Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Dan Tomlinson Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman says “only up to 1%”, but given the international situation, this country should be producing its own food, and that land should be protected. He may need to catch up, because I understand that the NFU now wants the Bill to go further and completely ban solar panels on high-quality land. I suggest that he speaks to the NFU again, and then comes back to this House and backs new clause 39. The NFU speaks up for our farmers, so we should listen if it is not happy with what is in the Bill. Instead of giving me a quote from a former NFU employee, the hon. Gentleman should listen to the NFU’s current leadership, and then maybe change his comments.

[Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member believe that farmers are able to choose how best to use their land?

[Paul Holmes]

Of course I believe that farmers know how to make best use of their land, but this Government are taking power away from farmers, whether by increasing the power to issue compulsory purchase orders for land that farmers want to use to produce food, or by reducing the money that they will get from the CPOs that the Government are advocating for. Farmers see more and more agricultural land being taken out of use. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill and the measures that the Minister is bringing forward, which undermine our farmers and stop them from being able to do the job that they want to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)]

The Bill before the House has the potential to be one of the most pro-growth pieces of legislation passed by this place for decades and to transform our country for the better, but the amendments proposed will blunt its impact and make us all worse off. We should reject them for the prosperity of our constituents and the future of our country.

Every day in this place has to be about our constituents and the lives they lead. In Chipping Barnet, time and again I see the impact of our failure to build homes. Take Maryam—a victim of domestic violence and mother of a seven-year-old, working a zero-hours contract. She found herself with nowhere suitable to live to the point that she was living in a car. Or take Hayley—a wheelchair user living in a property that is not accessible for her. Due to a lack of available housing that is appropriate for her, she is often housebound because she simply cannot leave her home without support.

These are the stories of Britain today, but it does not need to be like this. This Bill gives us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix many of the things holding our country back. For too long, we have not built enough in this country, and we are paying a huge price for that. Under-investment in our homes and infrastructure has made us all worse off, both financially and socially, living in homes that skewer the prospect of a good life. That is why I do not support the Opposition amendments.

I also do not support amendment 69 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which sadly misses the mark. Labour was elected on a manifesto that sought to prioritise growth and making people better off. The Bill demonstrates how that is possible, alongside improved protections for nature. The nature restoration fund is a genuine win-win, but its successful and timely implementation is put at risk by the amendment.

[Ellie Chowns]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will make a bit more progress.

Let us take the example of nutrient neutrality. It is estimated that no fewer than 160,000 homes across the country have been blocked by Natural England on that basis. That is because on-site mitigation on a site-by-site basis is often virtually impossible, and those homes remain stalled. The environmental delivery plans that Natural England will produce will mean that rather than homes being held up by those rules, the very issues causing nutrient neutrality challenges can be addressed in a strategic way—better for building, for nature and for people. EDPs take the challenge of nutrient neutrality seriously and mean that builders can get stalled sites built, providing much-needed new homes.

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

My hon. Friend may have slightly confused the point of amendment 69, which is merely to address the concerns raised by the Office for Environmental Protection and to ensure that the nature restoration fund works to deliver exactly the points that he describes with the right nature protection.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will come to the point my hon. Friend raises in a second.

If the amendment were adopted, the homes that have been blocked to date would continue to be blocked, and vast numbers would face unacceptable delays or, indeed, never be built. What would happen under the amendment, as we can interpret it, is that we would first have to wait for the EDP to be drafted, for the relevant funding to be secured and for the funding to be distributed to the relevant farmers or others who can help with the mitigation. The works would then have to take place; the impact of the mitigation would have to be monitored; and the monitoring would then have to conclude that it had been a success before any new homes in an area could be built where nutrient neutrality is a concern.

[Chris Curtis]

Does the hon. Member agree that what he has just described would lead to more delays in the system, which would mean that more planning permissions were held up—something that Opposition Members have complained about? If the amendment were passed, the requirement would also add a lot more expense to the system, which would mean more viability problems and fewer social homes being built.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I agree with those points. It would also make it virtually impossible to meet our manifesto commitment, on which we were elected, to build the 1.5 million homes that we need over this Parliament.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Member knows that I am a big fan of his. He makes a speech about our and other amendments blocking the delivery of homes. Will he therefore criticise his Government, who have reduced the number of homes required in his constituency through reducing the number of houses being built in London under his mayor?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I expect the hon. Member knows that the housing targets have been reduced in London because of the additional premium that was put on by the previous Government just to make life more difficult for the Mayor of London, which we all know Conservatives love to do. We are trying to be reasonable and proportionate in the location of the new homes.

As I was saying, it is important for us to do all we can to ensure that we can hit our target of 1.5 million new homes. As much as I respect my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire and his work in this space, I hope his amendment will not command the support of the House today.

I know my hon. Friend and Members on both sides of the House are strong supporters of social housing, but without the unamended changes in the Bill, we will not get the social homes that we need to be built. People have spoken movingly about those living in temporary accommodation. I spent four years or so as a child living in emergency and temporary accommodation. I was homeless for a number of years. Back then—15 or 20 years ago—there were not that many young children who were homeless and in temporary accommodation. There are now 160,000 children—one in 21 children in London, one in every single class—in temporary accommodation. We cannot allow a system that fails both nature and those children to persist. I implore any colleagues thinking of voting for the amendment to think of those children and the vital homes that could be built, and built quickly and at pace.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I should make progress so that others can speak; my hon. Friend and I will have to talk later.

This Bill and this Government are all about the economic growth that ultimately is the route to more jobs, more opportunities and higher living standards—a better life for all of us in every part of the country. That is the potential of this Bill, and we must match the scale of the problem with the scale of our ambition. Britain’s economic decline has gone on for too long. Families are suffering with a crippling cost of living crisis, driven by high housing costs in many parts of the country and high energy bills everywhere. We just do not invest as a country; we do not build, and year after year we find ourselves surprised that we are worse off and that we are stuck in a doom loop from which no politicians in recent decades, if we are honest, have had the guts to pull us out.

We finally have a Government elected on a promise to wrest us from this decline, and legislation that takes steps in the right direction to do just that. Of course, there is more to do—much more—but this is a strong legislative start. For the prosperity of all our constituents, I hope the Bill passes unamended today.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of new clauses 43, 44, 52, 53 and 81, if I have time. Mid Bedfordshire is a fast-growing area and has accommodated more than its fair share of new homes in the past decade. Since 2012, the two districts that my constituency covers have delivered over 35,000 new homes, including the new town of Wixams. Yet this Government would have us believe that those people in my constituency who have seen housing growth outpace services, who are still waiting for the long-promised GP surgery, for train stations and for other infrastructure, and who fear that the character of their historic Ends villages is being lost, are all blockers because they are concerned about what more badly planned development would mean for the overstretched amenities and services in their area.

The Bill is an opportunity to lead. It is an opportunity not to pit blockers against builders but to deliver a system that turns blockers into builders. Regrettably, as it stands, the Bill will fail, but it does not have to fail. My new clause 52 would create a fairer way of managing new towns by reforming the new towns programme, which seems expressly designed to make local communities resent the towns foisted upon them. It would replace that new towns model with one that does not involve a double whammy of house building—currently, communities that want to do the right thing and build the houses that people need find every patch of countryside is hoovered up because the Government have added a new town on top of the developable area in their district.

My new clause 53 would close the loophole that allows planning authorities to grant developments on floodplains. That is a perfectly sensible and pragmatic position. People in Maulden in my constituency know all too well how bad development compounds the risk of flooding. They are honest hard-working people who want to enjoy the warm and dry homes that their hard work has paid for, but the Government are backing big-box developers, not them. The new clause would prevent developers from getting away high and dry with their profits while our constituents pay the price in flooded homes. New clause 44, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), would do the same by ensuring that where development does happen, developers must deliver and maintain sustainable urban drainage infrastructure. The current guidance is too vague and the current rules too lax to ensure that our residents are protected.

My Mid Bedfordshire constituency has lots of beautiful villages, but they are under threat from the creeping spread of urban sprawl that threatens to merge them into a conglomerate mass of development, which flies in the face of the historically gentle and natural evolution of our beautiful estate villages. I therefore endorse new clause 43 for its efforts to stop our beautiful villages from being lost to future generations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree.

Amendment 69 also mandates that improvements be delivered before harm occurs. Without that, we risk species being pushed closer to extinction before their habitats are replaced. Worst of all, the Bill still will not deliver the affordable homes we desperately need.

[Dan Tomlinson]

The explanatory statement to amendment 69 states:

“This amendment would require Environmental Delivery Plans to set out a timetable for, and thereafter report on, conservation measures, and require improvement of the…status…before development takes place in areas where Natural England”—

thinks there could be harm. How long does my hon. Friend think that that would take in the case of nutrient neutrality and a developer who wanted to build a new social home?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I do not have a specific answer to that point. I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer to that.

The Government’s own impact assessment provided no data that environmental protections are a blocker. Nature in the Bill is being scapegoated to distract from a broken developer-led model.

Local Government Finances: London

Dan Tomlinson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

Councils are at the coalface of politics and are leaders in delivery. From potholes to parks and parking, local councils deliver the things that we care about. For too long, our councils have been failed by central Government. They have been undervalued and underfunded.

In London, where councils receive 28% less funding per Londoner than they did in 2010, boroughs are now at crisis point. London’s housing emergency has pushed an estimated one in 50 Londoners into homelessness and pushed London councils into spending £4 million a day on temporary accommodation.

[Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)]

Barnet council now processes 10 homelessness applications every single day—more than double the number it was processing just two years ago. This, coupled with additional spending on educational needs and adult social care, is crippling councils’ budgets, much as council leaders will try to do the best they can by their local communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that that must change if we are to see a sustainable future for councils in outer London?

[Natasha Irons]

Of course I agree. It is imperative that we solve this crisis.

With overspends in children’s and social care services across London, seven London boroughs require exceptional financial support to balance their books, and Croydon council is one of them. As with councils across the country, poor decisions and failure in governance, mixed with chronic underfunding, saw the council issue its first section 114 notice in 2020.

As an outer-London borough with inner-London problems, Croydon has historically suffered from a financial settlement that does not reflect the demands on its services. The debt built up over successive administrations now costs the council £71 million a year to service, and it borrows £38 million of that from central Government. Although I appreciate that it is not something the Government can just write off, I urge them to work with Croydon council to restructure the debt and find a long-term solution to bring down the cost and its impact on day-to-day spending.

Debt is not Croydon council’s only challenge, because even if the debt were wiped out, it would still need to borrow an extra £65 million from the Government to balance its books. Although there are overspends in the areas that we would expect, such as children’s and adult social care, the council is also grappling with a number of neighbouring boroughs placing vulnerable people in temporary accommodation in Croydon while not funding the ongoing associated costs.

A massive 24% of people in temporary accommodation in Croydon have been placed there from outside the borough, with the highest number of placements coming from Lambeth, Lewisham and Bromley. With families often stuck in temporary accommodation for many months or even years, it falls to Croydon to pick up the further, ongoing costs with regard to demand-led services. With councils across London bidding for accommodation and social care placements in Croydon, the council is often forced into a bidding war to provide support for its own residents.

Will the Government look at funding London councils properly, and introduce measures such as including deprivation in the local government funding formula, or increasing the local housing allowance in line with inflation and removing the cap on how much councils can reclaim to cover the costs of temporary accommodation? Will they also consider ways to reduce profiteering in the marketplace for demand-led services, consider legislating to ensure that a home council continues to fund the costs of care when children are placed outside their home borough, and ensure that a family’s home council continues to fund the costs of placing homeless families outside the host borough? I ask because no one wins when councils are forced into this situation and pitted against one another.

If we want people to see and feel the change that they voted for, on their streets, in their communities and across this country, it is properly funded councils that can deliver that. If we want the services that communities rely on every day to be of the highest quality, it is properly funded councils that can make that happen. If we want to make it feel as if the lights have finally come on in this country, it is properly funded councils that can flip the switch.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

Last, but not least. It is a pleasure—less of a pleasure now, but it was a pleasure—to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I echo the points my colleagues have made about the unprecedented financial pressures on London councils. While we need to tackle temporary accommodation, the SEND crisis and much more—that is as true in Hillingdon as in any other borough—we also need to ensure the very best financial governance for local authorities.

Unfortunately, in Hillingdon, on top of those long-term pressures, we have seen short-termism and poor governance. A salami-slice approach to budgeting—taking off an extra per cent each year—and the failure to transform services and build the financial base of the council long term have all come home to roost, with the council now in financial crisis. We have seen that if we do not invest in new homes, we get temporary accommodation pressures. If we do not invest in early years and youth services, and close them instead, we get more pressures later in the education system. That is what has happened in Hillingdon.

We have the lowest reserves among our nearest neighbours. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy reported that we ran them down from £62 million in 2021 to £20 million in 2025.

[Dan Tomlinson]

In Barnet, we have around 85 care homes. Inner London boroughs such as Camden and Islington have around 20, yet the grant that inner London boroughs receive is around £3 million, whereas Barnet council and other outer London boroughs only get around £2 million. Does my hon. Friend think that that injustice in the funding formula is also causing issues for councils such as the one in the area he represents?

[Danny Beales]

I do—we have to consider the costs that outer London boroughs face, as well as London more generally. As has been said excellently by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), London is special; it is different, and it faces extra costs and pressures. That is the case right across London.

This very year, Hillingdon’s own financial officer wrote a damning cover report to the council’s budget, making it clear that the road is fast running out. They pointed to governance issues within the council and an inability to meet its own, less ambitious savings targets in previous years, compared with the projected future targets. My constituents have paid the price for that mismanagement—they are paying substantially more every single year, with fees and charges going up exponentially, and getting fewer services as a result.

I welcome the calls for extra long-term financial support for local government, which is much needed; however, we have to ensure as a Government that when we agree that extra long-term financial settlement, which hopefully we will, governance improvements are in place. This money should not be used to fix the cracks in the short term again, but should be used to fundamentally transform services, including the SEND system, the housing system, the social care system and many others. In some authorities, when times were slightly easier than they are today, that did not happen.

To sum up and echo my colleagues’ points, London councils are on their knees financially. As a Government, it is vital that we intervene, because local government is key—it is everyone’s front door to government and their community. We need to invest and we need long-term reform of services, including our education and housing systems, to provide the mixed, successful and financially sustainable communities we all want to see.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Dan Tomlinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

We would support that, as we did in a Westminster Hall debate very recently. We should be hearing such voices in the planning system, not shutting them out of the planning system.

On energy infrastructure, we welcome support for battery storage and improving access to the grid. Transmission connections are a huge source of delay—one of the biggest bottlenecks for renewable energy. But if we are to unblock that infrastructure, we need to go much further. All large-scale infrastructure projects, not just electricity transmission, should give people direct community benefit. Whether wind farm, solar farm, battery array or gas-fired power station, those living nearby should benefit through local investment or lower bills.

We also support the ambition to streamline planning for major projects, with exceptions on taking category 3 people out of compulsory purchase consultations. Let us note again who the real blockers were on these really big projects. They were not the people. It was nothing to do with local communities or the planning profession—I declare an interest as a member of the planning profession—and it was not councils. It was Ministers who left decisions lying on their desks, wrecking the timescales scrupulously followed by other parties in the process, so let us not blame people for politicians’ failures.

There are things to welcome in the Bill, but it hits the wrong target in many important areas, and this is where I must raise some more serious concerns. The detail provided in the changes to national infrastructure projects is good, but it is in real contrast to other areas of the Bill. There are many Henry VIII clauses that give sweeping powers to the Secretary of State and a democratic deficit is becoming a serious concern. For all that we welcome the aim to deliver homes, the Bill takes aim at communities, when we should be encouraging and empowering them to deliver and create the homes and places we want to see. I say again that racking up permissions—we already have a staggering 1.5 million homes without permission—will not ensure a single one gets built. We need to tackle the failure to build out of permissions granted by taking back the land or further limiting the lifetime of permissions. “Use it or lose it” needs to be the message.

Unless we deal with the supply chain issues and the lack of skills, we will have even more blockers on development.

[Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)]

How does the hon. Gentleman square his support for getting more homes built and helping children who are living in temporary accommodation with his opposition to 250 new homes in his constituency, which he announced online just this month?

[Gideon Amos]

I am absolutely delighted to be supporting thousands of new homes across my constituency. The population of my constituency has gone up almost 10% over the past 10 years and I have supported thousands of those new homes, as have my Liberal Democrat colleagues on the planning committee who voted through all those permissions. If occasionally a smaller development in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is not right, I would expect him to oppose it, just as I would in my constituency. I believe Members across the House have done so.

By giving more powers to communities, a community-led approach could actually increase supply. It is time, for example, to give councils the power to end Right to Buy in their areas. They cannot fill the bath, in terms of providing council houses and social homes, if the plug is taken out and they are forced to sell them off as they have done over the preceding decades. Through proper planning, we also want communities in control of how many holiday lets are allowed in their area, so that homes are not swallowed up that could otherwise increase the supply of affordable housing. That is not in the Bill and should be.

Mandating renewable energy such as solar panels on roofs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) articulately argued for, would put people and local communities in control of the bills coming from their pockets.

Growing our economy, sustaining nature and building new homes are not mutually exclusive. They can work together. There are so many examples of how they can work together. For example, decent gardens have more biodiversity than many rural areas. Community-led decisions very often bring the best results, with residents’ infrastructure needs addressed and development shaped around green spaces and sustainability. To unblock homes, the Government need to do two key things instead of taking aim at ordinary people: first, unlock the infrastructure we need, including GPs, transport, green spaces, green infrastructure and water connections; and, secondly, fund the social homes that have been so sorely lacking. Since social housing disappeared as a meaningful proportion of housing supply and social housing targets fell away, this country has never been able to keep pace with demand. Our target is 150,000 per year. I hope the Government will provide a target of their own for social homes; so far, nothing has been said on that either. Invest in those two things, as history has taught us, and the number of homes we could provide would be almost unlimited.

Meanwhile, in communities like my own—where the 2,000-home Orchard Grove development in the west of Taunton, which I support, is taking shape—the reality is that while many people want to see new GP surgeries, developments are held back by the fact that we often cannot get GPs to staff the surgeries where they are being built.

We want to see a Bill about communities leading in planning and development. Instead, the Bill is part of a growing trend that is taking powers away from local communities. It takes a big step in that direction by allowing the Secretary of State to override planning committees and enabling national schemes of delegation that allow Whitehall to dictate who makes decisions on a local council—another Henry VIII clause, giving Whitehall unlimited power to rewrite the standing orders and constitutions of councils up and down the country. That cannot possibly sit right with anybody who values our proud tradition of local government that is independent of central Government. Consultation is sidelined elsewhere, too. Sport England will no longer have a voice to protect playing fields, and people subject to compulsory purchase orders will no longer have the voice they had before.

If the Government believe that local is the problem and that planning committees are the blocker, let us take a quick look at the actual figures. Councils approve more than 85% of planning applications, with some studies putting that figure even higher—closer to 90%. Councillors of all parties are not blocking development; they are enabling 90% of permissions to go through.

Planning Committees: Reform

Dan Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I refute entirely the hon. Gentleman’s claim that the changes represent a loss of control. I encourage him to read the paper, which is about ensuring that decisions are taken by the right local, experienced—professional or elected—members as is appropriate. He and I have had this conversation about second homes many times before. He knows that we are looking and are interested in what additional powers we can give local communities to bear down on the negative impacts of excessive concentrations of short-term lets and second homes. We want to give local communities more power to tackle some of those problems, not less. The proposals in the working paper are in line with that general sentiment.

[Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his work on this and other areas to boost growth across the country for families in my constituency and elsewhere. I note that this weekend the Leader of the Opposition met her Canadian Conservative counterpart —a Conservative who has embraced planning reform and pro-growth measures and who is gaining rapidly in the polls, as far as I can see. Does he agree that it is interesting to see Conservative Members taking an entirely different approach, opposing sensible changes that would support growth in this country and sticking with chaos in the planning system, rather than stability, which is the foundation for economic growth?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right. These are sensible, proportionate changes to streamline the delivery of housing across the country—housing that we desperately need. If the Conservatives want to put their heads in the sand and resist reform in this area, all they will be doing is digging their long-term electoral grave. The people of this country want good homes and good neighbourhoods to live in. That is what we are determined to bring forward.