National Planning Policy Framework

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on council and social housing. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on securing this very important debate.

On a personal basis, a debate on national planning policy feels like a very fitting bookend to the outgoing Administration. The issue of what gets built where defines our daily lives like no other issue, and I have found my first two years in this place defined by those debates. Without wanting to cast myself as a latter-day Cassandra, I shared early on my view that, try though Ministers might, there would be no appeasing the developer lobby—no amount of deregulation will ever satisfy them—and so it has proven, with the clamour for relaxed fire safety standards and the weakening of environmental policies, and for there to be less opportunity for ordinary people to influence decisions in the planning system, as loud as ever.

However, my views on the subject have changed. Today, I am not joining this debate to raise a series of detailed concerns about the latest redrafting of the NPPF—although I do still have such concerns, especially in relation to possible changes to the sequential test on surface water flooding and limits being imposed on local authorities to pursue more ambitious policies on climate and nature restoration. The point I really want to make today is that I believe we have reached a point where national planning policy is completely broken and the NPPF is beyond reform. After decades of deregulation, the genius of Labour’s post-war democratic settlement has been degraded and reduced to a system of fiendishly complex processes, combined with overwhelmingly negative outcomes, which, for all the world, seems to have been designed by an evil genius to drive all those involved mad.

When Lewis Silkin created the planning system that rebuilt this country from the ashes of world war two, he described the distinctly Labour vision for a policy that would meet “actual needs, democratically expressed.” Yet what the NPPF has achieved for years—I am afraid the latest iteration will be little different—is almost the precise opposite of Silkin’s idealism. Pretty much ever since the first version of the NPPF in 2012, what we have seen is the proliferation of speculative development across the country, with democratically produced local plans ridden roughshod over and housing built first and foremost for profit, not for people.

In fact, a national planning policy framework is not even an accurate name for what we have. There can be no plan-led system when national policy introduces the overwhelming likelihood of caveats to local plans through an ever stronger and equally inaccurately named presumption in favour of sustainable development, which in reality functions as a passport to permission for all but the very worst speculative schemes. This is not planning in any reasonable sense of the word—it is merely reacting.

Under the NPPF system, more and more of the initiative, the influence and the advantage lies with the vested interests of land promoters and major developers, whose private profit will never accord with the public good. And thus we have a national system in which the notion of affordable housing is a running joke, and in which the environment that politicians so often protest their love for is repeatedly trashed as a secondary matter compared to the unequally distributed benefits of growth. It is a national planning policy framework that overwhelmingly produces outcomes that lock us into car-dependent, unsustainable lifestyles, with polluted air that chokes the lungs of our children and costs the NHS billions, and utterly fails to secure public consent for the development we very desperately require to meet the needs of those stuck in temporary accommodation and in cramped, crowded and unsanitary conditions.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I apologise to the Minister; I am hopping between two different debates in two different Chambers. I told my constituents that I would make this point about planning policy in my area, which has fought for decades to protect the green belt. The introduction of the concept of the grey belt means that developers are now turning green belt into grey belt by dumping, cutting down trees and despoiling the area, and then applying for planning permission for development. The concept of grey belt has undermined all that we have spent decades campaigning for.

[Chris Hinchliff]

I agree with those concerns. As I understand it, many of the applications for grey belt are in fact on greenfield sites, and that needs to be addressed.

For all its labyrinthine processes, the NPPF makes a mockery of local democracy, which breeds disillusion and contempt for politics in this country. The system we have created through the NPPF traps communities in a never-ending cycle of adversarial confrontations with corporations that see our local landscapes as easy pickings and cream off much of the wealth of new developments, while leaving the public to carry the majority of the costs. The section 106 mechanism they rely on is not only obscure, but demonstrably incapable of securing the investment in the infrastructure—GPs, schools, sports grounds and public transport—necessary to keep pace with population growth, when hundreds of new houses are bolted on to towns that have already seen almost all their facilities closed.

The housing the NPPF produces is often both miserabilist and identikit. It is seemingly designed to erase local identity and shorn of local traditions, with no space for community and with a built environment that is best described as unhappiness given physical form. All in all, the damage that successive iterations of the NPPF have done to our country is difficult to forgive. Now is the time to consign the NPPF to the dustbin of history where it belongs and start afresh instead of making further amendments.

The one positive note I can strike is that it is not difficult to imagine something far, far better. We need to return to Labour’s democratic principles, stop treating the public as a problem to be silenced and embrace them as a source of optimistic solutions for meeting the needs of the future. It is time to replace the constant nonsense that traduces our constituents as nimbys, and to put power in their hands so that they can decide where and how to meet the housing needs of their communities in a way that expresses their hopes and priorities for the future. It is time to bring back architects in every local planning authority, working with each community to shape plans for future development on an appropriate scale for each settlement, and with a renaissance in the local vernacular that strengthens and reinvigorates the culture and identity of each unique town, village and city. In short, it is time to ditch the NPPF and build a new system that puts power in the hands of the people and allows planners to genuinely plan with communities.

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

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 General Committees

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. This is a hugely consequential instrument. Little democracy remains in our planning system, and this legislation will cut the amount down further. We are elected to this place to serve the public, not treat them as a problem to be silenced.

The measures will mean that individual councillors lose the ability to directly call in planning decisions completely, and that democratically elected councillors get to publicly scrutinise and vote on planning decisions only in exceptional circumstances, even for schedule 2 applications. With no committees for the vast majority of decisions, they will also mean that the public lose their chance to speak for a few minutes in front of those deciding on what gets built and where in their local area. In effect, in many circumstances, they will render our constituents and their locally elected representatives bystanders in the future of their own community. The measures seem to directly contradict Labour’s historic mission to redistribute power, not to mention the current drive for devolution and putting decision-making power back in local hands.

Streamlining our processes, in my view, cannot justify to my constituents the loss of their voice through these measures. I fear that the case for these changes relies overwhelmingly on anecdote and the belief that locally elected councillors are too responsive to the hopes and concerns of those they represent, and that by taking councillors out of the equation, more planning applications will be approved in spite of the public’s hopes and concerns.

It is not a lack of planning permissions that underpins our decades-long failure to address our nation’s housing needs, however, and these measures will do nothing to build the hundreds of thousands of council houses we need. Whitehall is also not the best place to define which planning decisions are important enough for local democratic scrutiny; it is our local councils that have the knowledge and understanding of their communities needed to inform that choice.

I absolutely accept that years of incoherent tinkering have created a planning system that is no longer fit for purpose. It is procedurally complex, it does not secure public support for future development, it does not build the affordable homes we need, and it is producing poor-quality, unsustainable outcomes—but making more decisions behind closed doors will not remedy any of that.

Some may argue that this measure represents a shift towards a rules-based planning system by taking democratic discretion out of the equation, but the irony is that it is the decades-long deregulation of our planning system and the ever-growing focus on developer-led, speculative applications for building new housing that make the application of discretionary scrutiny essential. If we wanted a truly rules-based system, we would focus on reform that puts powers in the hands of local communities to decide for themselves through a genuinely co-designed local plan where, how and in what way their housing needs could be met.

To conclude, this is a bad piece of legislation that will do nothing to help our constituents off housing waiting lists or to secure public consent for development in this country. It will hang like an albatross around the Government’s neck. The public anger about and resistance to damaging and speculative plans put forward by profiteering land promoters and developers will not disappear if this legislation comes into force; it will simply be redirected to target the planning officers who will have to enact it, the Members of Parliament who allowed democracy to be quietly killed off in a Committee Room, and Labour Ministers every time a councillor has to explain to their residents that they can no longer publicly scrutinise and challenge inappropriate development because this Government abandoned their own best traditions and stripped them of their rights.

All that the statutory instrument will achieve is more polarisation and yet further erosion of trust in our political system, so I urge the Committee to reject these proposals. I urge the Government to choose a different course that recognises communities as a positive force to be empowered and that focuses on securing the highest-quality development plans to win genuine social licence to build, rather than trying to silence opposition to the development of unhappiness given physical form, which has already done so much damage to our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments that I have just made. The impact assessment for the Act was published on the basis of a particular scenario, which we have modified. We need to update the impact assessment and we will do so in due course so that he has a better sense of the impact.

The impact is tangible and real, in terms of what can go through schedule 2. We also anticipate that it will mean less time and resource spent on preparing for committee meetings for smaller applications in schedule 1, so it will speed up the decision-making process more broadly and free up important officer time to focus on larger applications that have a real impact on housing delivery.

Several hon. Members mentioned councillors’ ability to call in applications, which we are removing. The regulations do not require local authorities to put every schedule 2 application through the gateway test. It will be for individual local planning authorities to put in place their own arrangements for how the consideration of cases for referral to committee will operate in practice. In other words, it will be open to individual LPAs to triage their schedule 2 applications in ways that are appropriate for them so that only certain schedule 2 applications are considered by the nominated officer and member. Under those arrangements, it would be open to a local planning authority to include a mechanism for councillors to ask for applications that fall under schedule 2 to be considered under the gateway test, and if they meet that test they can be looked at by committee.

[Chris Hinchliff]

Is that not potentially reintroducing the same level of discretion and difference across the country if local planning authorities choose to use those powers in different ways?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not believe so, because local planning authority schemes must adhere to planning regulations and meet the gateway test—in the sense of what can pass a committee—and the statutory guidance to which they must have regard. In a sense, we want to ensure that applications passing through the gateway and considered by committees are larger, complex and more controversial cases, and that less significant applications are determined by planning officers.

That leads me to the legal obligations on officers. In a sense, the question has been put to me, “Can we trust local planning officers to make these decisions?” I must make it clear that officers working for local authorities are bound by strict requirements in the way they make decisions on applications. They must, by law, take all material considerations into account, including relevant parts of a local plan—that is why having an up-to-date local plan in place is so significant—and national planning policy. The law also requires their decisions to be rational. Planning officers’ actions must adhere to codes of conduct, be they those of the local planning authority or of the professional institutes to which they belong. Taken together, we think that these measures provide strong safeguards to underpin the integrity of decisions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to help ensure that housing associations improve the quality of social housing.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

22. What steps he is taking to improve standards for social housing.

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

Alongside our commitment to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, the Government are determined to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing. To that end, we have begun the implementation of Awaab’s law, introduced a new, modernised decent homes standard, updated minimum energy efficiency standards and directed the Regulator of Social Housing to set new standards relating to the competence and conduct of social housing staff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Social landlords are held to regulatory standards that are overseen by the regulator. I am sorry to hear about the experience of John and Barbara and others. If the hon. Lady would like to write to me with details about the case, I will happily look into it.

[Chris Hinchliff]

More social housing is essential but, as Members across the House will know, increasingly distant housing associations are often far too quick to put up fees and far too slow to tackle damp, mould and disrepair. What more will the Minister do to ensure that future public funding comes with clear strings attached to require better standards for our constituents?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Registered providers of social housing, whoever they are, must address non-decency wherever it exists and must do so in a timely and professional manner. Where there are concerns that an RP is not delivering against the required regulatory standards, as I just mentioned, referrals can be made to the regulator, and the regulator has robust enforcement powers that allow it to take effective action when serious failings are identified.

Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am completely disappointed with myself for not wishing the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a happy birthday today. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is why his question was allowed to be a little bit longer than usual, but hopefully it will not be next time.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I welcome this statement. The public must have confidence that political decisions are made in their interests, not those of wealthy donors. Nowhere is that more important than in relation to the housing crisis, where there are also significant concerns that vested interests are seeking to exert significant influence on policy making. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss my proposed amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to ban developers from donating to politics and restore trust in our planning system?

[Steve Reed]

I am more than happy to make sure that my hon. Friend gets an appropriate meeting. I also belatedly wish the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a happy birthday.

New Towns

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

The Government’s determination to deliver a new generation of new towns, with everything residents will need for a thriving and fulfilling life, offers a much more hopeful solution to the housing crisis in this country than the proliferation of overpriced and characterless bolt-on estates thrown up by profiteering developers in recent years. As Ministers press on with those plans, I would like to highlight some of what can be learned from the radical and transformative history of previous such projects.

The development of new towns in this country grew out of the garden city movement. The very first and best garden city in the world is Letchworth Garden City in my constituency—I will not take any interventions on that. The principles on which Letchworth was founded offer several lessons that I believe should inform the plans for future new towns.

First, the land on which those towns will be constructed, and the large rural green belt that the residents will need for healthy recreation and supply of food, should be brought into common ownership. That was always central to securing Ebenezer Howard’s vision of the best of countryside and city life, and it means encouraging industry to access cheap sites, keeping housing affordable by capturing rising land values, and using ground rents to fund community assets. To this day, the fact that Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation continues to have a substantial property portfolio allows it to invest in and subsidise many facilities that enrich life in the town, including the Garden City Greenway, the Broadway cinema, and Standalone farm. So lesson No. 1 is that the development corporations for the next generation of new towns must be empowered to purchase all the land that they need at current use value, through compulsory purchase orders if necessary.

Secondly, we must always remember that garden cities were never just about the supply of housing. From the outset, Letchworth was always envisioned as a way of bringing employment and industry to a depressed rural economy. In short, new towns need a purpose, not just a housing target to hit. Communities thrive and grow around the industries that define them, and without that, new towns will never escape the dismal fate of becoming little more than a commuter dormitory. As we build the new towns of the future, we must be clear from the outset about what the economic anchor institutions of those communities will be. Whether they are new university towns, born, as Cambridge was, of the desire of scholars to set up a fresh seat of learning to rival those of the past, or new industrial sites for green technology, we must ensure that there is a clear economic identity defining future new towns.

Thirdly, in an era in which a tiny proportion of our homes are designed by architects—the Royal Institute of British Architects has estimated that just 6% of homes are—we should strive to match the optimism of the garden city movement, which sought to prove that beautiful, bright and well-built homes could be made affordable for ordinary people. To this day, the arts and crafts-inspired architecture of Letchworth makes it an incredibly special place. As we build the next new towns, we should suffuse them with the same values, and the same determination to provide genuinely affordable homes, alongside constant proof that life is beautiful. That means commissioning architects to shape unique and inspiring local vernaculars that create a special identity for each town. It means embracing aesthetics and ornamentation, as well as functionality, and it means patient public capital investment over the long term, above all in a high proportion of desperately needed council homes for social rent.

In the context of the Office for Environmental Protection’s warning that we are largely off target for the UK’s environmental commitments, it is absolutely crucial that future new towns follow the garden city model of development in harmony with nature. Letchworth was built without cutting down a single mature tree, and there is no reason why we cannot do the same now. Similarly, we must match the importance given, in garden city principles, to a well-protected green belt. Green belt secures permanent and easy access for the inhabitants of new towns to the peace and joy of the countryside next door that is teeming with wildlife.

Finally, while not all of Ebenezer Howard’s vision ultimately came to fruition—like all towns, Letchworth faces its own challenges today—the strength of community that Letchworth continues to foster, nearly 125 years after it was founded, should shape the policies that we pursue as we support the new towns to come. From Decarbonise Letchworth to the Wilbury community café and the Friends of Norton Common, the ordinary residents of Letchworth are a constant source of energy, passion and determination to tackle the challenges that we face as a society, from environmental collapse to loneliness and the cost of living. The Labour Government should foster and embrace these grassroots movements by combining new towns with a new drive to put power back in the hands of ordinary people.

To give new communities the ability to shape their lives and their area in a way that meets their hopes for the future, we need a new charter of community rights. Fortunately, the amendment that I tabled to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill to do just that has recently been re-tabled in the other place, providing the Government with an excellent opportunity to rectify their oversight in failing to adopt the charter when I first brought the proposal to this House.

Designed to put power back in the hands of ordinary people, the charter for community rights offers a starting point for restoring popular agency in our democracy, which I believe is an essential ingredient to getting new towns right. We are talking about the right to a clean and healthy environment, to a healthy home, to play, to grow food on public sector land, to roam and swim, to participate in decisions shaping communities, and to challenge local decisions. Adopting the charter for community rights is the final ingredient in ensuring that this Government’s new towns are genuine communities, capable of nurturing social life and cohesion from the outset. That should be an objective that we can all share.

National Plan to End Homelessness

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I think I have responded a number of times on our ambitions for social housing and mixed communities. On section 21, the right hon. Member will have noted that we are investing more in this year to help councils respond to the crisis that we face now, as well as having long-term objectives.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s work on this important subject. Just after we came into office, Ministers committed from the Dispatch Box to a revolution in council house building. I have welcomed and noted the Minister’s statements on social housing, but she will be aware that there are growing concerns around an increasing corporate ethos in housing associations, many of which have a mixed record at best. I have heard directly from constituents about the stark contrast in security of tenure between when they were living in a council house home and now, when it is owned by a housing association. Given that Shelter estimates that nearly 400,000 people are currently homeless across the country, will the Minister set out what the Government will do to deliver that council housing revolution in constituencies such as mine?

[Alison McGovern]

Housing associations will have heard the comments that my hon. Friend has made. I am sure that they all aspire to treat their residents with the utmost respect and care, but they will have heard what he has said and will want to ensure that they fulfil that ambition.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon]

No I do not—not fully; I will return to that answer in more detail in a couple of moments.

As a prime example of what more could have been done, the Bill could have addressed the democratic deficit it creates. It strips powers away from elected councillors and gifts them to unelected planning officers, as well as giving more powers to the Secretary of State. That, of course, is just the tip of the iceberg when we consider the clear contempt shown for local democracy as the Government prepare to cancel yet another round of local elections. The Bill also fails to support both those building and buying homes—no amount of centralisation in the Bill will counter the Chancellor’s failure to meaningfully support growth and cut costs. This is despite clear warnings from the Home Builders Federation that the Government must provide help for first-time buyers and reduce taxes on new homes if they are to achieve anything close to the tally of 1.3 million homes by the end of the decade that was predicted by the Office for Budget Responsibility in March.

Let me turn to nature—something I know many MPs have received emails about. The Bill still lacks the clarity and the answers that nature lovers seek to legitimate questions about how we reconcile the delivery of new homes and infrastructure with the need to protect our natural environment. This is most evident when we consider the Government’s focus on removing legal protections on green-belt land. Ripping up the green belt is not the answer, which is why my colleagues and I have called for the swifter redevelopment of brownfield sites. This is not least because, according to CPRE, in a substantial number of local authorities there is enough brownfield land with planning permission to meet the targets set by the Government’s standard method for calculating housing need for at least the next five years. This is something that the Bill and this Government have failed to explore. Across two Secretaries of State, several junior Ministers and almost a year of parliamentary time, the Government have pushed these measures through using their majority, but without using their common sense.

Many provisions in the Bill still leave the market, home buyers, developers and local communities wanting. The triple blow—with a Chancellor running our economy into the ground while hiking taxes and a Government cutting demand-side policies to support first-time buyers—has left the country without a clear pathway to the lofty promise of 1.5 million homes. Don’t just take my word for it: throughout this process, the OBR, the Home Builders Federation, the National Federation of Builders, Britain Remade, the Countryside Alliance, Professor Paul Cheshire, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and many more industry experts and organisations, have raised concerns, either about the Bill or about the Government’s ability to meet their housing target more widely.

The Government had the chance to fix this Bill, to support infrastructure projects, to back community voices and to deliver the homes that the British people need, but they have not done so. The Housing Minister recently declined to rule out further planning legislation in this Parliament. If that comes to pass, let us hope that next time, he and his colleagues listen to industry, the voices in this House and our local communities, and do what he knows to be right.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I am not certain whether I or the Minister will be more relieved at the conclusion of debates on this legislation. I welcome the fact that the Minister has tabled an amendment to the remaining proposal from the other place; I support Government amendment (a), and welcome the additional parliamentary scrutiny it brings. Once again, this legislation is in a better place than it was the last time it came in front of us, and I welcome the fact that Ministers have committed to environmental delivery plans being initially focused on nutrient neutrality and that further EDPs will be preceded by a statement in this House presenting the evidence for them.

I want to reflect briefly on further evidence that has come before us since our last debate on the Bill. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has published an assessment of England’s biodiversity that found substantially more indicators of our nature in decline than going in the right direction. The Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sit, published its report on environmental sustainability and housing growth in which it called for an end to “lazy” narratives and scapegoating of nature. New polling has also found that more than two thirds of voters think politicians are out of touch with the public’s values on nature.

We are still a long way from a planning system that delivers genuinely affordable homes and social justice, values democracy and reverses the decline of England’s nature. I hope that, with the conclusion of this Bill, we can move forward to some more positive progress.

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

When the Bill was presented to the House, the Liberal Democrats outlined three main concerns: accountability to Parliament, accountability to communities and accountability for our environment. Lords amendment 33 would address—to an extent—accountability to local communities and the importance of their role in planning, but it does not go as far as we would like. We are disappointed with the thrust of the legislation, which takes powers away from planning committees and gives them to the Secretary of State. We continue to oppose that measure, but we welcome the Government’s compromise in the form of amendment (a), which gives Parliament some say over those regulations. We will not oppose it.

Planning committees are important to all the key aspects of planning, including national policy statements for the biggest projects in the country, and I recognise that the Minister has reached agreement with the Chairs of the Select Committees on how national policy statements will be drafted. Planning Committees are also important to nature. Local people know their natural and local environment best and are best placed to understand it and make decisions about it. Lords amendment 33 would therefore be particularly important.

The Liberal Democrats are bitterly disappointed that the Conservatives did not support our efforts and amendments to include in the Bill statutory protection for chalk streams. I urge the Minister to follow up on his commitment to ensure that chalk streams appear in the national planning policy framework, and in its glossary, as an irreplaceable habitat. It is really important that these vital habitats, which we must protect, are established as an irreplaceable habitat. The UK has 85% of the world’s unique chalk streams.

As I said, local communities know their environment best, and they are best placed to help deliver on the environmental delivery plans. We are concerned that the environmental delivery plans are being given to Natural England, which will act as a decision maker, fee taker, and judge, jury and executioner—without necessarily leaving a role for some small companies such as those in my constituency that have been delivering phosphate credits successfully and enabling development to go forward. I hope that the Minister and the Government will enable a continuing role for small and medium-sized enterprises in this field. It is vital that it is not just left to the monolith of Natural England to deal with that—in part because it is not very good at it. In 2022, it committed to releasing 40,000 homes with phosphate credits in the first year of its activity, but so far it has delivered only 4,000 homes under that programme. It is not necessarily most practical to assume that Natural England will dig us out of this crisis.

The Liberal Democrats want to work constructively with the Government. We want environmental delivery plans to succeed, and to deal robustly with nutrient neutrality and phosphate pollution. We want to see the pollution in the Somerset levels and moors special protection area dealt with successfully through an EDP, but that must involve local communities and local companies and businesses, which are already doing really strong work in this field.

This is not the Bill that we would have introduced. We believe that what is needed to build the homes the country needs is a massive council home and social home building programme. We propose 150,000 homes per year, with that being the focus of delivery, without watering down the planning process or the planning system, or removing the rights of communities as the Bill sadly does. However, we will work constructively with the Government on the Bill’s implementation. We are pleased to have won, through my noble Friend Baroness Parminter in the other place, an amendment to the Bill, via the Government, on the mitigation hierarchy so that nature is placed at the top of the tree in such decisions. We welcome the changes to the Bill so far and will not seek to divide the House on the motion.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I have tabled new clause 13 to address a slight oversight in this Bill—namely, that despite its title, it does not give communities any substantially new powers. The strengthening of the tools that local people have at their disposal to purchase assets of community value is certainly very welcome—yes, it is progress—but it is not fundamentally new. New clause 13 is intended to fill in this minor, accidental absence with a requirement on the Secretary of State to report on progress towards, and set out plans to deliver, a new charter of community rights containing seven key elements: a right to a clean and healthy environment; a right to a healthy home; a right to play; a right to grow food on public sector land; a right to roam and swim; a right to participate in decisions shaping communities; and a right to challenge local decisions.

Designed to put power back in the hands of ordinary people, the charter offers a starting point to restore popular agency in our democracy. Each of the seven rights contained within it is based on clear legal proposals, and each builds on long-standing demands that stretch back into England’s history. I will briefly take them in turn. After years of scandals, with ordinary people powerless to stop sewage being pumped into local rivers or their children being poisoned by the air they breathe, the right to a clean environment would give every community the power to challenge proposals that threaten to impose pollution on them.

Similarly, the right to a healthy home would put an end to an era in which permitted development rights have been used to create the slums of the future by housing the most vulnerable in society without adequate space, security, fire safety or proper ventilation. With this right, communities could require that new housing delivers the basics of a happy, healthy life, with plenty of natural light, access to green space and comfort in all weathers.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that housing is a key determinant of public health, and that we should see a right to decent housing as a crucial part of any civilised society?

[Chris Hinchliff]

I absolutely agree.

The freedom to go out the front door and play in the street or near home is no longer part of many children’s lives, as it used to be. The right to play would reverse the trend of estates being full of signs shouting, “No” and “Do not”, with more space given to car parking than to playgrounds for kids. It would empower communities to ensure that streets are designed to be safe for children, so that they are no longer stuck indoors.

Ever since landowners in the 18th and 19th centuries privatised 7 million hectares of common land that was once shared by ordinary people, the ability to grow one’s own healthy food has been a distant dream for the millions. The right to grow food on public land would unleash the power of grassroots growers, who are currently held back by bureaucracy, to turn parcels of unloved land across our communities into oases of food and wildlife.

Similarly, while most of England is still owned by a handful of aristocrats, oligarchs and corporations, the vast majority of people are prevented from enjoying the glories of vast swathes of England’s countryside. The right to roam and swim would finally recognise that this land is our land, and give everyone the confidence to reconnect with nature by enjoying a responsible ramble or a dip in their local river.

Finally, the right to participate in and challenge decisions would level the playing field between communities, who care deeply about their local area, and the interests of profit-seeking developers. This right would ensure that the voices of ordinary people are properly heard and that they can appeal decisions, just as developers can, so that local councils always listen seriously to both sides, rather than acceding to the whims of overmighty corporations.

I hope the Minister will see that new clause 13 would help ensure that this Bill goes as far as possible in restoring power, hope and optimism to our communities. I look forward to hearing her response.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

When people get in a taxi or a cab, they want to know that they will be safe, that the vehicle is safe, that the driver has had training in a range of different situations, that their specific access needs or disabilities will be recognised and supported, and that they will be treated with respect. Of course, the vast majority of drivers treat their passengers with respect and their vehicles are safe, but passengers want to know that should they have any concerns or complaints, there is a transparent and accountable method for these to be dealt with, and that they know the name and unique number of the taxi operator and the driver, should they need it.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I will focus my comments on Lords amendment 38. I have heard from many constituents who are deeply concerned about the potential environmental impact of this Bill and how it might affect the River Itchen, the precious chalk stream that runs through my constituency of Eastleigh. The River Itchen is a site of special scientific interest and a special area of conservation, but despite these designations, it has been subjected to repeated sewage discharges by Southern Water, threatening its delicate ecosystems and putting species at risk. We have incredible natural habitats that are being destroyed because existing protections have failed. Indeed, in the latest Environment Agency assessment, Southern Water was handed a two-star rating after causing a shocking 269 pollution incidents last year, including 15 classified as serious.

According to the 2024-25 chalk stream annual review, 83% of England’s chalk streams are failing to achieve good ecological status, which is disgraceful. That is why Lords amendment 38 is so important to my constituents and to communities across the country who live alongside these extraordinary habitats. There is no reason why we cannot have a thoughtful planning process that protects our precious natural environment and delivers the social and affordable housing that our communities desperately need, with the infrastructure to support it. We have an opportunity to show that development and environmental responsibility are not competing interests, but shared objectives. By embedding these principles in the Bill, we can address the housing crisis while simultaneously protecting our rivers, habitats and green spaces.

Lords amendment 38 would establish much-needed new protections for chalk streams and impose a responsibility on strategic planning authorities to enhance chalk stream environments. I saw the urgent need to address this issue when I visited with representatives of the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust this summer, when I was able to test the water quality of the River Itchen. With the help of experts, we saw at first hand the very low levels of biodiversity and high nitrate levels. I fully support the proposition that spatial development strategies must list chalk streams in their strategic area, and safeguard them from irreplaceable damage by outlining clear measures to protect from environmental harm.

Greater and appropriate consideration for our chalk streams is long overdue. I welcome the fact that, under Lords amendment 38, local spatial development strategies would vary according to the needs of the particular area, allowing strategies to set different balancing points between local conservation and development needs in different places. It is disappointing that the Government are unwilling to retain the amendment. Will the Minister instead commit to strengthening existing planning mechanisms and ensure that water companies are held to account, so that chalk streams are protected? This is such an important issue for my constituents, and anything less than a cast-iron guarantee is not good enough.

People across the country deeply value and treasure our natural environment. We need to deliver the housing and infrastructure that are vital for our communities, but let us not treat our chalk streams, wildlife and habitats as an afterthought.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the Climate and Nature Crisis Caucus.

At the outset of my contribution to today’s debate on this important legislation, there are a few general points that are probably worth reiterating. There need be no conflict between house building and nature; the real conflict is between greed and the sort of country we want to build. After 20 years of planning deregulation, time and again we see profiteering trumping public need and the protection of the countryside; cost cutting where communities deserve quality; and low-density, high-price housing while families wait for council homes.

Since we last debated the Bill in this place, Key Cities has published a very useful report, which highlights that in a survey of its members, only 6% cited the planning system as the primary obstacle to house building. More than twice that figure pointed to developer delays, so I hope that we will shortly see similarly major Government legislation to tackle the profiteering developers that are blocking the delivery of genuinely affordable housing in this country.

The recent announcement of plans for towns built within a new forest shows that good development and nature recovery can go hand in hand, and we must go further. A democratic programme of mass council house building could easily avoid the clashes that so often mark the developer-led system. What is needed are well-funded councils with the power to assemble land and identify the best sites for new homes—building not grey estates that are shaped by the defeatism of low expectations, but cohesive, thriving communities that are built for life to flourish. That is the solution to the housing crisis and would create a country that puts people and nature before profit.

I welcome the several important amendments tabled by the Government in the other place. In my view, the most important is the stronger overall improvement test for nature recovery, which I campaigned for on Report. It is very good news that these amendments have substantially allayed the concerns of the Office for Environmental Protection. Nevertheless, it is clear that environmental experts and conservationists continue to have some concerns, which the other place has sought to address through Lords amendments 40 and 38 in particular.

Our Labour Government were elected on a clear manifesto promise to reverse the nature crisis in this country, so it is essential we get this right. That is particularly urgent for our endangered species and irreplaceable habitats, including chalk streams such as the Rib, Beane, Ivel and Mimram, which criss-cross North East Hertfordshire and bring joy to so many people’s lives. I genuinely welcome the comments that the Minister has made to allay the concerns of nature experts, and I will dedicate my remaining time to a few short questions that I hope he can address in his wind-up.

First, given the need for legal certainty, can the Minister confirm that the overall improvement test will guarantee that irreplaceable habitats and species cannot be covered by EDPs, and if so, will the Government set out a list of environmental features that they consider would be irreplaceable?

Secondly, can the Minister confirm whether any EDPs are currently under consideration or development by Natural England, or proposed by the Government? If so, will any of them be affected if Lords amendment 40 remained part of the Bill?

Thirdly, will the Minister give confidence to the many constituents of North East Hertfordshire worried about potential impacts on the wildlife we love by once again putting on record that the Government recognise the difference between diffuse landscape issues such as nutrient pollution, where strategic scale action is best suited for nature restoration, and protected sites and species that cannot easily be recreated elsewhere?

Fourthly, given the widespread interest in this Bill shown by many of our constituents and by the wider nature sector, will the Minister consider providing further transparency and accountability through a Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 40 to ensure parliamentary approval of EDPs beyond diffuse issues such as air, water and newts?

Fifthly, given that the “Catchment Based Approach” annual review published this autumn found that a third of chalk streams do not have a healthy flow regime, that over-abstraction due to development pressures is one of the main threats facing these crown jewels of our natural heritage and that there are currently no planning policies specifically protecting chalk streams, can the Minister set out in more detail how the Government foresee planning authorities being able to direct inappropriate development away from struggling chalk streams within the process of setting spatial development strategy plans, and would he consider opportunities for this through regulation, if not through the Bill?

Sixthly, will the Minister provide further certainty from the Dispatch Box about ensuring that chalk streams are specifically added to the national planning policy framework as an irreplaceable habitat, and will he set out when this might happen given that an update of those provisions has been delayed since 2023?

Seventhly, as one reason put forward for Lords amendment 40 is that it would mitigate concerns about the weakening of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, what reassurances can the Minister give my constituents that these iconic animals will not be at risk from widespread licences to kill in EDPs paid for by developers in the absence of Lords amendment 40?

Eighthly, can the Minister confirm whether the Government have assessed the potential impact of proposed biodiversity net gain exemptions on the private finance for nature markets that will be essential for the delivery of EDPs?

Ninthly and finally, can the Minister reassure those who have raised concerns that the current legislation may allow money committed to the natural restoration fund to be redirected to other purposes?

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that I like to start on a positive note and by looking for common ground, so I will begin by recognising and welcoming the fact that the Government have made some concessions in the other place on this Bill, which is a positive step. Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the Minister’s claim that this is a win-win for nature and housing, and express my continued concern that the Bill, especially part 3, has not had the full reconsideration it needs to ensure we have a genuine win-win. The reason, unfortunately, is that the Government seem to be stuck in the view that there is a zero-sum game between nature protection and house building. That is wrong and unhelpful; it is a complete misconception. Despite making some concessions, the Government lost a lot of trust among the general public by claiming at the outset of the Bill’s progress that they would do no harm to nature protection. The Government were forced to reconsider and recognise, not least by their own official adviser, that that was not in fact the case.

Property Service Charges

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)]

The scandal of property service charges is one of the most unjust, indefensible and generally enraging issues facing my constituents. In many cases, the charges amount to little more than a form of parasitic exploitation of ordinary people by absentee landlords and businesses. It has been allowed to fester for far too long.

Across the country, 5 million people are trapped in a broken system that leaves them beholden to obscure, often overseas companies with a licence to cream off their hard-earned earnings with almost complete impunity. They have got away with it for years because leaseholders simply cannot effectively challenge this unfairness. As so often in Britain today, wealth is translated directly into power and ordinary people are left without any sense of agency over something as basic as their month to month finances.

The issue of unfair and arbitrary property service charges is impacting every corner of North East Hertfordshire, from Royston to Tewin and from Baldock to Buntingford. There are fleecehold estates where constituents have purchased a new build property under freehold conditions but found they are

“hostages to the whims and desires of service companies who can charge any amount of service fee they wish and without redress”,

making a mockery of the notion of freehold. There are housing association tenants paying eye-watering fees, yet left with neglected and inadequate services; residents in retirement accommodation facing extortionate maintenance costs that leave families struggling to pay care fees and trapped with properties that have little resale value; and leaseholders facing huge hikes in service charges by freeholders, yet seeing little evidence of the maintenance they are supposedly paying for. One constituent put the experience plainly:

“They are committing service charge abuse”

and

“they are making people’s lives miserable.”

I have previously criticised privatised water companies and housing developers for raking in vast profits despite substandard delivery, but in many ways they pale in comparison with the sheer audacity of the leasehold scandal.

These are issues rooted in feudal concepts of property ownership, and those trapped paying these fees, with next to no ability to challenge or escape them, are in effect still suffering from a form of economic serfdom where those with the right title deeds can levy private taxes on ordinary people that bear practically no relation to services rendered. Nearly 1,000 years after William’s conquest, I think the English have suffered under this Norman yoke quite enough.

The Government’s own Competition and Markets Authority found

“no persuasive evidence that consumers receive anything in return”

for the ground rents they pay. In communities like Letchworth, that rings painfully true. We should all welcome the Government’s recent victory in the High Court over wealthy private interests who threw millions at trying to block vital reforms. I also welcome Ministers’ commitment to finishing the job of reforming leasehold. I look forward to supporting further steps to end this scandal once and for all.

The solution is clear: municipal estate ownership and the ability to move to commonhold as quickly as is reasonably possible. Home ownership should mean owning the bricks and mortar and should come with a sense of freedom, not exposure to exploitation. No one should be left behind as we put this injustice to bed.

I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight the broader campaign for a charter of community empowerment. Many of its principles are relevant to the debate. If the Government are to achieve that historic Labour mission of redistributing not just wealth but power into the hands of the majority, in today’s context that must mean trusting that ordinary people are more capable of upkeeping their own estates and managing their homes fairly than offshore firms or the landowning aristocracy.

For once, I will not rain down a series of detailed demands on the Minister, as I know he faces a complex legal situation left by the previous Administration. Today I want only to urge him to cut this Gordian knot in this Parliament and give my constituents a straight- forward way out of being forever tied to service fees by unaccountable companies. The economic benefits to our high streets, which are desperately needed in villages and market towns such as those I represent, would be enormous, as thousands of families across the country found their disposable income no longer slashed every month by charges that cannot be justified.

The resistance that the Government have faced from the freehold lobby, clinging desperately to their ill-gotten gains and the sacred right to turn hard-working people into cash cows, should only renew our sense of urgency. I am sure that we will see more appeals and outcry from vested interests—the Government should know the Labour party and millions outside this place are united behind them.

After the High Court’s ruling, the Residential Freehold Association warned that the decision

“opens the door for Government to intervene in markets far beyond the leasehold sector”—

in other words, the terrible spectre that democracy may be empowered to secure the public good before private profit. As my constituents lose out in an economy rigged against ordinary people—one that rewards wealthy property owners and unearned income rather than those who go out and work for a living—I say, quite simply: I hope it is right.