Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate. It is a truth universally acknowledged that an MP in possession of a majority, however big, must be in want of a debate, so I am full of admiration for the right hon. Gentleman staying tomorrow to debate Jane Austen in Westminster Hall. As for myself, I am hoping to get away before that, so this will be my last appearance before Christmas. I therefore take the opportunity to wish hon. Members, the House staff who look after us so amazingly well, the officials, yourself, Mr Twigg, and even the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) a very merry Christmas, although I know he would prefer that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) were here instead of me.

I say with some hesitation that I am hoping to go home before that, because it has been something of a week for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I am not quite sure how the Minister is still standing—he is sitting down now, but must need a break. Knowing the Minister’s prodigious amount of activity this week, perhaps tomorrow we will have three Bills and two White Papers coming out and I will be brought back here, but hopefully not. Yesterday, we were debating quarrying and planning—it was a blast. I did not know that I would be getting up and sitting down so many times on MCHLG business this week, but one could say that the Chairman of Ways and Means shapes our destinies, rough-hew them as we may.

I will move on to the more serious points of the debate about the cumulative impact of housing development. I fear that it is worse than the right hon. Member for East Hampshire surmises, because although I remember from my A-level economics that, in a perfect market, increasing supply should reduce price, we need to remember that in any locality in the country, we do not have a perfect market in house building. We have usually one supplier, maybe two, controlling the supply of homes to the market, drip-feeding them to sustain their prices. Any private house builder that went into business to reduce prices would rightly be punished by their shareholders. Putting private house builders in charge of reducing house prices is a bit like putting Herod in charge of childcare. As another seasonal reference, I am forced to consider what would be the cumulative impact of stables being used under permitted development for change of use to emergency temporary accommodation for young mothers.

The point that I think the right hon. Gentleman is really getting to with cumulative impact is the prolific number of permissions that are coming about outside the plan-led process. The plan-led process is so important because it is where cumulative impacts can be properly gauged and established. Any development that is not in the local plan, unless it has an environmental impact assessment, is not going to carry out a cumulative impact assessment. That is why we are so concerned that the Government’s recent announcements will undermine that plan-led process, with so many loopholes. To take one example, there is the abolition of the town centre-first approach for retail development, but there are many others that will undermine that plan-led process.

There is a particular need to look at the cumulative impact when it comes to flooding. The Environmental Audit Committee has recommended that the Government revise the guidance on the cumulative impact for flooding for this very reason. Many of the developments being discussed will not carry out cumulative impact assessments because they are outside the local plan or are sub-EIA development. I ask the Minister whether and to what extent the Government will carry out that review. Flooding is a massive issue for Rockwell Green and Hilly Head in my Taunton and Wellington constituency, which has been flooded twice in the last five to 10 years. We need to see a proper cumulative impact assessment of flood impact and flood risk.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

The cumulative impact of development in Tewkesbury is nothing less than a threat to the continuing viability of Tewkesbury as a permanent settlement. The Environmental Audit Committee recently produced a report on flood resilience in England. Would my hon. Friend join me in asking the Government if they will implement recommendation 89 to make water bodies statutory consultees on development?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend makes a massively important point—absolutely, they should be statutory consultees. He gives me the opportunity to raise an even more serious concern. From careful reading of the Government’s snappily titled consultation on statutory consultees, alongside the ministerial statement of 10 March this year, it appears—I hope the Minister can put me right—that they are considering cancelling and withdrawing the direction that prevents councils from granting planning permission, against the advice of the Environment Agency, in flood risk areas. They are certainly consulting on that basis, so I hope the Minister will clarify whether that is the intended approach and how many homes in flood risk areas he expects will be permitted, against the advice of the Environment Agency, if they go ahead with that change. It is a very serious matter and could affect areas across the country—not only Rockwell Green in my constituency, but places far further afield.

My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) made excellent points about the need for cumulative impact to be properly considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) felt that plan-led development in his constituency was in jeopardy. I agree: after yesterday’s announcement, I feel that plan-led development is in jeopardy everywhere. The Saunders Lane development in Woking is a classic example of where proper consideration of cumulative impact is required.

The Liberal Democrats would pursue a different approach. Cognisant of the market conditions that exist in relation to private house building, we would focus on public investment in a programme of 150,000 social and council rent homes. In fact, we have never met the housing figure of 300,000 per year, except when we have had a big programme of council and social housing. With that element missing, private house building has bubbled along at more or less similar levels; third sector housing has increased somewhat. The big missing element has been council and publicly funded social homes.

For the reasons that I have set out, without a massive injection of such homes, we cannot rely on private house builders to increase supply in any meaningful way, however many permissions above and beyond the 1.4 million homes that have planning permission already, but are not being built, are given out. That figure, as my hon. Friends have explained, so clearly and starkly demonstrates why the challenge is not the issuing of planning permissions, but how to get those permissions built out. We urge the Minister to use much stronger “use it or lose it” measures to tackle unbuilt permissions. I welcomed the statement that he made in the summer about taking forward such measures, but we have yet to see anything really happen in that regard.

We need to remember those who cannot afford homes, and that however many private house builders provide more private homes, 99% of them will be out of reach of people who cannot afford a first home. That is why we need there to be social homes, but we also need a new generation of rent-to-own homes, so that people can get on the home ownership ladder at an early stage in life.

With that, Mr Twigg, I once again wish you a merry Christmas.

Quarries: Planning Policy

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on securing this important debate, which is of real concern to not only his constituents but those of Members around the country. As a child growing up in Somerset, I well remember the occasional roar of the neighbouring Dulcote quarry, which is now worked out. I no longer live near a quarry, so I do not experience the very genuine issues and concerns of those who do. In particular, significant concerns have been raised about respirable silica dust, especially when the particulate matter is PM₁₀ or smaller, which means that it is fewer than 10 micrometres across.

Studies by the Health and Safety Executive have shown that respirable silica dust, inhaled over prolonged exposure—for example, by workers who do not receive proper protection—is potentially carcinogenic. It can lead to silicosis and other respiratory diseases. Environmental impacts from the dust, which could affect local residents, are therefore a concern to those who spend time near quarries.

HSE studies of those environmental effects in 2002 and 2003 led it to conclude that no cases of silicosis have been documented among members of the general public in Great Britain, indicating that the levels of environmental exposure to silica dust are not sufficiently high to cause the occupational disease. Notwithstanding that finding, the impact of dust in residential environments is a genuine concern rightly held by many residents, and a potential hazard.

As we have heard, the new Environment Act targets would reduce PM_2.5 concentration levels to no more than 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2040. People also suffer wider immunity impacts from the dust, noise, vibration and flyrock that quarries emit. The fact that PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 pollutants can travel further than 250 metres and that IAQM guidance is under review emphasises those effects and immunity impacts.

We must also remember that quarries are vital to the building of homes and other needed infrastructure. According to the Mineral Products Association, UK quarries produce 177 million tonnes of aggregates and support thousands of valuable jobs. On housing, the Liberal Democrats differ from the Government in that our ambition is for 150,000 council and social rent homes per year—but, to the extent that new homes are needed, we agree that quarrying in the UK needs to continue apace rather than be curtailed.

None the less, health and wellbeing of the public is the main priority of the Liberal Democrats, and must be the main concern in this debate. We would therefore pass a new clean air Act to cover not just quarries, but all air pollution, based on World Health Organisation guidelines and enforced by a new air quality agency, including funding for local pollution centres and a new vehicle scrapping scheme for cleaner transport.

Clean air is important not just around quarries, but across all our communities. While life expectancy in Somerset and the south west is higher than in other regions of the UK, in my constituency it differs by 10 years from one side of my hometown, Taunton, to the other.

A report from Public Health England in 2018 attributed 250 deaths to black carbon—unburnt fuel from motor vehicles. As with quarries, there is little people can do about these sort of environmental health factors, but they still shorten people’s lives, sometimes by years. Therefore, as well as controlling quarries, we must do all we can to encourage people to replace their cars with zero emission vehicles at reasonable costs that they can afford. The Government must hold firm against the Conservatives and Reform, who seem no longer to care about that air pollution or the related deaths it causes. Flirting with climate deniers, the Conservatives want to reverse a position they once held, announcing that they will continue burning petrol in vehicles around people’s homes, schools and neighbourhoods.

While it is welcome that the Government have set out a delivery plan for nature’s recovery, we are waiting for a commitment to a new clean air Act and for them to get on with giving regulators the powers and resources they need. Instead, we are seeing unacceptable cuts to DEFRA—and therefore to the Environment Agency, which among other things regulates quarries—of 1.9% in real terms this year.

I turn now to the issue of buffer zones around quarries, which some hon. Members have raised. While imposing a buffer zone on an existing quarry—such as requiring a distance to residential properties to perhaps a kilometre—could detrimentally affect its operations, the imposition of some sort of environmental limit, as planning permissions already do, is an entirely reasonable proposition.

Some have argued that introducing a buffer zone could be devastating for the thousands of jobs in the sector. If that is the case, it would be equally devastating, not to mention reckless, to suggest no buffer zones or limits at all between quarries and residential properties. Presumably, even the most ardent quarrier is willing to stop when they reach someone’s garden wall or the threshold of their front door. Therefore, in a very real sense, the question is where to draw the line.

The Canadian example has much to commend it. For example, over the 600 metres under the Canadian rule, 100 dB from quarrying—a common level of noise from a building site—would degrade to around 40 dB. That is a typical level for background noise in residential areas—it is a little higher in cities. It has to be recognised, of course, that topography and other factors play a part in those calculations. Subject to assessment, Liberal Democrats would set in planning policy a buffer zone of 600 metres to 1 km for new quarrying consents. Local communities, through their elected councillors, should be empowered to impose such a zone and to make exceptions to it only in wholly exceptional circumstances. Sadly, the Government are going in entirely the wrong direction on the voices of local people being heard in planning.

[Dr Arthur]

In my experience of dealing with Ravelrig quarry in Edinburgh South West, a 600-metre line on a map is not always the best way to proceed, because the impact of blasting on properties varies considerably depending on the underlying geology and so on. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the policy needs a bit more rigour than a simple 600-metre line around a quarry?

[Gideon Amos]

I accept that further assessment is needed before the policy is finalised, but the experience in Canada shows that the distance is appropriate for reducing noise. At the moment, no buffer zone at all is set as standard, as I have pointed out. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not be the quarrier I described quarrying up to someone’s front door, but a buffer zone of some sort is needed.

Clear and understood safeguards, such as a buffer zone, or something similar to the 21-metre back-to-back standard for houses, give people more confidence in the planning system and enable them successfully to live side by side with development, but under the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Secretary of State will remove decisions from local councillors and the people who elect them. A new direction will force councillors to report to the Secretary of State and get his permission before they can refuse anything more than 150 homes, and we are told that there is more centralisation, and more community and nature bashing, to come this week in forthcoming announcements on the planning system.

We need quarries and we need development, but unless the Government change direction, we will have forgotten the most important lesson: that we develop for our environment and for people, not in opposition to them. In a world where a staggering 73% of global wildlife has been lost in the last 50 years, we need to save the remnants of nature for everyone’s sake, and we need people’s voices, and the safeguards they desire, to be heard in the process.

Planning Reform

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Although I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement, I fear that it represents an unprecedented removal of power from local people and local government by a Government who appear to have given up on sustainable development as a driving force behind decision making. The cost-benefit statement reads like it was written in the Treasury. It sees only the benefits of development, and none of the costs to communities or nature.

Under the new framework, sustainable development is no longer the pre-eminent principle. The framework means widespread development in the greenbelt. The presumption has so many holes in it that buildings put up for any purpose, including under permitted development, will now be green-lighted for development across the open countryside. Lorry parks in green fields will be green-lighted. The framework rewrites and overrides the policies in local plans. For many authorities, the value and purpose of all the expense that they went to in writing a local plan will be called into question.

I have only one minute, which is simply not enough time to debate the most significant rolling back of planning controls for decades, so will the Minister hold a debate on the framework in Government time, so that all hon. Members have the chance to debate it? The framework will have much more impact than the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which recently went through Parliament. Will the Government upgrade the framework’s wishy-washy mention of chalk streams, and recognise them fully as irreplaceable habitats? Will the Minister reverse the abolition of BNG for 0.2 hectare sites, and go with the 0.1 hectare limit that environmental non-governmental organisations call for? Will the Government increase their target for social and council-rent homes from 18,000 per year to the 150,000 per year that we Liberal Democrats wish to see, or at least to the 90,000 per year that Shelter wishes to see? Finally, will the Government go further and ensure that the 1.5 million permissions for homes are subject to real “use it or lose it” powers before new homes are created?

[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.

National Plan to End Homelessness

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

We Liberal Democrats also welcome this statement and the additional funding, although I still have some questions. For Liberals from Beveridge to Stephen Ross, who introduced the first homelessness legislation into this Chamber, tackling homelessness and poor housing has been central to allowing people to lead the fulfilled and free lives that we want to see them lead. I pay tribute to the Shared Health Foundation for highlighting the tragic numbers, as the Minister mentioned, of children and babies who have died with temporary accommodation mentioned on their death certificate as a contributory factor. It is a truly tragic situation.

The 132,000 households in temporary accommodation, with 12,000 households on the waiting list in my Somerset council area, are far too many. Even one homeless house- hold is, of course, far too many. As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) raised last week, there has been a 22% increase in the number of people homeless after being discharged from public institutions, which, as the Minister said, is a massively important aspect of this.

Our Liberal Democrat manifesto called for an end to section 21 evictions and for a cross-Whitehall strategy on homelessness, and we welcome both of those things—it is excellent that they have happened. However, we urge the Government to go further, in particular by increasing the social housing target from 18,000 to 150,000 social homes per year, or at least to the 90,000 social homes per year that are required according to Shelter and the National Housing Federation.

In welcoming the statement, I have a few questions for the Minister. What is the timeline is for completing the repeal of the Vagrancy Act provisions? Will the Government uprate the local housing allowance to represent the bottom third of rents and index-link that allowance to those rents, and when will housing benefit be effectively unfrozen by reviewing that local housing allowance? Finally, will the Government consider exempting homeless people from the shared accommodation rate, which both reduces the quantity and diminishes the quality of housing available to homeless people?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the strategy and for joining the cross-party support for our objectives. It is important that we make it clear where we have agreement across the parties. I join him in welcoming the important work of the Shared Health Foundation.

On his final question, there are exemptions to the shared accommodation rate, and I would encourage him to have a look at that part of the strategy. On the local housing allowance, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee a moment ago, it is important that family incomes improve, which is why we took the steps we did in the child poverty strategy. I spoke about the Vagrancy Act in my response to the shadow Minister, but I will happily also send the hon. Gentleman the details about the steps that we are taking.

The hon. Gentleman also mentions the need to increase social housing, and I would recommend to him the detail on this published by the Minister for Housing, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). I do not think any of us should have a cap on our ambition for building social and affordable homes, and I encourage all parts of the country to get on with spending the investment the Chancellor has allocated so that we can put a roof over people’s heads.

Draft Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz.

The Liberal Democrats also support the establishment of the regulator under its own auspices as opposed to coming under the Health and Safety Executive. It is a welcome step in the right direction, but we agree that significant steps are needed to remedy the massive backlogs and delays that are holding up not just private housing but much-needed social housing in London and elsewhere. The 25 to 40-week wait for decisions is far in exceedance of the organisation’s 12-week target.

Furthermore, many buildings with defective cladding and construction are excluded from the remedies under the Building Safety Act 2022 because of the PAS 9980 definition of building safety. We believe it is important that the Building Safety Act definition of safety should be accepted, rather than the PAS 9980 definition, which excludes a whole range of buildings from remediation in terms of their height, the number of storeys and other factors. Thousands of tenants across the country find that they are not protected and are not getting the remediation they need for building safety issues.

We will support the move to the different structure, as set out in the statutory instrument, but too many people are waiting for the remediation of their properties, and the current system is not extensive enough. We recognise that addressing that would involve higher costs for the Government, but the building safety levy needs to be reformed to meet those costs, because thousands of people are currently excluded from the building safety regime.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[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

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes]

If I am proposing a new clause to limit the increases that mayors can bring forward, then yes, I am happy to look at that. That is why I have tabled new clause 2, and why I argue that the Government should look at it. I agree with the hon. Lady that council tax has for a very long time been used as a natural model to try to raise more money. I have been honest with her before in saying that Governments of different stripes have not put in a long-term, sustainable funding model that does not just rely on council tax increases, but I say to her gently—she does an excellent job as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—that the Government are making it worse. Allowing central mayors to have no limit on the amount by which they can increase council tax will just encourage them to put more of their responsibilities on to the balance sheet by increasing people’s taxes, and that is not a good thing. That is why we argue that this new clause is proportionate and principled, and offers the certainty that residents deserve.

New clause 4 seeks to ensure that ordinary householders who wish to extend their own homes for their own use are not unfairly burdened with the community infrastructure levy. The purpose of this new clause is clear and sensible. It would insert into the Planning Act 2008 a straightforward principle that CIL is not charged on householder extensions where the property remains the family’s own residence and the development is for personal use, not commercial gain. The Minister knows that we have brought this up before, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) has long been campaigning for it. Too many local authorities across the UK are taking people for granted in charging CIL if people are just creating extensions. The Government, to their credit, and the Minister, to her credit, have said that they would do something about this, but there is no reason why she cannot back this new clause to enable what she has said she wishes to come true. If she cannot back it, I look to her to say in her winding-up speech, for certainty for the people affected by this, when the Government will bring forward measures to tackle what this new clause would do.

I will be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the last two amendments. Amendment 25 seeks to place clear, sensible and strategic priorities at the heart of the framework for mayoral development orders. It would ensure a rational, evidence-based approach, and does so by ensuring that development under MDOs is focused where it delivers the greatest public benefit—in areas of higher density, stronger transport accessibility and previously developed land.

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

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way, especially as I missed the first few words of his speech—he can only imagine my disappointment. While promoting higher-density development near transport nodes makes a lot of sense, can he explain why subsection (3) of the proposed new section would require mayors to issue blanket planning permission for the development of all previously developed land, which includes all residential areas and, in some places, residential gardens? He has spent a lot of time talking about the rights of local councils, but this would take away their planning permission powers and mean issuing blanket planning permission by the mayor on all previously developed land.

[Paul Holmes]

Dare I say it, but I think the hon. Gentleman is probably being slightly naughty. We are trying to put into the legislation that we want to counter what this Government have been doing, which is to make it easier to build on rural areas where infrastructure is not deliverable, when we should be building first in town centres and high-density areas where most people in this country want to live, and that is why we will be supporting amendment 25.

Amendment 26 would place a simple, but vital restriction on mayoral development corporations: when they are designating land for development, they must not designate greenfield land unless there is no suitable previously developed land available. This principle has long commanded support across this House. Members on all sides, except for the Government, recognise that we must make the best possible use of brownfield land before contemplating the loss of undeveloped countryside.

Madam Deputy Speaker—

Oral Answers to Questions

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill takes smaller decisions away from councillors. Last week’s direction, announced in a ministerial statement, will take big decisions involving over 150 homes, such as the decision on Oldway Road in Wellington, out of the hands of local councillors. Do the Government no longer trust local people to shape communities and deliver the housing that we need?

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

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I think he misrepresents the proposal that has been announced. It is not an automatic removal for all planning applications relating to more than 150 homes; it is simply a referral process, which applies in other situations already, that allows the Secretary of State to call in individual applications.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds]

As the Leader of the Opposition said at Prime Minister’s questions, we would not start from here—we would not have made the mistakes this Government have made, which have led to the crash in house building that I outlined.

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

I would like to assist the hon. Gentleman. Is the answer not a “use it or lose it” planning permission, whereby a developer loses the permission or the land if they do not build on it?

[David Simmonds]

We spent a good amount of time debating that issue in Committee. “Use it or lose it” planning consent is one option. Application of council tax at different stages of delivery is another. We could also take a different approach to section 106, to the community infrastructure levy or to the way that local authorities interact with the housing market. All those measures that we either considered in government or have been debating—none of which has been taken up —have the potential to ensure that more of the homes that have planning consent get delivered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Gideon Amos.

[Gideon Amos]

The Liberal Democrats welcome a number of the changes made to the Bill in the other place, but it is disappointing that my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock’s proposal, which was aimed at ensuring that all unsafe residential blocks are fully remediated, and my noble Friend Lord Foster’s proposal on curbing the proliferation of betting shops were not adopted in the other place, where unfortunately the Conservatives were unwilling to support them. It is also disappointing that having removed all pre-application regulations for nationally significant infrastructure projects, the Government have not seen fit to plug the gap with a standard requirement to ensure that communities are properly consulted, as we proposed in Committee. Simply sweeping away consultation requirements is not acceptable.

That said, today we are here to debate those amendments that made it through from the other place, and I want first to acknowledge where the Government have listened and made welcome improvements and concessions. Lords amendment 53, a concession secured by my noble Friend Baroness Parminter, imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out how Natural England should prioritise different approaches to addressing the negative impacts of development on environmental features, which we argued for in this House. I hope that when the regulations are brought forward, the Government will see the sense of referring to the mitigation hierarchy as the accepted standard approach. I remain confused as to why those words were not included in the amendments. We will continue to push the Government to recognise the mitigation hierarchy as a key environmental principle and development that should be enshrined in environmental delivery plans.

I am also pleased to see Lords amendment 29, and that the Government have listened to the points by Historic England and Heritage Alliance that I raised in Committee. That means that heritage protections remain in transport and works projects. However, there remain amendments that the Government wish to reject that we strongly believe the House should accept, particularly with regard to nature and environmental protection, and the role of communities and their local councillors. Lords amendment 40 would limit the application of environmental delivery plans to issues where approaches at a strategic landscape scale will be effective. I am sure colleagues have received many emails about that amendment from constituents, and for good reason. Indeed, the amendment is essential because it ensures that EDPs are used where they can deliver environmental benefits and address problems effectively on a strategic scale.

In Somerset and my Taunton and Wellington constituency, we see only too well the massive issues caused by phosphates, and an EDP approach for phosphates would genuinely be welcome. That problem operates at a catchment or regional level, and site-by-site solutions are not enough. Protected species and biodiversity are rooted in their habitats, and in particular place and sites, and a simple strategic approach is not enough. We cannot save a protected species from going extinct in one location by creating a habitat hundreds of miles away and expect the same outcome.

[Matthew Pennycook]

May I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to district-level licensing schemes for great crested newts, as an example of where a strategic approach can benefit a species population? I am not sure it stands—has he reflected on the situation where the type of intervention that underpins EDPs is already in existence and is having benefits for nature?

[Gideon Amos]

I accept what the Minister is saying and that elements of species protection may require strategic approaches. However, the fundamental point for the Liberal Democrats is that if the Government made a commitment to stronger protections within EDPs from the outset, in terms of the mitigation hierarchy and the protection of species on site, then we would be more open to supporting their position, but they have not made that commitment, so we cannot give our support and Lords amendment 40 needs to remain.

Lords amendment 38, proposed by the Bishop of Norwich and supported by Liberal Democrat peers, is equally important. It would ensure that the new spatial development strategies include protections for our incredibly rare and valuable chalk streams. Shockingly, there is currently a lack of protection for these rare and incredible habitats. Around 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in England. They are as rare globally as rainforests, and yet they do not have the required designation as irreplaceable habitats. [Interruption.] I do not know where that voice came from, but I am happy to give way.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

rose—

[Gideon Amos]

Ah, over there.

[Edward Morello]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He will know that West Dorset is home to a number of our rare and precious chalk streams, including the Frome and the Wraxall brook. Does he agree with me that a system similar to the Blue Flag status that we have for beaches would be a relatively cheap and easy way for the Government to provide environmental protections for our chalk streams?

[Gideon Amos]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who does an excellent job championing the chalk streams in his constituency. A public-facing, recognised standard for chalk streams, similar to those that we have for other environmental designations, would be incredibly welcome.

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I also have a chalk stream in my constituency, the River Snail. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we give these chalk streams statutory protection through measures such as those set out in Lords amendment 38, rather than relying on national planning frameworks that can be changed without referring back to this place?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Proper statutory protection for the internationally valuable resource that is our chalk streams is long overdue. I welcome the Minister’s words in his opening remarks, but until we see those designations we will continue to advocate for proper statutory protection for chalk streams. We urge the Minister to go further on that.

I now turn to the amendments on democratic and parliamentary accountability. The Bill does not just tinker at the edges but fundamentally concentrates power into the hands of Secretaries of State. Lords amendment 33 would ensure that if and when the Government implement their proposed regulations to remove powers from local planning committees and councillors, they must come to this House under the affirmative resolution procedure.

Clause 51 gives unlimited power to all future Secretaries of State to remove any and all decisions from planning committees—there is no limit imposed on that power. The very least that the Government should be willing to accept is a commitment to meaningful parliamentary oversight when they bring forward the regulations to remove powers from planning committees. No amount of consultation on a national scheme of delegation will change the extraordinary power in clause 51 and what it takes away from local planning committees, locally elected councillors and local communities. Lords amendment 33 offers only a small safeguard against that centralisation. For such powers to not even be affirmed by Parliament would make a mockery of the democratic process.

Similarly, Lords amendment 1 would ensure that the Government continue to be fully accountable to Parliament on their changes to national policy statements. NPSs govern the biggest projects in the land, from Hinkley Point to Sizewell, from rail freight terminals to the largest solar and wind farms in the world, and transmission lines. It is the fact NPSs are approved by Parliament that provides them with the efficacy they have in guiding decisions on such projects. In the Commons, we proposed a compromise that case law could, for example, be reflected without parliamentary processes, but policy changes on matters as significant as future plans for nuclear power stations should remain fully subject to the decisions of Parliament. We therefore oppose the Government’s attempt to remove scrutiny of national policy statements.

Amendments 2 and 3 are about protections for reservoirs, and we oppose the Government’s attempt to remove those provisions. We also oppose the Government’s intention to remove protections for assets of community value. We remain concerned about proposals for badger shooting on building sites, which remain unamended in schedule 4.

The Liberal Democrats have set out our proposals for housing and planning. Our programme for public housing, which is far more ambitious than the Government’s, is for 150,000 publicly-funded and genuinely affordable social and council rent homes per year for local people, not the 20,000 that the Government have established as their target. It is a mistake to pit development against nature and communities. On Second Reading, only the Liberal Democrats voted to stop the damaging effects on nature this Bill could have. The Government have made some changes, which we welcome, but the amendments that remain before us today could be accommodated. They are essential to ensuring that the people and nature affected by building the homes and infrastructure that we need are heard and have their place in shaping that development. We must not give up—the Liberal Democrats will not give up—on ensuring that nature and people are protected in the rush to build the homes that we need.

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

This Bill has sparked a keen interest among my constituents. It is important to recognise that people who live in Poole want to protect the environment and the benefits that living in a nature-rich part of the country gives them. I welcome some of the changes made to the Bill in the other place, many of which reflect points raised by me and others on Report, including the need for a stronger overall improvement test to ensure that changes to environmental protections do not hand developers a licence to trash nature.

As we know, Britain is already one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. We have lost half of our biodiversity, one in six species is at risk of extinction and only 14% of our habitats are in good condition. That is why I urge the Government to accept amendment 40 to safeguard vulnerable habitats and species from harmful developments.

The proposed environmental delivery plans would form part of a framework for nature recovery, allowing developers to pay into a restoration fund to offset environmental harm. That may work for nutrient neutrality, water and air quality, but it simply is not suited to the complex realities of natural habitats or declining species. We risk a situation where destruction comes before detection, with new habitats created too late to replace what has been lost. That means species losing their homes, leading to wholesale extinctions. Developers of years gone by might have got their way with a brown envelope or two, but we cannot buy back lost biodiversity.

Draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. The Liberal Democrats broadly support the statutory instrument, but we have a number of issues to raise. One is that this measure should not mean the overriding of all planning policy. Indeed, green belt policy needs to be protected. Although we welcome the fact that an NPS is being developed, it would have been more helpful to see the draft of it at this stage. We encourage the Government to go further and consider a national policy statement for business and commercial projects generally, because they will have a big impact as nationally significant infrastructure projects.

There are significant opportunities with big business and commercial developments of data centres. Such developments enable the meeting of standards that cannot be met with smaller piecemeal development. With an eye to what we all must do—seek ways to drive down bills for householders—it is worth noting that there are 1.4 GW of data centres in the UK; that means 1.4 GW of heat. That heat is often the subject of agreements in which companies are paid to take it away, but it is free heat that could heat over 1 million households. We hope there will be a clear requirement in the national policy statement to ensure, as happens in other countries, that “waste” heat—which is free or has a negative cost, because sometimes a company will pay to have the heat removed from its site—is used in local networks wherever possible. We strongly encourage the Government to go down that route.

We also want the strategic spatial energy plan introduced so that there is a national overview of where data centres are located, with the proviso that under this statutory instrument the Secretary of State will consider, on a case by case basis, whether or not to direct under section 35 that a data centre is a nationally significant infrastructure project. We are content to support this measure, but we urge the Government to move forward with their national policy statement to ensure the provision of free heat from data centres to households and to defend key planning policies that must remain in place, such as protection of the green belt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I said, the NSIP regime provides for local communities, local authorities, other statutory consultees and stakeholders to input into that process. In a similar way to how a local planning authority undertakes a period of consultation to enable views on a planning application to be expressed, the examination process under the NSIP regime—which all NSIP applications must go through—provides the opportunity for local communities and interested parties to make representations to be taken into account by the examining authority in examination of the application and by the Secretary of State when they come to decide whether to grant development consent.

In the time I have, I should respond to a couple of other issues that were raised. Power usage was a point made by the hon. Members for Orpington and for Taunton and Wellington. Energy and carbon footprint are a key issue for data centres. The sector operates under a climate change agreement to encourage greater uptake of energy efficiency measures among operators. The UK has committed to decarbonising the electricity system by 2030, subject to security of supply, and data centres will increasingly be powered by renewable energy resources.

Newer, purpose-built and modern data centres can provide compute at a higher efficiency than older, converted data centres, in terms of the amount of power they draw on, but data centres will play a major part in powering the high-tech solutions to environmental challenges, whether that is new technology that increases the energy efficiency of energy use across our towns and cities, or development and application of innovative new tech that takes carbon out of the atmosphere. We are, however, very conscious that data centres draw on quite a significant amount of firm power, and the Government will take that into account in making decisions as to whether individual applications go through.

Lastly, I should address heat, which the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly mentioned. He is absolutely right to say that data centres produce a significant amount of heat. The technology exists to capture that heat and to use it in district heating networks, or to meet significant demand. There is potential, therefore, for the heat to be captured and used to further benefit than happens currently, but there have already been successful examples—which are worth highlighting—of using data centre heat for hospitals, homes and other uses. One such example is the use of a data centre to heat a local swimming pool in Devon. We will take that into account, as I am sure DSIT did in the drafting of its national policy statement and in its conversations with other Departments. However, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s comments are brought to the attention of the relevant Minister.

[Gideon Amos]

I intervene simply to place on the record my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I recently undertook a study trip to Denmark to look at waste heat. I probably should have put that on the record, but it is in the register.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope the point is well made that, as part of the NPS process and more widely, we are engaging with developers and operators to determine whether the Government should be making further interventions that are necessary and proportionate to encourage the take-up of such solutions.