taken part in it. The Government intend to act, and act decisively, to protect residential freeholders on freehold estates and to reduce the prevalence of these arrangements over the long term. I look forward to ongoing engagement with hon. Members on all sides of the House—I welcome the shadow Minister’s invitation to that end—through both the forthcoming formal statutory consultations and more informal engagement across the House to ensure that we reform the system to the lasting benefit of affected homeowners.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

10. What plans she has to build more sustainable housing.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

The Government are committed to ensuring that the 1.5 million new homes that we will build during this Parliament will be high-quality, well designed and sustainable. We intend to amend building regulations later this year as part of the introduction of future standards that will set more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emissions requirements for new homes.

[Cameron Thomas]

I thank the Minister for his response. While visiting the Netherlands with the Environmental Audit Committee, I saw the benefits of long-term, joined-up, strategic planning. In Rotterdam city centre, rooftop gardens provide mental health benefits and allotment space, while at ground level, sunken community spaces and underground car parks mitigate flooding. The Tewkesbury garden town will bring 4,000 new homes to my constituency. Will the Minister meet me and stakeholders who support the garden town, so that we can set the standard for development across the country?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The approach of the Netherlands, not least to spatial planning and design standards, has much to commend it, but we would need a stand-alone debate to do that subject justice. As for the Tewkesbury garden communities, they are precisely the kind of sustainable and infrastructure-led development that the Government want to see more of, and that we are backing through legislation and policy. I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Member and local stakeholders to discuss what more might be done to deliver on the aspirations set out in the Tewkesbury garden communities charter, which was published last year.

[Michelle Welsh]

Last week, I visited Howgate Close housing development in Eakring in my constituency, and I am proud to say that the homes are the most energy-efficient in the country. It would be easy to assume that houses such as those cost a fortune, but what is remarkable about that development is that they are affordable, including for some of the most vulnerable in our society. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that energy-efficient homes are affordable and accessible to everyone, and will he come with me to visit Eakring to see that incredible development?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It may not surprise hon. Members to hear that I am indeed aware of the nine high thermal mass buildings that have been constructed for rent at Howgate Close, and I commend the site owner, Dr Parsons, for championing such high-quality, sustainable development on his land. We need to ensure that all new homes are future-proof, with low-carbon heating and very high-quality building fabric, including those made available for local people at affordable rents. I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s request for a Minister to visit Howgate Close is given due consideration.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I genuinely thank the Minister for the time he took to meet me and the chairman of a local residents’ association in an apartment block to discuss the problems of building new homes on top of existing apartment blocks, if the work is done badly. Has he drawn any conclusions from that meeting about how to safeguard against unsuitable and unsustainable developments of that sort?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question; we had a very productive discussion about the issue that he highlights. I think he acknowledges some of the bad outcomes that we have seen from the previous Government’s expansion of permitted development rights since 2013. We are keeping the matter under review, and I am more than happy to have another conversation with him as we further consider policy in this area.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

As we build new homes, it is important that we make sure that existing homes are as safe as they can be. I recently met representatives of a leading fire safety business in my constituency, who told me of the unacceptably long delays that it faces from the Building Safety Regulator. Will the Minister meet me and my local business to discuss those delays, and how we can tackle them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. The newly established Building Safety Regulator is crucial to upholding building safety standards, but I acknowledge that its operation is causing delays in handling applications for some building projects. She will be aware that in February, the Government allocated £2 million to the BSR to accelerate the processing of applications. We are working closely with the regulator to support the plan for improved delivery, and we will continue to keep its performance under review.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The Government’s much-lauded policy of building 1.5 million new sustainable homes has been doomed from the start of this Parliament, and we now have that confirmed, with the Chancellor saying last week that only 1.3 million homes will be delivered by the end of this Parliament. But it is worse than that. Office for Budget Responsibility figures show that only 1.06 million homes will be built in England, which is 500,000 fewer than the Government’s target, and around 200,000 fewer than the last Conservative Government built in the past five years. Will the Minister confirm that the goalposts have moved, and that Labour will not meet its target for housing in this country?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am very fond of the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that, characteristically, he has got this one completely wrong. The 1.3—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) give me time to answer? The OBR estimated that our changes to the national planning policy framework alone will increase house building to 1.3 million. That does not take into account the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and the other changes coming forward. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) is simply wrong. We are on course for 1.5 million homes in this Parliament.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

3. What steps she plans to take to support house building in London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

5. What plans she has to improve security and standards in the social rented sector.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

The Government are taking concerted steps to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing, including introducing Awaab’s law, and consulting on the new decent homes and minimum energy efficiency standards. The majority of social housing tenants already have security of tenure, and our Renters’ Rights Bill will abolish section 21 evictions where those are used by housing associations.

[Jessica Toale]

I have been working with three groups of residents who live in buildings run by the same social housing provider in my constituency. Many residents have come to me having been left living in horrendous conditions, with leaking roofs, damp and mould, and unfinished and unremediated works. Following my intervention, the housing provider has agreed to a multimillion-pound upgrade in one of the buildings, to hire extra staff, and to communicate better with residents. That is great news, but it should not have had to get to this point. What more can be done to ensure that residents such as my constituents are not left waiting years for repairs, and that social housing providers are meeting their obligations?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that her intervention should not have been required to force the provider in question to take action. In addition to the forthcoming reforms that I referred to in my previous answer, she will know that all registered providers of social housing are required to deliver the outcomes of the regulatory standards set by the independent Regulator of Social Housing. The regulator works intensively with providers that are not delivering those outcomes, and has a series of powers at its disposal when it identifies serious failings. I am more than happy to discuss further with my hon. Friend how she might seek redress for her residents.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

My interests are in the register, Mr Speaker. In what precise ways is the Minister intending to improve the decent homes standard?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have been very clear that we are going to consult on a new decent homes standard that applies to both the social rented and private rented sectors, and I would welcome the right hon. Member’s engagement when that consultation is published.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Despite the announcements referred to earlier, the Building Safety Regulator is now advising applicants to plan for 16 weeks to clear gateway 2. That is holding up a disproportionate number of social homes, including 100 in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), and it is much longer than is required for planning permission. What steps will the Government take to reduce the wait back down to eight weeks, as it was?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), the hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. The newly established Building Safety Regulator is crucial to upholding building safety standards, but we acknowledge that it is causing delays in handling applications, particularly for high-rise building projects on gateway 2, and there is gateway 3 after that. The funding we have announced will make a difference, but as I have said, we are working with the regulator to support its plan for improved delivery, including increasing caseworker capacity and guidance to the sector. We will continue to keep its performance under close review.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

8. Whether she plans to include more local people in discussions on development in their area.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

18. What her policy is on the future role of planning committees in the planning process.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

Local plans are the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development that their areas need. We want more people to be involved in the development of those local plans, and a key objective of our digital planning reforms is increased public engagement with them. Measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will ensure planning committees play their proper role in scrutinising development without obstructing it, while maximising the use of experienced professional planners.

[Robbie Moore]

Across my constituency, local people are hugely frustrated at Labour-run Bradford council inundating our communities with hundreds of new houses, while not investing in local services and roads. Despite protests and valid concerns, the council has steamrollered through developments at every stage. Yet when vast numbers of local people in Silsden supported the development of a new farm shop on the periphery of the town—exactly the kind of new service that would promote local growth and deliver the new sustainable housing we need—Bradford council blocked the proposal. How will the Minister ensure that local councils listen to local people and are not dictating development plans to them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman needed to make a political point to get his clip, but I am glad that we have Labour councils across the country that back development. Of course residents should have their say, but it is the role and responsibility of local authorities to make decisions about material considerations in planning applications, and I have no reason to think that the local authority in question has done anything other than that.

[Claire Young]

When I was leader of South Gloucestershire council, in partnership with Labour, we restored the right of local people to speak at planning committee site visits, giving people back their voice in the affected community. However, clause 46 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would enable the Secretary of State to bypass planning committees altogether. If the Minister truly wants to get Britain building, will he think again and give communities a real stake in local planning decisions?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have made clear, we want more people involved in the development of local plans. There is nothing in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that will prevent them from objecting to individual applications. The measures simply ensure that the process of determining applications at a local level is more streamlined and efficient. As I made clear in closing the Bill’s Second Reading on 24 March, the Government intend formally to consult on proposals relating to the delegation of planning decisions in England, so the hon. Lady and other hon. Members will be able to engage with the detail alongside the Bill’s passage.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

The number of people needing a social home in Luton has gone up from 8,500 last year to 11,500 this year, so I welcome the Government’s plan for 1.5 million new homes. While we are crying out for houses in Luton, just over the border with Central Bedfordshire developments are taking place right on our border, but without people in Luton getting a look in. What can the Minister do to ensure that local authorities co-operate with each other to deliver the homes that we need?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are taking measures to address precisely the problem that my hon. Friend outlines. Proposals in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will make spatial development strategies mandatory at sub-regional level, so neighbouring local authorities have to co-operate effectively on housing delivery and infrastructure provision across boundaries in just the way she sets out, which will address the challenges she outlines.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

Dunfermline is Scotland’s newest city and as such a large number of homes are being built all the time. However, too often those large-scale housing developments are done without reference to local services, such as GPs, and without proper consultation with local people, partly due to failures in the Scottish SNP Government’s planning policy. What advice does the Minister have about how those issues might be overcome? Will he engage with the Scottish Government to ensure they are learning any lessons from the excellent changes being made in that part of the UK?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Housing is a devolved matter, but I am always keen to convey to colleagues in the Scottish Government precisely the benefits of the proposals we are taking forward when it comes to planning reform and renewed drive for house building.

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

9. What steps her Department is taking to provide safe accommodation for victims of domestic abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

20. What steps her Department plans to take to limit excessive service charges imposed on leasehold properties.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

The Government recognise the considerable financial strain that rising service charges are placing on leaseholders. That is why we intend to consult on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024’s provisions on service charges and bring them into force as quickly as possible thereafter. This year, we will also consult on strengthening the regulation of managing agents, including, as a minimum, introducing mandatory professional qualifications to set a new basic standard that managing agents will be required to meet.

[Lincoln Jopp]

On Friday, I met with Jacqui, Gary and Simon in Fairwater Drive in my Spelthorne constituency. Jacqui’s service charge is going up from £1,500 a year to £4,800. I sat down and had a look at the bills, and they are without any itemisation, so it is impossible to know where to start with the property manager. The Minister wrote in response to a recent written question:

“We will set out our full position on regulation of estate, letting and managing agents in due course.”

Can he give some reassurance to Jacqui, Gary and Simon that their interests will not be put on to the back-burner and suggest when “in due course” might be?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am sorry to hear about the experience of Jacqui, Gary and Simon. As I said, the Government are fully committed to protecting leaseholders from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents. Despite committing to regulate the property agent sector in 2018, the hon. Gentleman will know that the previous Government failed to do so. This Government will act. We are looking again at the recommendations of the 2019 report commissioned from Lord Best, which was not acted upon by the previous Government over many years. As I have made clear, we intend to consult on the regulation of managing agents this year.

[Darren Paffey]

Many leaseholders in Southampton Itchen who are still waiting for fire remediation work to be done are now being clobbered by extortionate service charges. In one case, a constituent went from paying £800 a year to £3,300 a year, with next to no clarity that that money is being spent well. Despite my recent meetings with developers and management companies, I am yet to be convinced that there is any end in sight for my constituents. What conversations are the Government having with management companies that are letting service charges spiral out of control?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I recognise, as I said, the challenges experienced by leaseholders. When it comes to insurance, the Minister for Building Safety recently met the industry to discuss how we can bring premiums down. When it comes to service charges, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen that we understand, not least because I have significant numbers of such cases in my constituency, the considerable and, in some cases, intolerable financial strain being placed on leaseholders as a result of opaque and unaffordable service charges. We are committed to empowering leaseholders to challenge unreasonable service charge increases, and my hon. Friend will not have to wait long for us to take action to that end.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

14. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Education on the potential implications for her policies of councils becoming insolvent due to inadequate funding for SEND education.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

T2. I was delighted recently to see civic and business leaders in Southampton join the Labour council in launching their Renaissance Vision, setting out an ambitious agenda for regeneration and house building in the city. What steps will the Government take in the upcoming spending review to support and enable house building visions such as this?

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

I do not begrudge my hon. Friend his attempt, but he will have to wait for the spending review outcomes to receive an answer to his question.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

T3. At the end of January, 14,000 people were still on Northumberland county council’s social housing waiting list, yet hundreds of properties right across the county, including in rural Allendale, remain empty. Given the number of people on the housing list and in desperate need of accommodation, it is a disgrace that the Conservative administration has left them empty for so long. Does the Minister agree that a Labour council, backed by a Labour Government, will do much more to get people off the housing list and into homes?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Local authorities already have a range of powers to bring empty homes back into use, but I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this specific issue in more detail.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Last month, I was in a field near the East Carr estate in Hull. With the River Humber in the distance, the field lay submerged under water and sat clearly below sea level. Residents told me that the field acts as a barrier between their homes and the water, and they were really worried that the planned development, which is in the Hull local plan, will leave them with flooded homes. Can the Minister reassure me, and residents in Hull and other low-lying communities, that the Government will ensure that the land use framework for determining areas for development will consider flood risk management and the delivery of sustainable drainage systems?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We took action on SUDS in the national policy planning framework, and we have made very welcome improvements in that area. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has launched a consultation on the land use framework. I take it that the hon. Lady has submitted her views, and we will publish the response to that consultation in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

My constituents in Broxbourne rightly expect new schools and health facilities, particularly GP surgeries, to be in place before any new housing development. What action is the Minister taking to force developers to deliver infrastructure first?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that new housing development is supported by appropriate infrastructure. The revised national planning policy framework, which we published last year, included changes designed to improve the provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, we are also committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions to ensure new developments provide the necessary infrastructure that communities such as his expect.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I have been campaigning for fair renting in Bournemouth, and I recently held my first renters roundtable at the Bournemouth food bank’s café. It was attended by, among others, my constituent Alison Thomas, who cannot cook in her home because water is leaking through her kitchen ceiling and she is scared to turn on any electrical devices. My constituents the Al-Mubaraks, a family of six, rent an overcrowded home, with black mould so harmful that the headteacher of the four children living there has written to my office to express concern. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we need urgent action to improve the state of the private rented sector in Bournemouth East?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for all he does to support private renters in his constituency. I am saddened but, in all honesty, not shocked by the cases he raises. Such experiences are still far too common in both the social sector and the private rented sector. In particular, we know the health risk posed by damp and mould. That is one reason we have chosen to sequence the implementation of Awaab’s law in the way we have, as it will allow us to apply the protections to damp and mould earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

In my constituency of Exmouth and Exeter East, the Lib Dem local council is proposing to build tens of thousands of new homes with little thought for corresponding infrastructure. I have spoken to local councillors, and they believe they have no agency in this process and central Government are telling them what to do. What more can be done to ensure that local authorities are held accountable for their decisions?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Local electors can hold local authorities accountable for all of the decisions they make. On infrastructure, I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer. However, local authorities should, as part of the local plan development process, have infrastructure strategies in place that set out the requirements for infrastructure and how they should be funded.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Next month marks 80 years since victory in Europe, and I look forward to attending many VE Day events in my constituency to thank our service personnel of yesteryear. Homelessness is an issue that affects many veterans, so while I welcome the Prime Minister’s pledge to guarantee a roof over the head of every veteran, can the Minister confirm what extra support there is with homelessness for the veteran community in Banbury?

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

In the London borough of Richmond we desperately need more social homes, but we are really short of sites we can build on. I have long run a campaign for the disused Teddington police station to be turned into a GP surgery and social homes, but understandably the Met wants top dollar to fund its services. Will the Secretary of State look at ways to incentivise public bodies to sell assets below market value for community benefit?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Member will forgive me, but I am not going to comment on the specifics of the case she raises. We are giving serious consideration to how we better utilise public land in general, particularly in areas with constrained land allocation such as her own.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

More than half my constituency casework consists of substandard repairs, poor quality communications from social landlords, and damp and mould. That is why this week I am launching a new safe and healthy homes campaign in Kensington and Bayswater. Will the Minister outline how the Government will work with councils and housing associations, ahead of changes in the law and policy frameworks such as Awaab’s law, to improve standards for social tenants, including in my constituency?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are working closely with the sector and talking through how we can best implement reforms such as Awaab’s law and our intended overhaul of the decent homes standard. As I said in a previous question, all resident providers of social housing are required to deliver the outcomes of regulatory standards that are set by the independent regulator. The independent regulator has powers at its disposal to identify when serious failings are taking place.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

This morning, firefighters in Birmingham made it plain that they will stand in solidarity with the bin strikers in Birmingham and not collect the rubbish. We know that there are only 17 workers, which means this is a drop in the ocean financially. Given that the Government have said they will do all they can to bring the strike to an end, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that they will force the council to make the payment, and that they will deploy the Army to assist the local charities and organisations that are helping to clear up and need extra support?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the Minister will be aware, nutrient neutrality has had a big impact on Norfolk, holding up many homes and planning applications. The launch of the Norfolk nutrient mitigation fund has helped to make a difference, but we need more environmental solutions. Will the Minister update us on what else we will be doing to address nutrient neutrality, so that good homes and growth can be unlocked in our local area?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are supporting a range of targeted interventions to deal with constraints such as nutrient neutrality. In the longer term, the measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that introduce the nature restoration fund will allow us to provide a win-win for both development and nature, dealing with constraints such as nutrient neutrality and unlocking the development of new homes.

Social and Affordable Housing Capital Investment

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

In the multi-year spending review later this year, the Government will set out the full details of a new grant programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. Alongside wider investment across the Parliament, this new programme will help deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation.

The Government have already allocated an additional £800 million in new in-year funding for the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. As a result of significant demand from housing providers across the country, this additional funding is already on course to be oversubscribed.

We know that there are a large number of housing providers who could progress new projects in advance of the new grant programme if the necessary funding were made available. We also know that providing greater funding certainty ahead of the forthcoming spending review will encourage more providers to come forward with ambitious projects and help drive up social and affordable housing supply in this Parliament.

The Government are therefore announcing today an immediate injection of £2 billion of new capital investment to support delivery of the biggest boost in social and affordable house building in a generation and contribute to our plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in this Parliament.

This new funding, which will be made available to housing associations and local authorities on the same terms as the affordable homes programme for 2021 to 2026, will act as a bridge to the future grant programme to be announced at spending review and thereby maximise rates of social and affordable house building in this Parliament.

The funding will deliver up to 18,000 additional new social and affordable homes by the end of the Parliament. The majority of that additional funding will fall in 2026-27, and all projects funded will need to have started by March 2027. A tail of funding will cover completions, with projects funded being required to finish by June 2029.

The Government encourage providers to come forward as soon as possible with bids for new ambitious projects, including those ready to commence quickly. We will ask Homes England, the Greater London Authority, and bidders to continue to prioritise homes for social rent in their proposed developments, in line with the Government’s firm commitment to support this tenure and the approach taken to recent in-year top-ups.

The £2 billion of new capital investment announced today will, in time, be supplemented with additional funding for 2026-27 and beyond. Full details of wider long-term and future grant investment will be announced at the spending review. Once the new grant programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme opens for bidding, the window to bid for the £2 billion of capital investment announced today will close and any unallocated funding will then be allocated under the terms of the successor programme.

[HCWS549]

Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 Draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 General Committees

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. The draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations were laid before the House on 13 February. The draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025 were laid before the House on 25 February. Let me set out in turn the reasons why we are bringing each set of regulations forward, and what they will provide for, starting with the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations.

Planning is principally a local activity, but a well-established principle is that, in limited circumstances and where issues of more than local importance are involved, it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to make planning decisions. Recent experience, including the response to covid-19, has exposed that the existing route for securing planning permission on Crown land, namely the urgent Crown development route under section 293A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which was introduced in 2006, is not fit for purpose. Indeed, it is telling that it has never once been used. Furthermore, Departments have struggled to secure local planning permission for nationally important public service infrastructure such as prisons.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, passed by the previous Government in the last Parliament, made provision to address those challenges by providing two new routes for planning permission for Crown development in England. The first route, referred to as Crown development, is for planning applications for Crown developments that are considered of national importance. Such applications are to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate directly, instead of to local planning authorities. An inspector will consider and determine the application, unless the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government recovers the application to determine herself.

The second route is an updated urgent Crown development route, which will enable applications for nationally important developments that are needed urgently to be determined rapidly under a simplified procedure. Applications under the urgent route will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. Those new routes can be used for developments only where clearly justified. Provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act require that applications can be accepted by the Secretary of State only if she deems that the proposed development is of national importance and, in the case of the urgent Crown development route, urgent.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that I am a local councillor. Given what the Minister has outlined, will he give us a flavour of how local people can make representations, even if it is straight to the Secretary of State or the Planning Inspectorate? I am concerned that removing applications from local councils and putting them through the new routes he has described will make it harder for local residents to feel that their voice has been heard, even on important national infrastructure projects.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me deal with community engagement under both routes. With the Crown development route, community engagement will be a key part of the process. Communities will be fully engaged throughout. Much like an application submitted to a local planning authority, there will be mandatory consultation and publicity about the consultation for a minimum period of 21 days. That period will be 30 days if the development is one that requires an environmental impact assessment and is therefore an EIA development. That will enable members of the community to view and comment on the application.

We expect that the majority of Crown development applications will be subject to a public hearing. Those who made comments will be notified when that is to take place. Interested parties may attend the hearing if the inspector allows it. Only comments made during the consultation, the publicity period and the hearing that raise material planning matters will be taken into account as part of the decision-making process.

The local planning authority will be consulted and will have a role to play in publicising the application. It will need to place the application and associated documents on its planning register. Where PINS—the Planning Inspectorate—does not have a local presence, the local planning authority will be required to affix site notices during the mandatory period and to notify those owners or occupiers who adjoin the site. For urgent Crown development, the other route that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provides for, the local planning authority will again be consulted as part of the application. That is mandated by section 293C(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In the draft regulations, we have made provision about the consultation procedure.

While we appreciate the importance of community engagement, given the urgency with which decisions must be made, under the approach to consultation with the community in this process they will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In circumstances in which decisions need to be made very quickly, it may not be possible to conduct a meaningful public consultation and reach an urgent decision. I hope that satisfies the hon. Member for Broxbourne on the different types of community engagement under both routes.

The new routes, as I said, can be used only for developments for which it is clearly justified, and provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act require that applications can be accepted by the Secretary of State only if she deems that they are of national importance and, in the case of the urgent Crown development route, urgent. I made a written ministerial statement on 13 February that set out the principles under which national importance and urgency will be determined. When submitting an application, applicants are required to set out the reasons why they consider that the development is of national importance and, in the case of urgent Crown development, needed as a matter of urgency.

The draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations make amendments to primary legislation to reflect the two new Crown development routes. For instance, they amend references to planning permission set out in a range of pieces of legislation. They also remove references to the previous urgent Crown development route in section 293A of the Town and Country Planning Act, which now applies only in Wales. The instrument also sets the fee for an application for planning permission under both routes, set at the same fee, which would have been paid to the local authority.

Following the statutory instrument coming into force, a further suite of statutory instruments will be made through the negative parliamentary procedure. They will set the procedures for the two routes and make further consequential changes to secondary legislation to reflect their implementation. We have published the instruments in draft ahead of the debate, in order to provide proper transparency about how the routes will operate. I reiterate that the Government are committed to ensuring proper transparency to Parliament at every stage when the routes are used. When the matter was considered in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee, I stressed that point to the then Minister.

The following are the ways in which we want to ensure that proper transparency takes place. First, where an application under any of the routes is accepted, the relevant Members of Parliament will be sent a letter. That letter will include details of where the application can be viewed and the next steps. The letter will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Secondly, when a decision is made on whether to grant planning permission, the relevant Members of Parliament will be sent another letter. That letter will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Finally, on an annual basis, the Secretary of State will publish a report of all decisions taken under the routes. Taken together, those steps will ensure that Members in the other House are properly appraised of any applications that relate to their constituencies. It also means that both Houses of Parliament will be provided the opportunity to consider and scrutinise the general operation of the routes.

The second set of regulations we are debating make changes to the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. The changes will ensure that when development comes forward after it is granted planning permission through the Crown development route, such development can be liable to pay the community infrastructure levy if the local authority charges CIL in that area. In addition, under section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act, applicants can apply to the Planning Inspectorate, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, for a planning permission decision when an authority has been designated for poor performance. We are amending the CIL regulations to ensure that the levy can be charged on development that comes forward under this route if the local authority charges CIL in its area. That ensures that fair financial contributions to local infrastructure are made by such development.

Finally, some incidental and consequential amendments are made to the Town and Country Planning (Section 62A Applications) (Procedure and Consequential Amendments) Order 2013 to enable relevant information to be provided in relation to CIL where an application is made under section 62A.

To summarise, the regulations are important in ensuring a more timely and proportionate process for dealing with planning applications for Crown development in England. The Government are taking steps to ensure that the routes are used appropriately, and that there is full scrutiny of the use of the powers. The changes we are making to the CIL regime are also important to ensure that CIL can be charged on development in a consistent and fair way, even when the local planning authority is not the decision maker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, for his constructive tone. I also thank the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for Didcot and Wantage for their questions.

The shadow Minister asked which cases the Crown development route and the urgent Crown development route would be used for. I will discuss each route in turn because they will have different applications. It will ultimately be for the Secretary of State to assess on a case-by-case basis what is deemed nationally important. Obviously, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on specific schemes.

The Crown development route will most likely be used for HMG programme nationally important public service development. That would include but not be limited to new prisons or border infrastructure, to give just two examples. It may also be used for defence-related development, as PINS is able to put in place special procedures to handle information dealing with matters of national security. Special provisions exist whereby the Secretary of State may issue a direction limiting the disclosure of information relating to matters of national security of a premises through section 321 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Crown development route may also be used for particularly sensitive or significant development being brought forward by or on behalf of the Crown. Let me be clear: we expect only a few applications to be submitted through this route each year.

For urgent Crown development, it will again be for the Secretary of State to assess on a case-by-case basis what is nationally important and needed urgently on the basis of what has been submitted as part of the application. Again, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on specific schemes but we expect the urgent Crown development route to be used very rarely, where other planning application routes cannot be used to secure a decision quickly enough. It will be used only in cases where development needs to be put in place quickly, in a matter of days or weeks, and where the development is in the national interest. That may include, for example, medical centres, or storage and distribution for key goods and services in the event of a pandemic.

The shadow Minister asked what environmental protections are in place. We are maintaining important environmental safeguards in both routes, which are subject to existing environmental impact assessment and habitats regulations assessment requirements. For example, where development is considered EIA development, accompanied by an environmental statement, there will be a requirement to publicise the application and consult specific bodies for no less than 30 days. Environmental impacts will remain a key consideration in whether planning permission should be granted. In the Crown development route, we are ensuring that development being brought forward is also subject to mandatory biodiversity net gain—namely, the permission must secure a 10% increase in biodiversity value.

The shadow Minister, if I understood him correctly, raised transparency, as did other Members. As I set out comprehensively in the written ministerial statement issued on 13 February, both routes have important safeguards and transparency measures. That feature was not apparent at the time of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee, and I pressed the then Minister on that point. I have worked very hard—it was very important to me—to ensure that important safeguards and transparency measures are in place so that people will know the rationale for where these powers and routes are used, and what safeguards will apply.

Lastly, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage asked, I think, how we would define national importance and urgency, because there is a subjective element to that. The Government are obviously committed to a planning system in which decisions are made locally. Last night, we had a long discussion about local plans and planning committees on Second Reading of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but it is a well-established principle that in limited circumstances it is necessary for the Secretary of State to make planning decisions where planning issues are of more than local importance.

What is considered to be of national importance will be determined on a case-by-case basis. The Secretary of State will use the principles set out in the written ministerial statement that I mentioned when determining whether a proposal meets this bar. The Secretary of State will, in general, consider a development to be of national importance only if the development would involve the interests of national security or foreign Governments; contribute towards the provision of national public services or infrastructure, such as prisons and border infrastructure, as I mentioned earlier; support a response to international, national or regional civil emergencies; or otherwise have significant economic, social or environmental effects on strong public interests at a regional or national level. It will obviously be for the applicant to set out evidence as part of the statement accompanying the application that demonstrates that at least one of those principles has been met.

What is considered a matter of urgency will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Again, the Secretary of State will use the principles set out in the written ministerial statement. In these circumstances, the applicant will be required to provide a statement to accompany the application, setting out why they consider the development to be both nationally important and needed as a matter of urgency. The Secretary of State will accept applications through the urgent Crown development route only where the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed development meets both those conditions.

Furthermore, the Secretary of State will consider something to be needed urgently only where the applicant can demonstrate the need for an expedited planning process. To that end, the applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposed development needs to be made operational to an accelerated timeframe and is unlikely to be feasible using other application routes, including the Crown development route, and will need to evidence the likely consequences of not securing a decision within the accelerated timeframe. I hope that answers all the points raised by hon. Members.

The two new routes for planning permission that we seek to implement are necessary and timely, and these regulations represent a crucial step towards their delivery. The changes that we are making to the CIL regulations are equally important in order to maintain the integrity of the CIL charging regime. As I said, they will ensure that a clear and consistent approach is taken to the levy regardless of who the planning decision maker is. I hope that the Committee will welcome the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025. —(Matthew Pennycook.)

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. Constituencies such as his and mine that include those protected landscapes do not seem to have that considered or catered for in the housing targets, particularly the new ones that we have before us. Again, I am very keen to discuss with the Minister how we might address that.

On planning, we are very concerned about the national scheme of delegation, which will remove councillors’ right to vote on individual planning applications. If the Secretary of State does not believe that that is the case, I suggest that she reads clause 46 of her own legislation. This is particularly extraordinary considering that when Labour was in opposition, the former shadow Housing Minister said in a debate in this House on 21 June 2021 that the previous Government should

“protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 620.]

Clearly, the current Housing Minister is not doing that— he is doing the exact opposite through these rules—and he should be clear with the public about that, because sooner or later, that fact will hit home.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

indicated dissent.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very happy to have a debate with the Housing Minister—he is welcome to intervene on me. I suggest that he reads clause 46 as well. Of course, it is also a fact that 14 Cabinet Ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary, all campaigned to block housing developments in their own constituencies. What hypocrisy!

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The point she makes is absolutely right and it applies equally to my constituency as to hers. In my constituency, the backbone of our economy is agriculture and food production. The Labour party used to say in its manifesto that

“food security is national security”

yet this Bill seeks to build all over the very land that our farmers in Buckinghamshire and across the country use to produce the very food that gives us national security.

I want to focus on the infrastructure implications from the energy sector. I entirely approve of transitioning to cleaner forms of energy production, but it is a point I have made in this House time and again, and I will never get bored of saying it, that it takes 2,000 acres of ground-mounted solar panels to produce enough electricity for 50,000 homes on current usage. That is before everyone has two Teslas—which is perhaps not the brand that people would choose now—on the drive. However, a small modular reactor needs just two football pitches to deliver enough electricity on current usage for 1 million homes. Why on earth in this country are we messing around with solar, destroying thousands of acres of food-producing land, when other clean technologies are out there that can clean up our energy and electricity production in a way that is kinder and gentler on our national fabric and rural communities?

When I hear the Secretary of State talk about, as she did in her opening address, protecting high-grade agricultural land, I take that with a large pinch of salt. That is because, in my constituency in Buckinghamshire, we have caught those paid exorbitant amounts of money to come and grade the land prior to a planning application deliberately testing the land in the headland of the field—the bit not used to grow crops or grass or to graze animals. Of course, they will always get a lower land grade by testing the headland. If the Government are serious about wanting to protect high-grade agricultural land, I would urge the Minister to look at measures he could take to ensure that the fertile part of the field is tested, not the headland.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Does the hon. Member accept that we have to keep the matter in perspective? Even under the most ambitious scenarios, solar farms would occupy less than 1% of the UK’s agricultural land. That is why the National Farmers Union president Tom Bradshaw stated in relation to the impact of solar projects on food security that it is important not to be “sensationalist”.

[Greg Smith]

The point the Minister makes is one that certainly in Buckinghamshire I would challenge. I do not think any Labour Members were there, but there was a good cross-party meeting a couple of weeks ago on the scale of solar projects coming into this country. That disproportionately affects rural communities, and this Bill seems to take against them in favour of the UK’s towns and cities.

On top of the stats I gave earlier on the efficiency of solar, we have had scientists—not just campaigners—come here to give clear evidence that, of all the countries in the world, only one is less suitable for solar than ours, and that is Iceland. The Government are not even making the case for a technology that is particularly suited to the United Kingdom, yet the Bill would just make it easier, and those who object to or challenge it on any level will just to have to go away, suck it up and take those projects in their backyard.

This Bill takes away local control, and for me, local control will always be the most important part of the planning process. Unlike those doing the desktop exercise from afar, the community know the fields that flood every single year, know the local factors that would impact a planning application, understand the local roads that would have to take the construction traffic and that get churned up every time a development comes along, and know how unsuitable they are. Local control is critical, and I urge the Minister, even at this late hour, to go back and think about whether what he wants to do is simply ride roughshod over local opinion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. It is why the Government should be honest with the public that, far from strengthening environmental protections, the Bill creates a direct avenue for developers to pay to do environmental damage and get around otherwise more stringent protection laws.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman was here in the last Parliament. Does he remember that, in their attempt to undo the problem of nutrient neutrality, the previous Government sought to disapply the habitats regulations entirely? Is that the approach that he would prefer we take?

[Robbie Moore]

The Minister gets to the nub of the issue in that the nutrient neutrality issue caused an absolute stagnation in housing development. Indeed, the Government want to give Natural England even more powers, which will lead not only to increased stagnation in development but to frustration for those who want development to take place. Many Members from across the House have referred to the £100 million bat tunnel and the development of HS2. Natural England raised that issue, yet the Government want to give that very organisation even more powers, which will lead to increased stagnation in development.

The Government may bring forward a Bill to create an avenue for more development, but this Bill will not achieve that given the environmental protection measures. In the light of the Government’s removal of the moratorium on onshore wind farm development, coupled with the provisions in the Bill, I fear for our protected peatlands, not only in the beautiful uplands of West Yorkshire but right across the county.

Secondly, I fear that the Bill will not create the speedy planning system that the Government hope it will. By placing the design and formulation of environmental development plans in the hands of Natural England, the Government have ceded much of their control over them. As a single-issue public body, Natural England operates with a very different interpretation of “reasonable mitigations” than the rest of the public when it comes to preserving nature—I have already referred to the £100 million HS2bat tunnel.

As developers, Natural England and environmental campaigners barter over the details of environmental development plans and lodge legal challenges against them, how will the Secretary of State speed up our planning system, as she is forced to sit on the sidelines of those negotiations and watch Natural England take a lead? She has created a Bill that hands more power to Natural England, not less, and removes her ability to ensure that infrastructure can be delivered at speed. The Government must be honest and up front about what they value.

Finally, I would like to raise another issue in the Bill which, in my view, moves from naivety to the realm of malice. Compulsory purchase orders are highly controversial at the best of times, but in another blow to our rural communities the Government have decided that landowners should not be paid the value of their land in full.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a real pleasure to close this Second Reading debate for the Government, and I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have participated in it. Not unexpectedly, it has been a debate of contrasts. On the one hand, we have had the privilege of listening to a large number of well-informed and thoughtful contributions from hon. Members who agree with the main principles of the Bill. In a crowded field, I commend in particular the excellent speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), for Northampton South (Mike Reader), for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy), for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis). Set against those, we were subjected to a series of contributions from hon. and right hon. Members who, while professing support in principle for the intentions of the Bill, nevertheless alighted on a range of flawed and in some cases spurious reasons why they oppose it.

I am saddened to say that among the most glaring examples of that approach was the speech made by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), whose party’s reasoned amendment was not selected. While I appreciate fully his need to manage the discordant voices on his own Benches when it comes to housing and major infrastructure, the arguments he made were both confused and disingenuous. This Government wholly reject his claim that the Bill will not result in the ambitious delivery of the infrastructure and housing the country needs. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that a party that declared in its manifesto only last year that it was committed to

“Increasing building of new homes to 380,000 a year”

should be getting behind this legislation, not seeking to block it. I sincerely hope that, even at this late stage, the Liberal Democrats will reconsider their position.

[Gideon Amos]

Does the Minister accept that it would be easier to support this Bill if it did not include clauses that provide the Secretary of State with the power not just to take some decisions away from planning committees, but to take all decisions away from planning committees, because that provision is completely unlimited in its scope?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is not the case, and there has been a huge amount of scaremongering when it comes to the provisions in the Bill that relate to planning committees. I will deal with that particular point in due course.

Among hon. Members who do support the main principles of the Bill, there were of course understandable differences of opinion. Some expressed their unequivocal support for each and every one of its provisions, others conveyed their broad support while arguing for specific changes to be made or further measures to be added, but all were in agreement that this legislation must progress if we are to streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, as the House as a whole ostensibly asserts that we must. Therein lies the crux of the issue and the reason, I must say candidly, for the cant at the heart of some of the speeches that we have heard.

We can all profess in principle our support for the ends—doing so is, after all, risk free—but what matters is whether we are prepared in practice to also will the means. When it came to housing and infrastructure, the previous Government were not willing to do so, hence the dissonance in their final years between their stated commitment to building more homes and their decision in practice to recklessly abolish mandatory housing targets and thereby torpedo housing supply in a forlorn attempt to appease a disgruntled group of their anti-housing Back Benchers. Thankfully, this Labour Government are prepared to do what it takes to deliver the homes and the infrastructure our country needs. The Bill is transformative. It will fundamentally change how we build things in this country. In so doing, it will help us to tackle the housing crisis, raise living standards in every part of the country and deliver on our plan for change.

During the five hours we have debated the Bill, an extremely wide range of issues has been raised. I have heard all of them and I will seek to respond to as many in the time available to me, but I will not be able to cover all of them. I will therefore deal with the main themes and issues that have been raised in the course of the debate. I will begin, if I may, with the various points made in relation to nationally significant infrastructure.

Members made a variety of points covering issues such as national policy statements and judicial review, but most of the contributions focused in on the changes the Bill will make to consultation requirements for nationally significant infrastructure projects. As the House will be aware, the NSIP planning regime was established through the Planning Act 2008 to provide more certainty on the need for nationally significant projects. In its early years, the system worked well. However, its performance has sharply deteriorated in recent years, at a time when the need for it has increased dramatically.

In 2021, it took, on average, 4.2 years for a project to secure development consent, compared with 2.6 years in 2012. The documentation, as has been referred to by a number of hon. Members, underpinning consents has been getting longer and in too many instances now runs to tens of thousands of pages. Alongside an increase in legal challenges, uncertainty about meeting statutory requirements has led to greater risk aversion and gold plating throughout the whole process. The costs of delays obviously increase the costs of projects, and those costs are ultimately passed on to taxpayers for public infrastructure and bill payers or customers for private infrastructure.

The measures in the Bill will provide for a faster and more certain consenting process, stripping away unnecessary consultation requirements that do nothing to improve applications or meaningfully engage communities. They will, to use the phrase used by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), ensure that the NSIP regime is firing on all cylinders. I want to make it clear that the measures in the Bill are not the limit of our ambitions on streamlining the NSIP regime. In particular, I noted the calls from several hon. Members to consider addressing the significant elongation of pre-application periods resulting from the way in which statutory procedures are now being applied. This is an issue to which the Deputy Prime Minister and I have already given a significant amount of thought, and I commit to giving further consideration to the case for using the Bill to address statutory requirements that would appear to be no longer driving good outcomes. I can assure those hon. Members that the Government will not hesitate to act boldly if there is a compelling case for reform in this area.

Many hon. Members touched on the nature restoration fund. We are fully committed to making sure development contributes to nature’s recovery, delivering a win-win for nature and the economy. We will be taking three steps to deliver on our new approach. First, responsibility for identifying actions to address environmental impacts will be moved away from multiple project-specific assessments in an area to a single strategic assessment and delivery plan. Secondly, more responsibility for planning and implementing strategic actions will be moved on to the state, delivered through organisations with the right expertise and the necessary flexibility to take actions that most effectively deliver positive outcomes for nature. Thirdly, we will allow impacts to be dealt with strategically in exchange for a financial payment, so development can proceed more quickly. Project-level assessments are then limited only to those harms not dealt with strategically.

To those hon. Members who raised concerns that the provisions will have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection of existing environmental law, I assure them that that is not the case, something attested to by the section 20 statement on the face of the Bill in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister. Our reforms are built around delivering overall positive outcomes for protected sites and species, and are the result of significant engagement across the development sector, environmental groups and nature service providers. That is why, at the Bill’s introduction, we saw a range of voices welcoming the new approach it brings to unlocking a win-win for development and nature.

The shadow Secretary of State raised concerns about how quickly we will be able to implement environmental delivery plans. We are confident we can get EDPs in place fast. That is why we have been clear that we want to see the first EDPs prepared alongside the Bill and operational for developers to use shortly after Royal Assent. We are also looking for opportunities to provide up-front funding so that we can kick off action in advance of need, with costs recovered as development comes forward, which will allow us to get shovels in the ground and unlock homes and infrastructure more quickly.

Lastly, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) raised concerns about the CPO powers given to Natural England. If we are going to be successful in delivering a win-win for nature and the economy through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, it is vital that Natural England has sufficient powers to deliver the conservation measures required. Compulsory purchase is just one tool, and we would expect Natural England to consider using such powers as a last resort, subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight, including ultimate authorisation by the Secretary of State.

More broadly, the nature restoration fund will provide opportunities for landowners to work with Natural England to drive nature recovery, improving our green spaces for generations to come. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a radical change. Many public bodies with statutory powers have compulsory purchase powers, including local authorities and—as he of all people should be aware—health service bodies, as well as some executive agencies, such as Homes England.

I want to touch on planning committees before concluding. Several hon. Members raised concerns over our plan to modernise them; indeed, some suggested that our reforms are tantamount to removing democratic control from local people. That is simply not the case. The shadow Secretary of State asserted that residents would lose the opportunity to object to a planning application, which is incorrect. People will still be able to object to individual applications in the way they can now.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

How is what the Minister is saying consistent with what he said on the Floor of the House on 9 December, when he said:

“the changes are designed to… focus the time of elected councillors on the most significant or controversial applications”—[Official Report, 9 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 673.]—

which he is going to dictate? Will he, at the very least, publish his draft regulations on what he intends through clause 46 alongside the passage of the Bill?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will address that specific point in due course. The proposals are entirely consistent; we do want to make changes to where planning committees can determine decisions, but local residents will be able to object to applications in every instance, as they can now.

Planning is principally a local activity, and this Government have made clear at every available opportunity that the plan-led approach is and must remain the cornerstone of the planning system. Local plans are the best ways for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their areas need.

[Alberto Costa]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am going to make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

We want more people involved in the development of local plans. The measures on planning decisions will simply ensure that the process of determining applications at a local level is more streamlined and efficient.

I have been a local councillor, and I have sat on planning committees, as I know many hon. Members have. We all know that there is significant room for improvement in how such committees operate. It is, therefore, disappointing to hear hon. Members portray what are sensible proposals for modernising the local planning system as a fundamental attack on local democracy when they are anything but.

Decisions about what to build and where should be shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. Local democratic oversight of planning decisions is essential, but it is also vital that planning committees operate as effectively as possible. Planning committees need to be focused on key applications for larger developments, not small-scale projects or niche technical details. The Bill will ensure they can play a proper role in scrutinising development without obstructing it, while maximising the use of experienced professional planners.

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will happily give way for the final time.

[Wendy Morton]

I would like to seek some clarity from the Minister on that: he says that local councillors will be able to scrutinise, but not actually stop—this is the point I want to probe—a large-scale planning application.

[Matthew Pennycook]

No; the right hon. Lady has misunderstood me. Planning committees will be able to scrutinise and make decisions on a series of applications. On a point raised by the shadow Secretary of State, the House should also be aware that we intend to formally consult on these measures in the coming weeks. Hon. Members will therefore be able to engage with the detail and precisely the type of question that the right hon. Lady raises, rightly, alongside consideration of the Bill.

[Gideon Amos]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not going to give way; I am going to make some progress.

I will briefly address CPO powers before I conclude, as a number of hon. Members raised concerns about our changes to the process. Let me be clear: these reforms are not about targeting farmers or any specific types of land or landowners. We want to reform the compulsory purchase process and land compensation rules to speed up and lower the costs of the delivery of housing and infrastructure in the public interest.

We have already taken action, fully implementing direction powers that provide for the removal of hope value from the assessment of compensation for certain types of CPOs, such as those facilitating affordable housing —provisions, I might say, introduced by the previous Government in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. We have published updated and more detailed guidance on the process to help local authorities.

This Bill will now go further, ensuring that the process for acquiring land with a direction is more efficient and that administrative costs are reduced, and we are expanding the power to remove hope value by directions to parish and town councils. We want to see these powers used and will work closely with local authorities to ensure that they have the support to take advantage of the reforms.

To conclude, I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I look forward to engaging with hon. Members across the House as the Bill progresses. A wide range of views have been expressed over the course of the debate, but there is clearly a broad consensus that when it comes to delivering new homes and critical infrastructure—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister says no, so perhaps he does not agree, but the status quo is failing the country and more importantly those who last year sent us to this place to do better.

The process of securing consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects is demonstrably too slow and uncertain and is constraining economic growth and undermining our energy security. The current approach to development and the environment too often sees both sustainable house building and nature recovery stall. In exercising essential local democratic oversight, planning committees clearly do not operate as effectively as they could, and local planning authorities do not have adequate funding to deliver their services.

The compulsory purchase order process is patently too slow and cumbersome, and development corporations are not equipped to operate in the way we will need them to in the years ahead. It is abundantly clear that the lack of effective mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning mean that we cannot address development and infrastructure needs across sub-regions as well as we otherwise might.

We can and must do things differently. That means being prepared to will the means as well as the ends. Fourteen years of failure have left the country with a belief that nothing works, that nothing gets built, and that Britain can no longer do big things. This Government refuse to accept the stagnation and decline we were bequeathed. We were elected on the promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this landmark Bill, we will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Housing Development Planning: Water Companies

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Lewell-Buck.

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this important and informative debate, and on not only clearly articulating a number of legitimate concerns about the role of water companies in planning for new residential development but eloquently outlining the plight of her constituents in the cases that she mentioned. In addition, I thank the other hon. Members who have participated in the debate and shared valuable insights and experiences from their own constituencies.

I know and appreciate the various concerns that have been raised about the issue, and I also recognise the strength of feeling. I hope that in my remarks I will convey both that the Government have already acted in numerous respects and that we are alive to the need to do more to address the fact that in many parts of the country the system is clearly not delivering the outcomes that we want to see.

A number of distinct issues were raised during the debate and I will seek to address as many of them as possible in the time that I have available. As ever, if I overlook any specific issues that hon. Members raised, I would be more than happy to find time to discuss them outside the Chamber, and to speak more widely to the group of hon. Members who are here today and others who have concerns about this issue.

I will start by talking about the principle of sustainable development, as set out in paragraph 7 of the national planning policy framework, which states:

“The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of homes, commercial development and supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner.”

The framework goes on to state:

“Planning policies and decisions should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions”.

It also says that sustainable development should be pursued both through the preparation and implementation of local development plans, and the application of policies in the framework. In short, the Government are clear that housing must come with appropriate infrastructure, including appropriate water infrastructure.

A number of Members mentioned sustainable drainage systems, including the hon. Member for North Shropshire. Hon. Members will know that the revised NPPF that we published on 12 December last year makes it clear that developments of all sizes should use sustainable drainage techniques when the development could have drainage impacts and should have appropriate maintenance arrangements in place. These are important changes to the NPPF that will mean that sustainable drainage technologies are taken up more widely in new development. We continue to explore whether more needs to be done, either through planning policy or by commencing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and a decision on the best way forward will be made in the coming months.

On a related matter, I appreciate that there are some instances of existing sewers not being able to cope adequately with new developments; we have heard a number of pretty troubling examples of that this afternoon. To avoid that issue, the planning practice guidance sets out that good design and mitigation measures should be secured during development, both through site-specific and non-site-specific policies on water infrastructure. For example, it suggests using planning conditions and obligations to ensure that development is phased and not occupied until the necessary waterworks have been completed. I would be very interested to hear from hon. Members who said that some local authorities are not using those conditions and obligations as to why that might be the case. However, I will give further thought to the issue in light of the various examples that have been referred to today.

The hon. Member for North Shropshire and other hon. Members rightly mentioned the role of local plans in delivering sustainable development. Planning is principally a local activity and the Government are clear that the plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of the planning system. We are determined to progress towards universal local plan coverage. As the Deputy Prime Minister and I have repeatedly made clear, we will not hesitate to use the full range of ministerial intervention powers at our disposal to that end.

A key function of local development plans is to guide development to the most suitable and sustainable locations and to ensure that the associated infrastructure requirements are addressed. As hon. Members are aware, water companies are under a statutory duty to provide new water and sewerage connections to residential properties, as well as planning to meet the needs of growth as part of water resource management plans, and drainage and wastewater management plans. The water resources planning guidance published by the Government set out how those companies should forecast demand for water based on existing customers and planned levels of household and non-household growth, with the number of planned developments being based on published local plans, but I note the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), about how the operation of that system might be improved.

Effective co-operation early in the plan-making process is essential to ensuring not only that housing and infrastructure need is appropriately planned for, but that they are aligned with each other. The national planning policy framework makes it clear that local planning authorities should collaborate with each other and with other public bodies, including infrastructure providers, to identify relevant strategic matters to be addressed, including providing for sustainable water supplies. I have heard and noted the concerns of hon. Members that, despite the Government’s very clear expectations in this regard, such collaboration is not always evident and I will reflect on the implications of that for national planning policy.

We are very clear that the statutory consultee system is not operating effectively. We have been told as much not only by house builders, but by local planning authorities from across the country. Hon. Members will be aware that the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister have imposed a moratorium on new statutory consultees. I also draw the House’s attention to my written statement on Monday setting out how the Government intend to reform the statutory consultee system to ensure it operates effectively, including consulting on limiting the scope of statcons to where advice is strictly necessary and removing entirely a limited number of them.

I have heard the calls made today—organised calls, I might infer—from Lib Dem Members to add water companies to the list of statutory consultees. I gently say to hon. Members that I do not think this is the panacea that they imply it is. Indeed, I think that doing so would risk allowing water companies to argue against the delivery of new homes, rather than focusing on their responsibility to ensure the appropriate infrastructure is in place at the outset. That is why it is important that, although water companies are not statutory consultees on individual planning applications, statute requires that they are consulted in the preparation of local plans. That is because strategic issues such as water capacity are best dealt with at a strategic level through the plan-making process, rather than through individual planning applications.

Ensuring that we take a strategic spatial planning approach to the management of water, including tackling pollution and managing pressures on the water environment at a catchment, regional and national scale, is a core objective of the ongoing independent review into the regulatory system of the water sector, launched in October 2024 by the UK and Welsh Governments. As I hope hon. Members are aware, the commission is expected to report by the second quarter of next year and I know hon. Members will engage with it.

The Government are acutely aware that the sustainable supply of water in some areas—for example, Cambridge and north Sussex—is an immediate constraint on growth and we are tackling that in various ways. For example, in those instances, we work closely with local authorities, regulators and water companies to find creative solutions to unlock growth and address environmental pressures. Our work in Cambridge to address water scarcity, for example, has already helped to unlock applications for over 9,000 homes and 500,000 square metres of commercial space, and similar initiatives are possible in other areas.

The hon. Member for North Shropshire and a few other hon. Members drew our attention specifically to section 104 agreements outlined in the Water Industry Act 1991. Developers and water companies can enter into these voluntary agreements, which, where they work, ensure that newly constructed sewers, first, are built to an appropriate standard and, secondly, become the responsibility of the local water company for maintenance once they are operational, but I have heard and note the critiques that have been made. If hon. Members will indulge me by putting to me in writing some of the cases that have been specified this afternoon, I would like to look into the matter further to see whether the system needs improvement in various ways.

As I have the time, I will speak briefly about two other issues: first, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Alongside targeted local interventions, the Government are taking steps to ensure that we can more quickly and effectively upgrade major economic infrastructure across the whole country, including water supplies. In last year’s Budget, the Government confirmed their commitment to delivering a new 10-year infrastructure strategy, providing more certainty and stability for the supply chain and helping to unlock private investment by setting out the Government’s vision, objectives and priorities for infrastructure over the next decade.

Additionally, hon. Members will know that yesterday we introduced our flagship Planning and Infrastructure Bill. One of the Bill’s five overarching objectives is to deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for critical infrastructure, including vital water infrastructure, through streamlining consultation requirements for nationally significant infrastructure projects, ensuring that national policy statements are kept up to date—hon. Members will know that some of them date back to 2012—and reducing opportunities for judicial review. I encourage and welcome the engagement of hon. Members from across the House as that legislation progresses.

[David Reed]

I hear the points that the Minister has made. Will he confirm that his Department is not going to make water companies statutory consultees in the planning process?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I cannot be clearer than I was in my written statement: the Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister have imposed a moratorium on new statutory consultees. We do not think that the system is operating effectively—as I said, local authorities and house builders are telling us as much. Water companies have a statutory role in the local planning consultation process, and they can provide their view on any application: not being a statutory consultee does not prevent them from doing so.

I want briefly to comment on water quality and pollution. Beyond the provision of water infrastructure, we are facing challenges in maintaining the quality of our water because of ever-increasing pressures from pollution, climate change and unsustainable practices. This Government are prioritising water quality as a key element of our environmental and public health agenda. Significant steps are being taken to address pollution, enhance infrastructure, and ensure clean and sustainable water sources for future generations. For example, as part of our efforts to create a plan-led system that is underpinned by a genuinely accessible and understandable policy framework, we intend to consult on and produce a set of national policies for decision making later this year. It will include policies on topics such as pollution, plan making, healthy and safe communities, and the delivery of homes, and how all of that interlinks. Further details will be announced in due course.

The Government are also working with farmers to reduce agricultural pollution. The Environment Act 2021, introduced by the previous Government, set a legally binding target to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment contribution from agriculture by at least 40% by 2038. That is why, alongside developing a new statutory plan to restore nature and meet these targets, we are enforcing key regulations, such as the farming rules for water, and have carried out thousands of inspections through the Environment Agency.

I underline that the Government expect sustainable development to be pursued both through the effective preparation and implementation of local plans and through the application of relevant national planning policy. As a Government, we have already taken, and will continue to take, steps to ensure that new housing developments have adequate water and waste water infrastructure as a matter of course. I have heard the concerns of the hon. Member for North Shropshire and other hon. Members about what more may be required to ensure that that is the case, and I assure all those who have participated in the debate that their concerns will be at the forefront of my mind as we continue to progress our planning reform agenda.

Statutory Consultee System Reform

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

Statutory consultees play an important role in the planning system, providing expert advice and information on significant environmental, transport, safety and heritage issues to ensure good decision making. However, their involvement introduces additional requirements into the process of securing permission for some developments.

We need a planning application process which considers the correct statutory and technical issues in a timely and proportionate manner, enabling confident and timely decision making. It is therefore a matter of concern that local planning authorities and developers report that the statutory consultee system is not currently working effectively.

The concerns expressed by local planning authorities and developers in relation to the operation of the statutory consultee system are wide-ranging. They include statutory consultees failing to engage proactively; taking too long to provide their advice; reopening issues that have already been dealt with at the plan-making stage; submitting automatic holding objections which are too often subsequently withdrawn at a very late stage in the process; and frequently issuing holding responses that allow statutory deadlines to be met while seeking over-specified levels of information from developers over longer timeframes. The final advice that statutory consultees provide can also often seek gold-plated outcomes, going beyond what is necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms.

Where there is inconsistency in advice, or delays in the provision of final responses, there can be substantial uncertainty and delay for applicants. Local planning authorities and developers can also often exacerbate these problems, by providing inadequate or poor quality information, or through blanket and inappropriate referrals to statutory consultees. This diverts resource from supporting those significant applications which require statutory consultee expertise.

The Government are determined to return the statutory consultee system to meeting their goal of supporting high-quality development through the swift provision of expert relevant advice to inform decision making. It is essential that statutory consultees look to provide practical, pragmatic advice and expertise which is focused on what is necessary to make development acceptable. That is why on 26 January, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor announced a moratorium on the creation of new statutory consultees and committed to reviewing the existing arrangements.

Today, I am confirming to the House a number of steps we are taking to improve these arrangements in England: putting support for growth at the heart of the system; limiting the scope of statutory consultees to where advice is strictly necessary; reminding local planning authorities that they are able to proceed with a decision where advice is not provided on time if they have sufficient information to do so; establishing a new performance framework with greater ministerial scrutiny of the actions of statutory consultees; and ensuring the system has the right funding with the right incentives.

Ensuring the statutory consultee system supports economic growth

First, the Government are clear that the statutory consultee system must work in support of development and economic growth—reflecting the central place of these objectives in the Government’s plan for change. This principle must run through the actions of all those involved in the system, from local planning authorities—reflecting the economic growth policies set out in the national planning policy framework—to the statutory consultees themselves. In seeking advice and providing it, the goal should be to ensure that wherever possible good quality development can progress, drawing on the right expert input where necessary.

Scope of statutory consultees in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regime

Secondly, we want to limit the statutory requirement to consult to only those instances where it is necessary to do so, and remove gold-plating where advice and support can be provided through other means. This means looking at both the existing set of statutory consultees, and the specific application types on which they provide advice.

We will therefore consult this spring on the impacts of removing a limited number of statutory consultees. Our initial intention is that this will include Sport England, the Theatres Trust and the Gardens Trust. We continue to recognise the importance of the policy areas with which these organisations are engaged, and recognise their value to local communities. Access to culture is an important driver of local growth and access to open green spaces and playing fields is crucial to our ambitions to increase physical activity levels across the nation and deliver on our health mission. We remain committed to ensuring our playing field capacity is protected and extended. Our national planning policy framework ensures these interests are maintained in the planning system and there is an important, ongoing role for these organisations working with local authorities and developers on the development of local and strategic plans, and through the publication of guidance and advice.

In addition, we will review the range and type of planning applications on which statutory consultees are required to be consulted and consider whether some types of application could be removed, or addressed by alternative means of engagement and provision of expert advice. In some cases, this could be done through undertaking more effective strategic engagement at the local and strategic plan level, reducing the need for comments on individual planning applications, and increasing the role of standing advice. We will consult on these changes in the spring alongside the impact of removal of the organisations identified above, before taking forward any resulting changes in secondary legislation later this year.

Expectations on local planning authorities in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regime

Thirdly, and reflecting the focus on supporting economic growth, local planning authorities should limit consultation of statutory consultees to only those instances where it is necessary to do so. Local planning authorities must still consult with statutory consultees where there is a legislative requirement to do so, noting that if there is relevant and up to date standing advice published with respect to that category of development, then consultation is not required. Applications may need to be referred to particular statutory consultees outside of the statutory requirements where their expertise is required, given the nature of the development, but should not be referred where standing advice is sufficient.

However, routine and blanket referrals to statutory consultees outside the statutory requirements should not take place, as this creates unnecessary administrative burdens for both local planning authorities and the statutory consultee. Where a statutory consultee has not provided advice within the agreed period, the decision maker should consider whether they can make a decision in the absence of this advice.

Decisions should not be delayed in order to secure advice from a statutory consultee beyond the 21—or 18—day statutory deadlines unless there is insufficient information to make the decision or more detailed advice may enable an approval rather than refusal. The national planning policy framework sets out that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth, and timely decision making is in line with this objective.

In those limited circumstances where the statutory consultee is expected to provide advice on significant issues and it is necessary—for example, on safety critical issues—appropriate extensions to the 21 day deadline should be granted so that sufficient and timely information is available to inform the decision.

Performance of statutory consultees

Fourthly, the role of statutory consultees is to provide evidence of impacts and expertise in a timely manner so that the decision maker has all relevant considerations before them. This should be provided in the form of advice to the decision maker, and should not be framed as an objection to the development.

In circumstances specified through direction, a local planning authority may be required to consult the Secretary of State, including where they propose to determine an application against the recommendation of a statutory consultee. The Secretary of State may then direct the manner in which the application is determined, including calling in the application. As part of the review, we will consider existing directions and when such directions may appropriately be made in the future.

To support timely and effective engagement with the planning system, we will also institute a new performance framework. As part of this framework, an HM Treasury and MHCLG Minister will meet annually with chief executive officers of key statutory consultees in order to review their performance. We will work with all statutory consultees to develop action plans and key performance indicators to ensure that the service they deliver is effective, proportionate and timely. We will also explore where greater digitisation, improved guidance, and improved local authority training can support performance improvements.

Funding of statutory consultees

Finally, the Government recognise that statutory consultees need to be resourced adequately, and on a sustainable basis to enable them to support the Government’s growth objectives in full. We intend to develop a model to support this sustainable funding, while ensuring we are incentivising efficient and constructive engagement in applications, and in the planning system more generally—and we will set out further details in the coming weeks.

Taken together, these steps will help refocus the statutory consultee system on its core purpose: supporting development through the swift provision of expert relevant advice to inform decision making.

[HCWS510]

Green Spaces Bill

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for tabling the Bill, and for giving the House a chance to both consider and re-emphasise the importance of our shared green spaces. Parks and green spaces are an essential part of our local and social infrastructure, and the Government are firmly—