Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

Chris Curtis Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 General Committees

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I would like to make a couple of additional points, adding to the really important comments made by the Minister about why these changes are important. It is worth dwelling on the fact that housing in this country is prohibitively expensive for too many people. That is the reason why people are increasingly having to wait so long to get on the housing ladder.

Fundamentally, housing is too expensive because, first, there is not enough of it and, secondly, increasingly it is too expensive to build new housing units. If we want to bring the cost of housing down, we have to address those two problems. We have to increase the number of new homes that are built, but also decrease the cost of building them. On the latter, increasing global pressures, from supply chain disruptions to the impact of geopolitical events, are pushing up construction and labour costs. Most of those headwinds are outside our control, but when we have difficult headwinds it is even more important that we do everything we can with the levers that are within our control to bring down the cost of construction.

I mention that because one of the most damaging, self-inflicted and unnecessary costs in our current house building system is uncertainty. Right now, there could be companies out there—including developers, housing associations or, as the shadow Minister said, local councils—that are looking to build new homes. They could be doing everything right; they could be putting the land together and coming up with a plan that builds the right amount of affordable housing, gives local planning gains and supports local infrastructure. After putting all that investment and support in, coming up with a plan and designing a project, they could still face the daunting prospect of having that development blocked at the eleventh hour by the whims of a small number of local councillors, who are often responding completely rationally to local political incentives.

Obviously, those trade-offs exists. That uncertainty comes at a cost: we either add to the price of a house that constituents are paying for, or we decrease the amount of planning gain that we can make from the developers. By definition, it either means higher housing costs or it means fewer GP surgeries, less road infrastructure or fewer affordable homes being built. That is the cost of having more uncertainty in the system. It is right that we reduce that uncertainty; one way to do that is by having decisions made by officers who are following planning laws, rather than by people who are responding to political incentives.

[Gareth Bacon]

There is a strong corelation between the hon. Gentleman’s argument and our position. I agree with much of what he has said, but I cannot get away from the ratio that both the Minister and I have outlined in our speeches: 96% of planning applications are already decided by officers under delegated powers. Is the hon. Gentleman’s position that democracy is the inhibitor here? Is democracy introducing uncertainty into the system? If that is the case, he should say so.

[Chris Curtis]

I do not believe that democracy is changing it. It is fundamentally the incentives of certain local politicians to do this when they can have a veto power over a development that has a wider gain, often outside their local constituencies. That is a wider consequence. I am democratically elected, as is the shadow Minister, so in this sovereign Parliament we have the ability and right to set the rules under which that democracy operates.

[Gareth Bacon]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. Does he not agree that that is the reason for the existence of the Planning Inspectorate? If planning applications are refused for reasons that are not in accordance with planning policy, will they not be overturned by the Planning Inspectorate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Curtis]

I thank the shadow Minister for making that point because it was the last point I was going to briefly make before wrapping up. This is the key point: it adds not only uncertainty, but delays. If uncertainty has costs in the housing system, the developers might go to the Planning Inspectorate, but that adds extra delay and costs.

Most of the developments in schedule 1 are very small—often up to just 10 properties. The margins that a developer would make on that project are much smaller than the costs of that delay and of having to go to the Planning Inspectorate in the first place. That means that most developments across the country have effectively stopped construction altogether. The big consequence of that is that SME builders, particularly those in local communities who have generally been building smaller sized developments, are going under. One of the only ways to fix that is by bringing certainty back into the system, given that uncertainty is one of the reasons why they have been facing challenges.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Curtis]

I have taken up too much time; people really want to get off.

We all accept that we should be focusing on smaller sites because, as the Minister set out, the bigger sites should be decided and focused on by the planning committees. This measure will free up more of their time to focus on those bigger sites and issues. However, schedule 1 sets the size of small sites at nine properties or fewer, which I think is at the lower end of people’s expectations. I appreciate that the Minister has done lots of consultation work on the draft regulations, but given that just 69% of the properties built each year would fall into that category, can he please give us some information on how he has settled on that number? Will he consider raising that number in future, if he is convinced that it would lead to more benefit and more good-quality homes being constructed?

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. The only certainty that consigning applications to officers will bring is a greater certainty of refusal. Officers refuse a greater proportion of planning applications than planning committees, which is not an argument in favour of the draft regulations.

[Chris Curtis]

To prove that point, the hon. Gentleman would need to prove that the types of applications currently going to either officers or planning committees are effectively random, but they are not. We know that different types of applications go to each one, so we cannot make that comparison between the two numbers.

[Gideon Amos]

I will give two examples that have a bearing on the hon. Gentleman’s point momentarily.

The Liberal Democrats have supported elements of the Government’s reforms. We supported the housing measures in the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and we support the principle of strategic planning. We also have no objection to a standard scheme of delegation or an upper limit on the size of planning committees. However, we do not accept that decisions must—the word “must” is used several times in the draft regulations—be taken away from elected councillors such that councils will approve decisions in cases where every single councillor disagrees, and the council’s name will still be on that decision. How can that be just? How can that be right?

The delivery of new homes is important. In particular, our target for social homes is higher than the Government’s, as we would aspire to deliver 150,000 per year, and we would allocate funding in that direction. Many of the measures that the Government are bringing forward seem to be directed at increasing planning permissions, largely for private sector housing, which many people in my constituency cannot and will not be able to afford. There is also little evidence that increasing planning permissions will reduce house prices—in fact, that has never happened, and it never will. Of course, house builders work on a commercial model in which they need to sustain their price to make their profit, which is an entirely reasonably approach.

Recent other changes also seem to be bearing in this direction. Councillors have already been removed from making a free decision on developments for over 150 homes; they cannot refuse them unless they first go cap in hand to the Minister and ask whether that is okay. Under that recently introduced direction, they lost their ability to decide on applications over 150 homes, and under the draft regulations, they will also lose their ability to decide on smaller applications. Guidance on the draft regulations would be a good thing, but this is not about guidance—the key word is “must”. The Minister referred to democratic oversight, but that will be removed unless the draft regulations are defeated. There is absolutely no question of any democratic oversight in any of these decisions.

Two examples came to my mind. One does not have to spend a lot of time as a member of a planning committee to come across applications where officers recommend a cautious refusal, but members of the committee then overturn that decision. I dealt with one in Wiltshire many years ago where an owner wanted to divide a large house into two by blocking up two doorways. The planning officer and the senior planning officer were adamant that this would create a new dwelling in the open countryside and so must be refused, and they would listen to no other representations. With the support of local councillors, it was taken to the planning committee and the planning committee unanimously approved the application to create an additional dwelling and increase the housing supply.

When I spoke to the chair of my local planning committee in Somerset recently, I heard about a similar example just outside my constituency where officers were recommending a refusal, but members overturned that decision and the housing was granted. That will not be possible under the draft regulations, and applicants will have nowhere to go. Whether they are local residents or local builders, they will not be able to do anything. They will be allowed to contact their councillors, but their councillors will turn around and say, “Even though I’ve been elected as a councillor, I cannot have any say or effect over this council decision. It has been taken away from me by the regulations.”

Representation of the People Bill

Chris Curtis Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I do not think I will get the time to say this at the end, so I want to put on the record that the Government should set up a national commission to look at our voting system. Whatever our views on it, we no longer live in a two-party electoral system, and if our electoral system does not acknowledge that fact, we will have even more chaotic and unpredictable election results, as Professor Rob Ford says.

I welcome many of the changes introduced by the Bill. Members from across the Chamber have talked about the principles behind democracy. My view is pretty simple: we should make it as easy as possible for as many people as possible in our democracy to vote. Unfortunately, some political actors have moved us away from that basic principle in recent years with some of the measures that they have introduced. There are always trade-offs in supporting the security and integrity of our electoral system, but the introduction of photo ID in our elections was done in a way that placed an unfair burden on people going to vote, while not doing anything to support the integrity of our electoral system.

In the 2023 election—the first time voter ID was introduced—a nurse in my constituency was not able to vote because she did not have a valid form of ID. I am sure it is possible for people in this Chamber to argue that at some point between her 12-hour shifts, saving the lives of my constituents, she should have found the time to fill in the proper paperwork. That right to vote was taken away from her to stop a problem that the Electoral Commission consistently said basically did not really exist. There is almost no evidence to show that it ever existed, if only because it would be incredibly inefficient to provide that on a large scale. I acknowledge that there are problems with electoral fraud in our democracy, but there is almost no in-person fraud at the ballot box. The introduction of that law therefore had almost no benefit, and it is right that the Government are increasing the range of supported IDs.

In the same vein of making it as easy as possible for people to vote, I would like to support the changes to automatic voter registration, but I acknowledge some of the problems raised by Opposition Members. While I accept that it will not be possible to say that there will be full-coverage automatic voter registration by the time of the next election—that does not, in and of itself, create a problem—it would be good to have reassurance from the Government on two points. First, where there are constituencies that cross multiple local authorities, we must not have a problem whereby half the constituency has automatic voter registration and the other half does not. Secondly, by the time we come to the next boundary review, when it comes to automatic voter registration, there must not be incomplete coverage. Can we please have a commitment to a way of addressing that problem—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

Local Government Reorganisation

Chris Curtis Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I remind the hon. Lady that these postponements, which are at the request of councils, affect only those councils that will shortly be abolished anyway. They are happening so that we can more quickly have elections to the new councils that will replace them. I respectfully suggest to her, as I did to the shadow Secretary of State, that her argument is actually with those Liberal Democrat councils and Liberal Democrat council leaders who have requested postponement so that the reorganisation can go ahead on schedule. I have imposed nothing; I am merely responding to them. I suggest that she go away and perhaps have a cup of tea with some of them, so that they can explain to her how what they have requested does not damage democracy.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I should make it clear that local elections will be going forward in full in Milton Keynes and that I look forward to continuing to work with my brilliant, hard-working Labour councillors locally. One of the reasons for delaying the elections is the time it is taking to go through the local government reorganisation process. That affects elections, but it also affects the creation of the new combined authorities, which is happening in parallel. Given the delays, will the Department look at the fast-track programme for the combined authorities, and at whether it is worth adding areas that do not face the reorganisation challenges, such as Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes?

[Steve Reed]

This is the biggest reorganisation in a generation, and it is very important that it be delivered with as much speed as we can muster, because of the benefits to local residents, who will see more money available to spend on things like fixing potholes and caring for older people—rather than paying for two sets of councillors, two sets of chief execs and two sets of finance directors, which the Conservative party was happy to see continue for all the 14 years it was in power. Of course, I will listen to my hon. Friend and others if they have suggestions about how we can further speed up the process and renew local democracy across the country.

Local Elections: Cancellation

Chris Curtis Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

We have made progress on the reorganisation and I anticipate us making strong progress this year. I hear the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes about his own views. Those will be taken account of, alongside other views expressed.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

Local elections will be going forward in full in Milton Keynes this year, and I look forward to continuing to work with my brilliant hard-working Labour councillors. The ongoing process of reorganisation is delaying elections, but it is also delaying the creation of new combined authorities across many parts of the country. Given that, will the Department look again at the fast-track process, and whether places that have already gone through reorganisation and are fully unitarised, such as Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes, should be added to that programme, and that the creation of new combined authorities should be sped up in those places, given that it has taken some time in others?

New Towns

Chris Curtis Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) not just for securing this debate, but for her passionate and moving speech.

I will start by building on some of the comments made by the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) about his constituents’ experiences of what is potentially the beginning of a new town process. It reminded me of a conversation I had after returning from the Labour party conference two and a half years ago, when we were in opposition. We had announced that if we won the election, we would move forward with the new towns programme. I got back to Milton Keynes—maybe slightly worse for wear—and popped into the family home to see my then 92-year-old grandmother with her friend Georgie in the living room.

My grandmother had grown up in a small farmhouse in Wollaston, a village of about 300 people. It has since been consumed into what is now Milton Keynes. They were talking, as they often did, about how things used to be: the roads they knew by name, the rivalry between the cricket teams, and the local pubs in that small village. They also spoke of their fears at the time—I am sure that similar conversations are happening now in Tempsford—about how the new towns programme would change the tight-knit community they had grown up in and were used to, and their many concerns about what it would mean for local culture and infrastructure. It is easy for us, as politicians, just to stop there in our conversations with local constituents, but this conversation went further. My grandmother talked about how she lived long enough to see what a difference the community built in Milton Keynes—my home town—made to the lives of her daughter and her grandchildren.

I am the first MP to have been born and to have grown up in the new town of Milton Keynes, and I owe almost everything to the fantastic start in life that Milton Keynes gave me. It meant that my parents could afford decent and affordable housing. It meant that there were good and decent jobs available because of what the development corporation did. It meant that public services were there when we needed them.

Just like Tempsford, Milton Keynes was built on a floodplain—the River Ouzel floodplain—which I know is often a concern for people. The development corporation solution for that was to build balancing lakes. My grandmother and Georgie were pretty opposed to the balancing lake at the time. It was fields next to the farm she grew up on. There were massive diggers and slurry everywhere coming in. She used to call it “that daft puddle”. Today, because of what the development corporation was able to achieve—it was a pretty significant infrastructure project—not only does the balancing lake provide flood protection and alleviation to tens of thousands of homes, which allowed the city I call home to be built; it also means that my city has 5,000 acres of beautiful blue and green spaces that are enjoyed by thousands of people.

The lake is also where my parents met, when my dad was teaching my mum—not particularly well—to sail. The city was determined to ensure that recreational activities were available to people whatever their background. I lost my grandmother just before Labour party conference last year, and the hospice that looked after her in the last weeks of her life looked out over that very same lake.

I mention that because I owe so much to the vision, confidence and level of ambition that was shown to build somewhere truly special—Milton Keynes—in the 1960s and 1970s. It is the story of my life; it is the reason I am here. It is only with that same level of confidence and ambition that we can hope that people talk as positively about the work we are doing now as I can talk about the work that was done by the Milton Keynes development corporation in the 1960s and 1970s.

I will mention a few points with the potential to make me nervous about whether we will fulfil that ambition, some of which were mentioned by the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. These projects will not come cheap to the Government. We obviously need to maximise the financing options that we can use. We also need to look at maximising the amount of land value capture. Milton Keynes was given 700 million quid in the 1960s—about £14 billion in today’s money—which came back to the Government multiple times over because of the economic value generated by building the city. I do not think anybody has that level of ambition for a new town project, but we are going to have to see money—not just capital money and direction to the pots of money available for capital, but revenue spending in order to set up the development corporation. We have not seen enough from the Department about that approach yet.

I also have a fear about death by consultation. The process to come up with a list of new towns was a very good piece of work by Sir Michael Lyons, and we should all pay tribute to him for it. However, the Government response is taking further months, and there will be a consultation on that. If development corporations are set up, there will be further consultation on that. We need to look at how we can streamline the process and get these projects going as quickly as possible.

I will raise one final concern now. Following conversations with local councils, it seems to me that the approach from the team working on this is to go back to that kind of begging-bowl culture: to go back to the sites that have been selected, of which Milton Keynes is one, and to convince them—even though Sir Michael Lyons did the work on why these 12 sites were the correct ones—that they should get the resources required to deliver what the Government are saying needs to be delivered. That will not lead to success.

A big part of the report talked about the importance of building communities that are not dependent on the car and that have good public transport options. My area is very car dependent, but if we are going to continue to grow, we cannot be; we will need support from the Department for Transport in order to do so. DFT’s approach has been, “Why do you need this money? Your roads aren’t congested yet.” That is completely out of line with the Government’s ambition and the new towns approach. We need to change the culture of how the Government is approaching the new town programme so that, in decades to come, somebody can stand in this Chamber talking about being the first MP for the new town of Tempsford and about how much of a success this programme has been.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will come on to talk about financing in more detail, in particular the options that we are considering, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will, again, have to wait for the publication of the SEA report and the programme that will go out to consultation. He and other hon. Members, as well as their communities and the neighbouring communities to the sites proposed for adoption, will then be able to feed into that process more widely. Long-term funding is available in this spending review period and going forward, because many of these propositions are for new, large-scale communities that will have to be built out over decades, in some cases.

I will touch on two or three other issues. Most importantly, several hon. Members raised the theme of public engagement. What the taskforce heard through its call for evidence and engagement with local leaders and local areas—the Government were kept up to date with that, as Sir Michael Lyons reported to me regularly on the taskforce’s work, as the House would expect—was that there is a huge appetite for new new towns to come forward. There are lots of parts of the country that would desperately welcome a new town.

I recognise, however, that in other areas, particularly in small villages such as Tempsford, there is trepidation about what may come and there are questions that residents want answered. In some cases—my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) has been forthright and honest about this—there is outright hostility and objection to the proposed locations. We have met and had several conversations about his particular case, and I assure him that I recognise the strength of feeling in his community. His residents can be in no doubt that he has conveyed the strength of feeling about that location very forcefully to me.

The taskforce’s report is clear that existing communities should be a key part of any new town development; community engagement is one of its core recommended place-making principles. The Government are working closely with local leaders as part of the scoping process of the programme and building our evidence base to understand the impacts of potential new town locations. As I have said, we will carry out the appropriate assessments and public consultations before any final decisions are made about locations. I must stress—we have been candid about this fact from the outset—that ultimately, decisions on new town locations will be made in the national interest.

[Chris Curtis]

I thank the Minister for being generous with his time and for reinforcing the Government’s strategic direction, which I think most of us agree with. As we move on to the next stage, many of the local council leaders who he has spoken about feel like there is friction and frustration in the communication between them and the Department, with the Department making it feel like they are bidding for the money. Will he meet local council leaders to reset that relationship so that it can be more constructive in the next stage of the process?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend made the same points when I appeared before the Select Committee earlier this week. I have taken them on board and I am happy to look at what the Department can do to ensure that there is a constructive relationship in each instance where the Government are seeking to build the evidence base. I certainly do not recognise, however, that it is the Government’s intention to go out to local areas and ask them to bid in to the programme. We want to work with local communities and local leaders to better understand and assess the proposition in each case.

I want to address two further issues. First, on financing, all the lessons suggest that once development is under way on new town sites, the long-term increase in the value of land can be captured and reinvested. Several hon. Members made that point forcefully, and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is correct that the three waves of new towns programmes each repaid the investment that was ploughed into them up front. We know that, and the taskforce recommended that we should explore a range of options, including taxation, in the financing model—for example, we are exploring the role that tax increment financing might play in the new towns programme, as was mentioned by the Select Committee Chair.

Lastly, I want to address the important theme of stewardship, which several hon. Members raised. We welcome all the taskforce’s recommendations on place-making and other issues that will be pertinent in the years ahead as we take the programme forward. On stewardship, the taskforce recommended, rightly in my view, that a long-term stewardship model should be in place from the outset and that it should include clear governance and funding structures to manage and maintain communal assets. In that way, we can learn the lessons from the earlier waves of new towns and get things right for this new programme.

To conclude, the Government’s new town programme, in the Government’s view, provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fundamentally reshape the delivery of large-scale new communities and, by delivering them, to boost economic growth and productivity, and make a significant contribution to meeting housing need in England over the coming decades. The Government remain resolute in their determination to bring forward the next generation of new towns. We will work tirelessly across Government and with delivery partners and local communities to ensure that they are, in the words of the taskforce, not just places to live, but places to live well, and places for people.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch for securing and opening the debate, and to other hon. Members for taking part. I know that hon. Members will take me at my word when I say that I look forward to further engagement with Members across the House as we advance the programme in the months and years ahead.

Planning Reform

Chris Curtis Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, but again, I think he misrepresents what is in this new framework, with regard to local involvement and local engagement. He seeks to give the impression that there are no safeguards on development in the new framework, and that is not true. The new permanent presumption provides significant backing for development—absolutely. We want to introduce clear, rules-based policies, both for plans and for decision making, but development still has to comply with the wider policies in the NPPF, and decisions on individual applications still have to be taken.

The hon. Gentleman raised a point about local standards. Our proposals support our overall aim of making policy more rules-based to streamline the content of development plans. The framework still allows some local standards, where it makes sense to set them locally—for example, on design, parking and open space—but where we have national standards in building regulations, including in the forthcoming future homes and future building standards, which raise our ambition in this area, it does not make sense to allow duplication and variation across local areas.

Lastly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned chalk streams, and again I want to push back. We have included explicit recognition of chalk streams as a feature of high environmental value, as I committed to doing during consideration of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Local plans will, as a result, have to identify and manage the impacts of development on these sensitive areas, such as by creating buffer zones or green corridors. We have set clearer expectations that development proposals will assess and mitigate adverse impacts on water quality, including in relation to chalk streams.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the statement, and for the support for getting our housing market going again, particularly when it comes to brownfield sites; proposals for many of them are still being held up right across the country. He says that he will not at this stage make NDMPs statutory. Many people across the sector would like him to do so, because of the extra certainty it would provide. When he talks about the risk and uncertainty of taking that approach, what does he mean? If he will revisit this question, when might he do so? What will he be looking at when he potentially makes the decision to revisit that question?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not have the time to go into incredible amounts of detail on why we did not choose to take a statutory approach to national development management policies. Suffice it to say that the approach carried considerable uncertainty and risks. There has been a long debate—I can see Members who served on the Bill Committee—about what a conflict between statutory NDMPs and a local development plan would mean in practice. We were concerned about the chilling effect that might have on the system as a whole, so we have decided to proceed, as I have said, with agile changes to national policy. I remind hon. Members—Opposition Members often complain about this—that national planning policy carries significant weight. Since our December reforms, an unprecedented 80% of major residential appeals relating to grey-belt land have been approved. That is the power of national policy in action, but we will keep the matter under review.

Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor

Chris Curtis Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate. The limited time means that I will not focus too heavily on the importance of the region, which has been covered by my colleagues, but as the first MP proud to have been born and grown up in the new town of Milton Keynes I want to remind everyone that it is the largest and most economically significant city in the corridor.

Our economy is roughly the same size as Oxford and Cambridge combined. In fact, Milton Keynes is now the seventh largest city economy in England outside London, and we are on track to continue climbing that league table. One in three jobs in Milton Keynes is already in the technology sector, generating £3.4 billion a year. We are now home to national security engineering at His Majesty’s Government Communications Centre, global firms such as Santander UK and Red Bull Racing and hundreds of cutting-edge small and medium enterprises. Over 12,000 businesses call our city home.

I set that out because, from time to time, it has been frustrating that the conversation about the corridor has been dominated by either end, with not enough focus on the middle. I can quietly live with Milton Keynes being dropped from the name—the National Infrastructure Commission first described the corridor as the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford arc in 2016—although I do feel it is a little odd to remove the largest economy from the title. It is a bit like renaming J. K. Rowling’s books “Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley”. I will allow my hon. Friends to decide which is which.

It is not just about branding; even since the relaunch of the project, there are concrete examples of how that policy skew has played out in practice. Take the Chancellor’s announcement in Oxford last year on the new plans for the growth corridor: the press release that followed mentioned Cambridge 39 times, Oxford 25 times and Milton Keynes just four times. Two of those references were about how the Government would make it quicker for people to get from Milton Keynes to Oxford or Cambridge, despite the fact that far more people commute into my city than out of it every day.

The recently released investment prospectus for the corridor barely mentioned any projects outside Oxford and Cambridge. My council submitted several high-impact Milton Keynes projects for inclusion—all of them were cut from the final draft. In the run-up to the Budget, the only corridor-related investments were for Oxford and Cambridge. Let me be clear: investment in those cities is welcome and necessary. They are world-class centres of research, talent and innovation. However, that skew is frustrating.

The easiest way to correct that skew is through devolution. We had an oven-ready devolution deal across Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes—a deal that would have supercharged growth across our region and allowed us to get the many national infrastructure projects already planned delivered quickly. Will the Department work with us to get the BLMK devolution deal across the line as quickly as possible?

Building Safety Regulator

Chris Curtis Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the performance of the Building Safety Regulator.

It is an unrivalled pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate and colleagues from four different parties for adding their names to the application. Since being elected last year, I have been searching for something that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and I can agree on, and I am thankful that we finally managed to find it. The breadth of support demonstrates the shared determination across the House to make the system work better. I also thank those from across the industry for their tireless campaigning on the issue, as well as for the constructive way they have worked to ensure that we can get safer buildings across the housing system and provide the supply that is so desperately needed.

Across the construction and development sectors, there is rightly a growing frustration about how the new building safety regime operates in practice. Everybody supports the principle of safer buildings, but there is increasing concern that the system as it stands is holding back progress on building the new homes that are so desperately needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) and I sought this debate because of the growing concern across industry that the Building Safety Regulator, while well intentioned, is becoming a real barrier to hitting the 1.5 million homes target that we promised at the general election and that it is so important we achieve.

We should be absolutely clear that this debate is not an attack on the principle of building safety—very far from it. Seventy-two people lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower fire on 14 June 2017—72 lives needlessly and tragically lost. It remains a stain on our national conscience that it took such a disaster to ensure that we have proper accountability and testing in the building industry.

The Building Safety Regulator is a vital part of ensuring that nothing like Grenfell ever happens again, but it has to work. Time and again, developers and councils tell me exactly the same story: that schemes are stuck in the system and that, although the regulator is supposed to process applications within 12 weeks, tens of thousands of homes are still stuck to this day. The latest figures suggest that 22,000 homes are waiting for a remediation decision and that 33,000 new homes are waiting for approval. The cost of that is severe: according to the Centre for Policy Studies, there has been a 73% drop in housing starts in London over the past year, with the regulator one of the biggest causes. It is good to see today’s Government announcement on the ways we are going further to get the London housing market moving again, but the industry will still say the Building Safety Regulator is one of the biggest obstacles.

Perhaps the biggest travesty is that if we do not build new safer homes, more people in this city and across the rest of the country are stuck in more dangerous and older properties. That is before we even start to consider the thousands who are stuck in temporary accommodation —one child in every classroom—or those who are paying extortionate rents because this country has failed for decades to build the homes that are needed.

We now see a growing backlog in the BSR because telecoms infrastructure is being caught up in the new regulations for high-risk buildings—I say this in a building where I still cannot seem to get good phone signal, because we are not building the mobile phone infrastructure that is required across the city. That is causing real practical problems. It threatens to seriously impact the delivery of new buildings, particularly when rooftop installations are involved. If that is not addressed quickly, it could slow down construction and digital roll-out at exactly the point when this country needs to be improving both.

The delays affect not just developers but people: the families living in buildings that are still awaiting remediation and the people who know that their homes are not yet deemed fully safe. The stress that causes day after day is unimaginable. When we talk today about process, paper- work and delays, we must remember the human beings at the heart of this issue.

The economic impact is also huge: rising insurance costs, development finance drying up and higher up-front fees—all before a single brick gets laid. It has a real effect on the viability of building, particularly in our bigger cities. Peter John, the former head of Southwark council put it bluntly:

“The greatest single burden developers have faced over the last five years has been the introduction of the Building Safety Regulator. The unintended consequence of improving building safety cannot be to cut off the supply of new homes.”

He is right.

Melanie Leech of the British Property Federation told the Select Committee that BSR delays are holding back two thirds of the build-to-rent pipeline. As we are rightly reforming the Renters’ Rights Bill, which was considered in the Commons again yesterday, we need to ensure that new build-to-rent properties are built, in order to keep the system unclogged. Fewer new rental properties obviously means higher rental prices for everyone else. The Home Builders Federation says exactly the same: the delivery of high-rise developments has “ground to a halt”.

Earlier this week, the Government held their regional investment summit, and the message could not have been clearer: the UK is open for business, full of opportunity and led by a Government determined to drive growth. But investors also reminded us about the hard truth that investment is global, and if it takes too long or if it is too difficult to see a return here, capital will simply go elsewhere. We must pull down the barriers to investment and make it easier for growth to happen right here in the UK. If we are serious about growth, we need to back the builders, not the blockers.

The good news is that fixing this does not require a huge amount of money from the Treasury—given how difficult it is to get money out of the Treasury—and it is not primarily about huge amounts of new spending. But it does mean investing in the right people: the experts who can process complex applications quickly and accurately. Will the Minister confirm whether the BSR will have the flexibility to offer market rates to attract those people, rather than being constrained by standard civil service pay bands?

Secondly, it is about culture. Too many developers tell me they face a “computer says no” approach—an invalid application is simply rejected, forcing the whole process to restart. That would be frustrating enough over 12 weeks, but over nine months or more it is a killer for confidence. One of the most frustrating stories I have heard in all this is from a developer who was asked by someone at the Building Safety Regulator to slow down the speed at which they were making applications, to stop the BSR from becoming overwhelmed. At a time when this Government are rightly determined to speed up house building, it is frustrating to see an arm of government trying to slow the process down.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) and for Northampton South (Mike Reader) and the Backbench Business Committee on this debate. My hon. Friend talks about the frustration of a nine-month delay, but the BSR is supposed to work to a 12-week turnaround. Is he aware that 338 council homes at the Bermondsey biscuit factory have already been held up for 54 weeks? When approached, the BSR asked for another 12 weeks to complete the application decision.

[Chris Curtis]

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments, which show exactly the kind of consequences we are facing because of what has been happening to the Building Safety Regulator. If we are not building new social homes, we have to ask where they are going to be instead. Quite often, children aged one or two are stuck in temporary accommodation, not learning to walk or crawl properly and having their life chances curtailed because this city and this country have failed to build the homes to give them a proper life chance. It is important that we stand up to the blockers who stand in the way of that.

Could we move to a more collaborative approach, in which BSR staff can work iteratively with applications to resolve issues as they arise, rather than starting from scratch each time? I have heard worrying reports of inconsistency, with different teams taking different decisions on similar cases. What is being done to ensure greater transparency and consistency? Has the Department assessed whether further guidance is needed for both applications and the regulator itself?

The BSR has said that it hopes to clear the gateway 2 backlog before Christmas. I welcome that level of ambition, but will the Minister confirm what support the Government are providing to make it happen and whether new applications submitted after that point will be turned around within 12 weeks? Once gateway 2 approvals start to come through, we will start hitting the gateway 3 process, which is the sign-off after construction and before occupation. What preparation is being made to ensure that that process does not simply become the new bottleneck?

I will finish with a slightly wider point. Grenfell was a national tragedy caused by unforgiveable negligence, and it was right that the state responded, but when we design new regulations or regulators, we must remember the cost of getting it wrong. In this case, the cost is stalled projects, families waiting longer in unsafe homes, tens of thousands of children waking up this morning in temporary accommodation, and families paying unaffordable rents. The intent was sound; the implementation has been a catastrophic failure.

The lesson is clear: future systems must be built with feedback loops from day one, clear service standards, real-time data on performance, and consistent guidance. If the first version falls short, as it will from time to time, we need rapid reform, not months of drift while the consequences stack up. That is not about weakening safety; it is how we deliver better and faster. It is how we honour the lives of the 72 people we lost at Grenfell—not only by saying, “Never again,” but by building more of the safe, modern homes that this country needs, with a regulator worthy of the trust we place in it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Curtis]

I will be as quick as I can. I welcome the Minister to her place and thank her for her response. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for bringing their experience from industry and talking about some of the things they believe we need to do to address these problems.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), who has had experience of homelessness and therefore knows personally the importance of getting this right. Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), who reminds us of the backstory and the tragedy that made it so important for us to set up the Building Safety Regulator and get this right.

My first debate in this House was about building safety, and I talked about my brother, who is one of the brave local firefighters in Milton Keynes. If there were an incident in a high-rise flat, he would be one of the people risking his life to fix it, so it is important that we get building safety right. He will be one of those going into unremediated buildings unless we have a Building Safety Regulator that can act quickly enough to enable remediations, and he will be one of those going into older and unsafe buildings if we cannot move residents into safer buildings because we cannot build them in the first place.

We cannot forget the human cost of getting this wrong. I hope we are not back here in a year’s time still talking about a regulator that is not moving quickly enough and a country that is not building enough homes.

Question put and agreed to. 

Resolved,

That this House has considered the performance of the Building Safety Regulator.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Chris Curtis Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I will not speak for too long, given that most of the debate’s key points have already been made, so hopefully that will help with the average speaking time that you are aiming for.

I, too, thank the Petitions Committee for this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for his opening speech. I think it is important to add my voice to the many voices that we have heard expressing concern about the changes to BNO visas, particularly when it comes to the timelines for indefinite leave to remain.

I have received emails from many constituents across Milton Keynes, and I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), who I know has received many more. I recently met Yvonne from 852 CIC, a fantastic organisation that represents and looks to integrate Hongkongers into the community in Milton Keynes. It has shared its concerns with me about the changes that it fears may be coming under the immigration White Paper.

[Emily Darlington]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Hong Kong community’s contribution to Milton Keynes, to our diversity and strength as an economic powerhouse in the UK, should not go unseen by the Minister and this Government? The reality is that we made the Hongkongers a promise, and we should keep it.

[Chris Curtis]

I completely agree. Diversity is at the heart of Milton Keynes. We are a proud city that shows how people from many backgrounds can come together to enrich and strengthen our community. We have seen at first hand how the many people who have come to our city from Hong Kong have added to our local economy. The previous Government and this Government made a deal, a commitment, that was in keeping with our human rights commitments and our commitment to doing the right thing. It is important that we keep to that commitment.

Like most people, I welcome the commitment of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to ensure that those who come to Britain are able to integrate and contribute to our society, rather than simply filling gaps left by uncertainty and under-investment in skills and training—changing the deal for BNO visa holders is not the way to do that.

I do not think the Government intentionally aim to create uncertainty for the people who came here, but unfortunately that uncertainty has now been created, and everybody in this room sees it in our inboxes. I hope that today the Minister will be able to clarify the situation and provide certainty, so that those who came here seeking safety, freedom and opportunity know that this Government still stand with them and will not change the rules, and that the five-year journey committed to by the previous Government will remain in place even after the immigration White Paper goes through.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman is as good as his word.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Chris Curtis Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for calling this important debate. Let me start with what I think should be seen as positive news and welcomed across the Chamber: the once-in-a-generation increase in funding for social housing. We in the Select Committee have heard about some of the dire consequences of the housing crisis that was left to this Government, especially its effect on the thousands of children growing up in temporary accommodation. The extra funding will mean that, finally, the dial will start to move.

I hope that I am not breaking any confidences in saying that the Committee Chair and I were at a dinner with many representatives of the industry on the evening that the spending review was announced. It is, I think, very rare in politics to sit in a room with people who are pretty unconditionally happy with a policy that has been announced—and, in this instance, happy about not just the extra money but the 10-year funding settlement, which I do not think has been mentioned yet, and also the access to remediation funds, which will make a real difference to the number of homes that are built.

This is important for the entire housing sector. The model that we have for building homes in Britain nowadays means that housing funded by section 106 contributions is struggling to be purchased, because the amount provided for social housing has not been good enough. There is real confidence that this funding will start to fix that problem and move us closer to the 1.5 million target, but, while the money is good, I think it important to urge the Government to go as far and as fast as possible with planning reform, and not to row back on the commitments we have made to ensure that the money is spent effectively and efficiently and we can unlock the homes that the country needs. It is also important for us to start to have a conversation about the Building Safety Regulator, which is clearly not working at present and is holding up projects. We will hear back from the new towns taskforce shortly; I hope that the Government will put the necessary funds behind that programme.

It is great news that we have the extra money in the multi-year funding settlement, but most councils will acknowledge that they are still concerned about stretched resources, and, again, it is important for us to go as far and as fast as possible in reforming special educational needs and social care services to ensure that they are fit for the future.

Let me end by saying—because the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution is present—that it is notable that the spending review provides for an increase in the funding pots that are available specifically to combined authorities. We in Milton Keynes feel that the Department has acted rather like Lucy pulling the ball away from Charlie Brown, so please will the Department redouble its efforts to create combined authorities, not just in Milton Keynes but across the country, so that areas that currently do not have them are not left behind?