Planning and Development: Bedfordshire

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered planning and development in Bedfordshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Mid Bedfordshire—indeed, all of Bedfordshire —has played its part in delivering new housing. My constituency was once home to the world’s largest brickworks at Stewartby. Our communities bear testament to our brickmaking history, with former clay pits now finding new life as lakes and homes for nature in the Marston Vale forest, and with former industrial sites, including the brickworks at Stewartby and Kempston Hardwick, set to be repurposed as places to deliver the homes and jobs of the future.

In the past month we have also had confirmation of the Luton airport expansion, the announcement of the new Universal UK theme park at Kempston Hardwick in my constituency, and the publication of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. That comes on top of the recent announcement of East West Rail, work being done to develop local plans in all three of our council areas— I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a Central Bedfordshire councillor—and the work of the Government’s new towns taskforce.

In this debate, I hope to highlight the ways in which the planning system can help shape the future of our communities in Bedfordshire, and some of the things that my constituents need assurance on from Government. I want to be clear at the start: I am not a nimby or a blocker, but if the Government are serious about building houses and critical infrastructure, we need to ensure that we do so in a way that is future-proof and resilient.

We need to turn blockers into builders, rather than create a new generation of blockers. In my experience, most of the people whom this Government have labelled as blockers are not ideological obsessives standing in front of the bulldozers of progress; they are people fed up with bad development. They are fed up of developers throwing up housing estates but not building communities, of soulless developments that could be found anywhere, and, most importantly, of developments that worsen quality of life.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. He has outlined some of the things being done in his constituency, such as using old industrial buildings for apartments. To add to his knowledge, in Northern Ireland we have been repurposing empty buildings in town centres, such as homes above shops—I said that to the Minister in a question just recently. Does the hon. Member agree that is something else that could be used to restore and build up our town centres while ensuring that we are not encroaching upon rural land, as so often happens across the whole United Kingdom?

[Blake Stephenson]

I absolutely agree. There is a lot of support for brownfield-first development, but also for gently densifying our towns and cities so that we have houses where people want to live within the existing infrastructure.

The Government have been elected with a clear mandate to build, build, build, and I accept that. But I hope that they will do the hard yards to plan, plan, plan, and ensure that the 1.5 million houses that they build are the right houses in the right places, as part of the right communities and with the right infrastructure. It is in that spirit that I bring forward this debate, because Bedfordshire is not a place that is standing still.

I congratulate the Government on completing the negotiations, begun by the previous Government, to secure the new Universal UK theme park at Kempston Hardwick. That will be a game changer for our local economy, and I will continue to support the Government, Universal and our councils as it progresses through the planning system, but to maximise its potential, it will be important to get the infrastructure right. That means we need to plan for the planes, trains, automobiles and accommodation. Through the planning system, we need to see work done to deliver the right accommodation that will be available in Bedfordshire for people to come and stay, hopefully to enjoy Universal and then stay a while in our towns and villages, spending their time and money enjoying everything that Bedfordshire has to offer.

As I noted earlier, I understand that Government have a mandate to “just get on and build”. I have some sympathy for their frustration with Members of Parliament like me who they see as trying to put the brakes on that ambition, but I hope the Minister will recognise that that is not my intention. I believe as fervently as he does that we need to deliver new homes for young people growing up right across Britain, but I believe we must do so in a way that is sensitive to our countryside and our communities, and that delivers the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure.

The current planning system is not working for anyone. Too often, it blocks good development and allows bad development—development that erodes local character, that builds houses but divides communities, and that comes without the right infrastructure, leaving new residents and old alike frustrated and unwilling to accept the further houses the Government want to deliver in their communities. As this Government’s planning reforms progress, I hope they will take time to consider how the planning system can more effectively protect the character of our towns and villages, and how it can seek to disarm those blockers that the Government are concerned about by addressing the things they are concerned about, not by tying their arms behind their backs. That is a harder job, I accept, but is anything that is worth doing in politics easy?

In Bedfordshire, I would like to see the Government give us the tools through the planning system to protect everything that makes our communities such special places to live—protections for our historic character and our villages, protections for our beautiful and unique countryside against unending and unplanned urban sprawl, and protections for the great British pub; indeed, I would like to see more of them built as our communities expand.

In Mid Bedfordshire, we have always done the right thing and taken our fair share of housing—we have even taken Luton’s surplus housing need. We have done everything we were supposed to do, but our communities suffer the effects of bad development. Still, residents in Maulden see development crawling even further up the slope of the Greensand ridge, as their flood risk steadily worsens. Still, residents in Wixams find themselves fighting for a GP surgery that no one locally seems keen to take ownership of. Still, residents find themselves fighting developers who are keen to pocket the profits of development but less keen to deliver on their promises of well-maintained green spaces, proper flood protections and local amenities.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

As a fellow MP representing Central Bedfordshire, I know that while good people can have reasoned debates about the right locations for new housing, no one can defend the lack of infrastructure to keep pace with development that we have seen in parts of Central Bedfordshire. It is therefore all the more surprising that the council has one of the highest levels of unspent section 106 contributions in the country. Does the hon. Member agree that Central Bedfordshire owes it to its residents to ensure it is putting that money to good use, and that we owe it to the council to ensure we are removing all possible barriers to its providing the infrastructure that our residents are crying out for?

[Blake Stephenson]

Again, I must declare my interest as a Central Bedfordshire councillor. I learned recently of the sums that are held at Central Beds from section 106 contributions. The council is very good at collecting the sums but not necessarily at spending them, particularly in the right places and on the right things. Residents would be keener on development in their local communities if they knew that section 106 contributions would be spent there, not in some other part of the large unitary authority area. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and thank him for it.

Worse still, these developers often put in planning applications for big developments, have those fights with the local community, make promises about local infrastructure, secure their planning permission, and then nothing happens. The community sits and waits while more and more other developments get planning permission around them, but the developers do not get on and build the things they have got permission for. Research by the Institute for Public Policy Research found that 1.1 million homes that were given planning permission between 2010 and 2020 were not built by 2024. That is 1.1 million homes that defied the Government’s blockers and got through the planning system but did not get built. So far, this Government seem to have failed to grasp that problem—there is nothing in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that even acknowledges it. If the Government are determined to block the blockers and back the builders, perhaps they should take some action to stop the blocker builders that are failing to build out planning permissions that they have received, because they are having a real impact.

In Central Bedfordshire, planning inspectors have twice concluded that we cannot demonstrate a five-year land supply in recent months. That means that our countryside now stands virtually unprotected against speculative development, yet our communities have taken more than 20,000 new homes in the past 10 years. The Central Bedfordshire local plan sets out locations for thousands more, but despite its passage four years ago, key strategic sites in that plan sit without a single shovel having been put in the ground. This Government must hold the builders to account to get on and build things, and not put the blame for our broken planning system on my constituents’ desire to avoid flooded homes or see a GP.

Looking ahead, this Government are asking our communities in Bedfordshire to take tens of thousands of additional new homes. That future housing pressure will put our communities under huge additional strain. We need the Government to work with us to do more to ensure that developers deliver what they promise—and deliver it at the right point in development.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. He has rightly pointed to the fact that Bedfordshire has been doing more than its fair share of growth for two decades. We are growing at two and a half times the national average, which has put pressure on public services, particularly GP services. Biggleswade in my constituency has been waiting years for a health hub to deal with the growing population. Does my hon. Friend, like me, want to hear a bit more clarity from the Minister today about new towns? The potential for new towns comes on top of the pressure we have from organic growth. Tempsford in my constituency has been highlighted for one of those new towns. We do not know whether the Government plan for that to be a community of 15,000 or 30,000; there are some reports of 250,000. We have no clue whether this Government are committed to infrastructure first, either. What are my hon. Friend’s thoughts on what the Government should be saying now about new towns such as the potential one in Tempsford?

[Blake Stephenson]

I thank my right hon. Friend—

[Richard Fuller]

Honourable.

[Blake Stephenson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—I forget which positions people have had over the years. I absolutely agree. I will discuss new towns later in my speech; it is important that the Government provide clarity, and clarity soon, on where those new towns will be built. In my constituency too, people want the infrastructure to be built at the right time—before people move into houses, not afterwards. Those promises need to be fulfilled much earlier in the development cycle. I mentioned some of those points just now.

I would like to see the Government either commit to requiring developers to deliver new infrastructure right at the start of development, or consider a programme of investment whereby the Government provide capital funding up front for councils to deliver the promised infrastructure, which they could then claim back directly from developers’ section 106 contributions.

I would like to see the Government go further on flooding, and commit to a ban in all circumstances on development on functional floodplains. New homes mean nothing if they flood. Rivers and valleys have been here longer than we have, and the water that flows through them will not simply get out of the way because of the size of the Government’s mandate. We must ensure that our housing policy keeps houses out of the way and restricts floodplain to amenity and recreational land as part of proper local placemaking strategies.

We must also ensure that the sustainable drainage infrastructure that gets installed with housing is effective and properly maintained. Too often, we see and hear of sustainable drainage systems that are nothing more than overgrown and sometimes blocked ditches, which offer no protection when the rain starts falling. We need a proper strategy to manage them, for example with ownership devolved to properly funded internal drainage boards that can provide expert maintenance. We need to embrace nature-based solutions to flooding—an opportunity presented by the Government’s proposed environmental delivery plans if they are strengthened to include a duty to consider such solutions.

I would like to see the Government commit to properly funding and empowering planners in urban areas with high housing targets to identify and release appropriate sites for urban densification—a point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). For too long, urban authorities have been able to restrict land supply and the duty to co-operate to foist urban sprawl on neighbouring rural communities. Development that builds dormitories on our countryside rather than densification in our towns and cities is development that fails us all.

We must end the easy fixes and see a focused strategy to densify our urban areas. In rural Bedfordshire, without such a fix we face a real and significant risk that our villages will be forced under the duty to co-operate to take thousands more homes for Luton in addition to the thousands of homes we took last time. Sticking-plaster planning politics where housing targets mean nothing because they are consistently and repeatedly delivered elsewhere does nothing to resolve the housing crisis and nothing to appease the Government’s blockers, who rightly wonder how it can be fair that they must continue to pay the price for failures in urban areas to deliver targets.

--- Later in debate ---

[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)).

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

As a central Bedfordshire councillor, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

There is much to welcome in this Bill, particularly its ambition to get nationally significant infrastructure built to support our country. While I disagree with the Government’s allocation of housing targets that favour building over our countryside, rather than the densification of our cities, where building homes would alleviate the worst of the acute housing crisis, I recognise the Government’s mandate to build 1.5 million homes and the need for ambitious planning reform. What are the Government doing to ensure that the 1.6 million homes with existing planning approval are built? I see nothing in this Bill.

Mid Bedfordshire has done more than its fair share in recent years to accommodate new housing, with the boroughs of central Bedfordshire and Bedford growing by 16% and 18% respectively over 10 years. We are not anti-development, but some development has changed the character of our historical market towns and quiet rural villages forever. Development is increasing the flooding risk in Maulden in my constituency, where compounded up-slope development has exacerbated the impact of pluvial flooding. We have development that has not delivered long-promised infrastructure, such as in Wixams in my constituency—a development where shovels first went into the ground nearly two decades ago but residents are yet to see the delivery of a new GP surgery. It is because of such issues that communities have become hardened to the prospect of yet more building.

This Government have a real opportunity, with thought and consideration, to create a planning system that people can have confidence in. Instead, people have been dismissed simply as blockers. The pensioners who fear a flood every time it rains—blockers. The young parents who cannot get to their GP because a surgery has not been built in their town—blockers. People with real, genuine concerns whom we in this House were elected to stand up for are not blockers, and this Bill could do much more for them.

[Joy Morrissey]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the “blockers”. These are people who live on floodplains, who have been waiting years for a GP surgery and who have never had any of the key infrastructure that they asked for delivered. They cannot have property built in certain places because of floodplains. That is not acknowledged in this Bill, which makes no provision for those residents.

[Blake Stephenson]

Absolutely. Since Bedfordshire was flooded in September, Ministers will know that I have been vocal about improving resilience, and the Government can do that in this Bill. New houses mean nothing if residents find themselves ankle-deep in water in their living rooms, as they did across the country last year.

I want the measures on nature recovery to be strengthened to include explicit plans to deliver nature-based solutions to flooding. I want schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to be brought into force to ensure that communities have the right protections from flooding. I want this Bill to give internal drainage boards more powers to take over the maintenance of infrastructure to protect people from flooding. If it does not, local authorities should have the enforcement powers to ensure that sustainable drainage is maintained.

I also want to see more robust measures in this Bill ruling out development on floodplains, which goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). The Bill could make a real difference to our resilience to flooding, and I urge the Government not to miss this opportunity. Despite protections in the NPPF, we still see development in functional floodplains. Rivers were here before us; they do not know and they do not care that we are here. As the Dutch have done successfully, we need to make room for our rivers. We must get out of their way, with stronger protections against development in floodplains.

I turn briefly to new towns, which are provided for in this legislation through development corporations. It will be important to ensure that those corporations have the power to deliver real places and communities, not just the cookie-cutter dormitory-on-trainline that developers might like to churn out for the highest possible profit margins. New towns should capture the essence and spirit of the communities into which they are sown, and they need to be beautiful, as the Deputy Prime Minister reflected on in her opening remarks. The Government should also address important questions that they are currently dodging on how these new towns will interplay with wider local development strategies. I am disappointed not to see some of that detail ironed out in this Bill.

New towns will result in a double whammy of housing development for some communities, but we do not yet know exactly how damaging that might be. The Government are also yet to confirm whether the housing provided by new towns will count towards a five-year land supply, meaning that our communities could be forced to take far more housing than they need, without the right infrastructure, unless this Bill is strengthened.

This Government talk about being on the side of the builders, not the blockers, but without improvements, I am afraid that the Bill is almost guaranteed to create a new generation of so-called blockers. Homes are needed so that young people who aspire to own their own home can do so. Most of the blockers, as this Government like to call them, are not standing in the way of progress: they are standing up for their communities against bad development.

Oral Answers to Questions

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

The shadow Minister is absolutely right—it was his Government who did not do enough in this area. We have said that we will strengthen section 106 planning obligations, and we have also set up a unit within my Department to ensure that we hold developers to account and work across Government to ensure that infrastructure is built.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

2. Whether the number of houses recommended by the new towns taskforce will be in addition to the housing targets set in the national policy planning framework.

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

Not least because we will only begin construction of the next generation of new towns towards the end of this Parliament, the Government have been clear that they will deliver over and above the targets produced by the standard method. We will, of course, keep under review how the taskforce’s forthcoming recommendations on new towns interact with housing targets across England.

[Blake Stephenson]

Communities in Mid Bedfordshire have always done their bit to take new housing, but continued pressure to build is chipping away at our beautiful countryside and the historical character of our towns and villages. Will the Minister assure communities such as mine that the new towns taskforce cannot hit us with a double whammy of house building?

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. Having spoken to headteachers in private schools, I know that that is what some of them are looking to do. I recognise that may not be the case in that situation. As I said on Second Reading, ultimately, we want all schools to be at such a standard that parents do not need to choose to send their children to private school.

Every business in the UK is required to pay VAT. The “Cambridge Dictionary” definition of a business is a particular company that buys and sells goods and services. Parents pay for the service of their children’s teachers, and they pay for their children to go to private school.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that universities are companies? If he does, would he advocate imposing VAT on fees for university education?

[Chris Vince]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I think that we have had a very good debate on higher education today. It is interesting that Conservative Members want to talk about university and higher education when it is in an awful state. Clearly, we need to look at how private schools are funded. [Interruption.] I am being a teacher, sorry. Members can carry on rambling; this is not a school.

The second part of my speech is about our high streets. I think we can all agree about the importance of supporting our high streets, while also recognising the changing nature of both retail and those high streets. The Bill is designed to decrease tax on high street businesses and make online retailers pay their fair share. Very briefly, in its evidence, the Co-op said that the Bill would benefit “92% of our estate”, which is 98% of retail stores, and described it as having “a significant impact”. The representative of the Association Of Convenience Stores described the Bill as very helpful, and

“very positive for the sector, but…also very positive for the places where they trade.”––[Official Report, Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Public Bill Committee, 11 December 2024; c. 18, Q25.]

I have not taken two hours, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will conclude. I welcome the Bill. I welcome the practical steps that this Labour Government are taking to address the issues left by the previous Government and to support small businesses in my constituency of Harlow and across the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is incredibly important that the relevant infrastructure, amenities and services are in place. We have taken a number of steps to better support that in the short period we have been in office, not least through the national planning policy framework, but there is more to be done in that area. I will keep it under very close review.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the merits of reforming the planning system to introduce new measures to help reduce flood risk?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The national planning policy framework is very clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, including flood plains. We consulted in the national planning policy framework consultation and sought views on how the planning system can more effectively manage flood risk. As I say, my Department is analysing responses, with a view to publishing a Government response before the end of the year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

First, we need to reset the relationship between the Westminster Government and local authorities. I have seen far too many examples where the Secretary of State and Ministers have, at this Dispatch Box, hung individual councils out to dry. That is not a relationship of equals at all. I thank the leadership of Birmingham for taking the tough decisions and actions that are needed. This Government will work in partnership with them in a constructive way, as equals, going forward.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

13. For what reason the proposed revised national planning policy framework removes the requirement for new housing to be beautiful.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

Beauty is always part of the proposals. The hon. Member, if he had read our proposals in the NPPF, would know that we have not removed all references to beauty; we have simply changed additional references made by the Conservatives that the Royal Institute of British Architects said could lead to development being turned down.

[Blake Stephenson]

In Mid Bedfordshire we have a mix of historic towns and villages, as well as newer developments such as Wixams. We take more than our fair share of development, and my constituents want to see beautiful homes with the right services that are sympathetic to the traditional character of our communities. Does the Secretary of State agree that people want to see beautiful homes throughout England? In that case, will she reinsert beauty as a house building objective in the revised framework?

[Angela Rayner]

If the hon. Member had read our proposals regarding the inconsistencies, he would know that the Government are not proposing to remove all references to beauty from the NPPF. I reiterate that the changes we are making relate to additional references to beauty inserted by the previous Government in December 2023. These are subjective in nature, difficult to define and may lead to inconsistencies in decision making.