Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I echo my hon. Friend’s remarks about the NLC. I also thank others, such as the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, Sir Peter Bottomley, who has now left this place, and other champions, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who has stood up for leaseholders so vocally over many years. The rationale for the ground rent approach that we have chosen is set out in a policy paper that we published this morning. The Select Committee will be able to scrutinise the draft Bill and provide suggestions—that is the whole point of the pre-legislative scrutiny process.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement and the Minister’s great work. Leaseholders and freeholders across my constituency, in places like Greenhithe, Ebbsfleet and Stone, will hugely welcome the cap on ground rents and the rest of the detail on the draft Bill. May I impress on the Minister the need for us to go further on supporting those who live on unadopted or freehold estates, and to address poor practices by managing agents?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am acutely aware of the strength of feeling on freehold estates. It cannot be an either/or when it comes to ensuring that residential freeholders and leaseholders get the rights and protections that they need. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are taking concerted action on both fronts.

Planning Reform

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is wrong to say that this is an area that we are overlooking. I refer the hon. Member to a working paper that sets out a series of proposals to get build-out transparency and accountability up. A delayed homes penalty, for instance, would act as a charge when development could be coming forward but is not. Those proposals are distinct from today’s draft framework, which does not deal with that issue, but I can assure him that it is very much a priority for me and for the Department.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. In my constituency, many new homes have been built in places such as Ebbsfleet and Stone, and I am glad to announce that there are plans for many more, but it is fair to say that local infrastructure—including GP surgeries, Darent Valley hospital and local schools—has struggled to keep pace, and there have not been enough affordable homes. Can the Minister outline how new, clear policies on where and how we build will ensure that development is sustainable and linked to jobs and infrastructure, and that we have enough affordable homes?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have visited the developments in my hon. Friend’s constituency that Ebbsfleet development corporation is taking forward. As I said in response to an earlier question, we as a Government are clear that new housing must be supported by appropriate infrastructure and amenities. Last year we made important changes to the framework to strengthen the provision of community infrastructure, and, as I have said, the draft framework consolidates and strengthens the support given to that provision, including public services. However, we know that there is more to do to ensure that the right infrastructure comes forward at the appropriate time, alongside the building of new homes.

Electoral Resilience

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

It will be for Philip Rycroft to publish his review in the way that he sees fit, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The sentencing of Nathan Gill for bribery, alongside other recent cases, has exposed vulnerabilities and weaknesses in the UK’s political and electoral systems. The review will give us the opportunity to check that our safeguards are sufficiently robust given the evolving nature of the threat.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

May I, like others, thank the Secretary of State for his robust defence of elections and our democracy through his statement? On the Gill case, he may be aware that the Reform UK board member Gawain Towler is on record saying that he realised very quickly that Nathan Gill was raising pro-Russia questions about Ukraine in 2018. After confronting Gill, Towler simply

“accepted his explanation at face value”

and was, by his own admission, “foolish”. Does the Secretary of State agree that it cannot be good enough for any political party to simply accept the peddling of pro-Russian propaganda? Can he assure me that this review will examine all and every link with Russia without fear or favour?

[Steve Reed]

The review will absolutely operate without fear or favour. It will involve an in-depth assessment of the current financial and bribery-related rules and safeguards that regulate all political parties and political finance so that we can ensure our democracy remains safe in the decades to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I made clear in answer to a previous question, strong protections in national planning policy mean that development that could be vulnerable to flooding should not be allowed in areas of high flood risk. Where local planning authorities have approved development in spite of initial objections—for example, from the Environment Agency—they will have had to ensure that the development would be safe through, for example, adequate mitigations.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for Housing and Planning for visiting Ebbsfleet Garden City in my constituency last week. Does the Minister agree that, with an additional 10,000 homes to be built in Ebbsfleet over the next 10 years, to create great places to live we have got to build schools, medical facilities and green spaces—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is enough.

Property Service Charges

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I welcome this debate warmly. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for securing it, and for her excellent speech introducing it, and to other Members for their great contributions.

Property service charges, whether for freeholders who have purchased homes on unadopted new build estates or for leaseholders living in flats, are a huge concern to residents across Dartford. It is no exaggeration to say that the charges are causing misery to my constituents. Home to Ebbsfleet Garden City, Ingress Park in Greenhithe and the Bridge estate near Dartford, the constituency that I am proud to represent has among the highest number of leaseholders and freeholders paying property service charges of any in the country.

As others have, I have surveyed my residents on managing agents and costs, and it is fair to say in summary that residents are bemused by what seems to be the lack of a framework for assessing what reasonable service charges should cover. Long-term trends in rising building insurance costs and energy prices and opaque charging practices by managing agents have created a toxic mix for residents. As if that was not enough, long after buying their new properties, residents have been shocked to receive demands for three to five years-worth of backdated service charges. In some cases, they even predate their ownership of the property, or apply soon after they bought the property, and the bills often contain immediate demands for repayment, despite coming years after people started occupying their home.

Another incredibly frustrating issue for residents, which the Minister might be able to pick up directly with developers, is lack of transparency for buyers regarding the service charges they should expect to pay. One constituent ended up £4,000 in debt, as he was being charged for the maintenance of the estate around his house—on which construction had not even been completed.

Much of the area around new build estates in my constituency remains unadopted by the local authority, an issue that we discussed earlier this year in a Westminster Hall debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern). There is a huge sense of unease and unfairness among residents living on those unadopted estates. They are paying full council tax in addition to hefty service charges. They are paying for the local authority to maintain roads and parks in other parts of the area, but not those on the estate on which they live. I warmly welcomed the Minister’s response in that debate, in which he confirmed that it remained a commitment to end the injustice of so-called fleecehold estates, and I hope we can have an update on that at the end of this debate.

I am grateful to have been among more than 100 Government Members who have, since November 2024, banded together to hold to account managing agents, including FirstPort and RMG. We will not let managing agents off the hook for the extremely poor service that they deliver to our residents. We need a road map from the Government on how unadopted roads and estates will be taken on by the local authority.

Finally, perhaps the Minister might could remind house builders that their choices of managing agents for new developments will cause them long-term reputational damage if they continue to select companies that simply are not up to the job. Let us get this right on behalf of freeholders and leaseholders across the country.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy, and to speak as the Member of Parliament for Rushcliffe, which is proudly home to more than 2,000 Hongkongers who have arrived under the BNO visa scheme. That is what I would like to focus on today.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for opening the debate. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris) to his place as Minister of State at the Home Office, and thank him for joining us on his first working day in office.

I am here this afternoon to make a simple, principled case. The five-year pathway to settlement for BNO Hongkongers must be retained. This is about trust as much as law—about keeping our promises and the faith of the people who place their future in our hands.

The BNO visa route was created as a humanitarian lifeline in response to Beijing’s horrific national security law. The route is grounded in our legal, moral and historical responsibilities under the Sino-British joint declaration. It is not an economic channel, but a bespoke, safe and legal route for British nationals and their relatives fleeing repression in a former British territory where the rule of law and human rights have been ruthlessly eroded. That is why there has been rare, enduring cross-party support for the scheme since day one, and why any attempt to move the goalposts now would cut against the very reason the route exists.

Hongkongers uprooted their families on the explicit promise of a five-year pathway to indefinite leave to remain, plus one year to citizenship. To lengthen the timeline mid-journey would be seen as a breach of trust and would shake confidence in the UK’s credibility far beyond the BNO community. The numbers tell their own story, with almost 200,000 BNO Hongkongers now living in the UK. Crucially, the overwhelming majority came in the first two years after launch, and BNO grants now account for about 1% of total visas. We must appreciate that today’s debate is not about headline immigration numbers but about the welfare of a community that is already here. In Rushcliffe, as I mentioned, more than 2,000 Hongkongers are already on their five-year pathway to ILR. The impact will be on them.

Shifting the rules would hand Beijing and its regime in Hong Kong a propaganda gift: “You trusted Britain, yet Britain broke the deal.” We cannot allow that narrative to stand, which is why the Government must keep their promises. Extending settlement to 10 years would force a decade-long wait for home fee status for BNO students, pricing out the vast majority of BNOs currently studying for their A-levels at schools in my constituency from starting university until their mid-20s. It would also delay access to an estimated £3 billion in Hong Kong pension savings that can be released only once ILR is granted.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case on what those with BNO visas are being put through by this White Paper and the proposed legislation. In Dartford, I have been contacted by a large number of people on skilled visas who are in a very similar situation. Does he agree that, whatever the situation—whether people are on BNO or skilled visas—and whatever may happen with this legislation, they have come to the UK to contribute to our economy and society, and that the least we should offer is clarity on what they can expect from us, as well as fairness in not changing the terms on which they were accepted here in the first place?

[James Naish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The consensus here is that we need to determine whether we as a country support the uncertainty of moving the goalposts, and I sincerely hope the Minister is listening to the sentiment in the room.

Because many BNOs lack consular protection and cannot safely renew travel documents, a longer route would also trap families. People would be separated, unable to travel for study, work or to see relatives abroad. To extend the pathway to 10 years would not be an act of administrative tidying; it would be a material downgrading of hundreds of thousands of British Hongkongers’ lives across the UK.

Meanwhile, the community is contributing civically and economically. Hongkongers are working, studying, volunteering, starting businesses and even serving in local government as councillors. They are precisely the neighbours and colleagues that we and my constituents in Rushcliffe want to keep. Many of them are also concerned about some of the broader immigration issues that have been referenced.

The five-year route was designed so that Hongkongers could put down roots quickly and securely. Extending the clock would defer integration, depress opportunity and waste potential. I therefore close by echoing the words of the tens of thousands of UK Hongkongers who will be watching this debate at home. I want to keep standing with Hong Kong. I want to keep our promise to Hongkongers. I want to keep the five-year route. That is how we honour our word: we support a thriving community that has so much to offer our nation. That is how we can show the world that, when Britain gives its word, it keeps it.

Unadopted Estates and Roads

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alistair Strathern]

Absolutely. The certainty and fairness my hon. Friend calls for is the bare minimum we should expect for our constituents and the bare minimum that families should have when moving into a new property, often one they have saved up for over a long time to take that big, exciting step. I know his constituents will be all the better for the work he has done to champion that, but it should not fall to him and other hon. Members to fight for this. It should be a matter of course for new developments.

That inequity I was talking about is a real challenge. Not only is it unfair that lots of our constituents are having to pay hundreds of pounds—and often much more than that—each year for services that others receive as standard, but the very nature of fleecehold is designed to structurally inflate some of those costs. Those management companies are very rarely accountable to the actual residents of these new estates that they in theory provide services for. As a result, there is no incentive for them to keep costs low; I have had examples of people having to pay more than £250 per household just to fix a single lightbulb on the estate. Constituents are individually on the hook for thousands of pounds across the estate as a result of road challenges, and there are many more examples of no real pressure or accountability for the costs residents have to pay.

Alongside that, the complicated legal nature of those structures, the professional fees involved, and the fact that certain estates can be subdivided into tiny blocks or pockets of five homes—each of which has to have its own management company and therefore has to pay for all those professional services over and over again—mean that a large chunk of those fees often does not go towards any service at all. It simply covers professional fees, auditing costs, and wider costs associated with a structure that is by its very essence deeply inefficient and not set up to provide a service to the residents who rely on it.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and thank him for his powerful speech about the iniquity of the current situation. From talking to residents of Ebbsfleet Garden City in my constituency, I know there is growing frustration because they are paying council tax to management companies as well as service charges, with very little clarity, as he says, about what are often very high fees. Does he agree that we need clearer guidelines on timescales and standards for roads and communal areas to be adopted by local authorities, so that residents in places such as Ebbsfleet and other communities mentioned can have certainty about what they are paying for and to whom?

[Alistair Strathern]

I know my hon. Friend is a tireless champion of his constituents who are impacted by this issue. He is spot on: this fleecehold stealth tax—because it is in essence a stealth tax our constituents are being asked to pay—is not just unfair to residents, but means they are all too often ultimately reliant on management companies to provide a service that they rarely receive. Not only are they having to pay more than those in adopted estates, but they often get a worse service, because there is no transparency or accountability around the management companies taking on those practices.

It is not just a cost issue for my constituents or many like them. There are other big non-financial costs associated with fleecehold. Far too many estates have had to band together and sink countless hours into holding management companies to account to get transparency over works, to ensure that very basic works and maintenance are carried out, and to make sure that things we all take for granted—such as safety inspections on play parks—actually take place. My constituents have had to sink days and days of their time into fighting for the bare minimum.

Alongside the very fragmented legal nature of those entities, they can also put my constituents at risk at crucial moments. I spoke to constituents whose house sales have nearly fallen through—one actually did—because the management company in question failed to provide the management pack in a timely fashion. That meant that during conveyancing they were unable to complete the sale and move to the dream property they had been looking forward to and needed to move to for their jobs.

I spoke to another constituent whose credit score was decimated when, after missing a payment by just a couple of weeks, their management company enacted some of its powers under the contract to go straight to the mortgage company, add the balance to the mortgage and extract the fee that way, with all the impact one would expect that to have on the homeowner’s credit score and sense of security.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Aphra Brandreth]

I love trees, which is why I rise to support new clause 63 tabled in my name. I am sure that all of us in this House recognise the value of trees—not just their ecological importance, but the character and beauty that they bring to our communities and high streets. I hope that I can demonstrate why amending the rules to allow for sensible guidance on planting trees can help to liberate local authorities from their default, over-cautious position, and kick-start a tree-planting revolution.

New clause 63 seeks to remove some of the ambiguity and misconceptions surrounding the regulation of tree planting along highways. The Highways Act 1980 includes provision for local authorities to maintain free-flowing roads, but those provisions can and have been misinterpreted to block tree planting. In particular, the licensing rules established in section 142 of the Act should be relaxed to make it easier for local residents to plant trees. Too often, even well-meaning councils impose unrealistic demands. In Windsor and Maidenhead, for example, individuals planting trees must pay between £500 and £1,000 in administrative fees and secure £10 million in public liability insurance—hardly encouraging. Hampshire county council’s strict interpretation of section 142(5) has led to a one-metre buffer around utilities, blocking many ideal planting sites, despite minimal risk to those services.

Let me briefly touch on the environmental case. A Woodland Trust report, “The benefits to people of trees outside woods”, found that roadside trees are highly effective at capturing pollutants—especially important, given that traffic is a major source of air pollution in the UK. A study by Lancaster University even showed that planting silver birch on a terraced street reduced harmful particulate matter inside nearby homes by more than 50%. Trees also play a critical role in supporting biodiversity; common roadside species such as lime and flowering cherry trees are not only beautiful, but vital for pollinators, helping to maintain healthy ecosystems.

Cheshire is a proud dairy and beef farming county. We have some of the most carbon-efficient cows in the world, and we should be proud of that record, but if we can further improve our environmental impact, that can only be a good thing. In rural areas, having tree-lined roads can help to reduce ammonium levels and impacts on habitats and the surrounding environment. Again, placement of trees matters; having more trees near semi-natural habitats that need protection has a greater impact than having more trees in established woodland. Of course safety must remain a priority, and not every road is suitable for tree planting, but where space and conditions allow, trees can improve road safety. Studies have shown that tree-lined streets feel narrower, naturally encouraging drivers to reduce their speed.

There are many more benefits that I could speak to, such as improved soil quality, but time is short, so I will finish by touching on the aesthetic benefit of trees near highways. They really do make a difference. They stand the test of time, they add character to the area, they take on cultural significance, and they improve our mental health, our perceptions and our appreciation of the areas in which we live. By amending this Bill through new clause 63, I hope we can empower local authorities to plant the right trees in the right areas where there is local support, and I am confident that we will notice the benefits of doing so.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I was privileged to be a member of the Bill Committee. I started the Committee as a supporter of this legislation, and I rise to speak now as an equally strong supporter of it.

Many of my constituents in Dartford are also extremely strong supporters of change. Their town is regularly paralysed by overspill traffic from the overloaded Dartford crossing. That has been an issue for decades. The need for a new crossing was first suggested as long ago as the 1980s, yet despite a route having been agreed in 2017, development consent was granted only this year. Hundreds of millions have been spent on the process so far. I strongly support the measures to streamline the NSIP regime and give more certainty on large and much-needed projects such as the lower Thames crossing, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis). This Bill will make changes to dramatically improve the situation, and that fact must not be lost as we debate the amendments today.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. We have now reached part 4 of the Bill, which concerns development corporations. Among other reforms, the Government are clear that boosting housing supply requires renewed focus on building large-scale new communities across England. Development corporations are statutory bodies established for the purpose of urban development and regeneration. They are important vehicles for delivering large-scale and complex regeneration and development projects. The four clauses in this part are designed to create a clearer, more flexible and more robust framework for their operation.

Clause 79 strengthens development corporations by providing greater clarity and flexibility for them in terms of the variety, extent and types of geographical area over which they can operate. That will ensure that development corporations can be used to respond to site-specific challenges, without having to retrofit the scope of the project to match the development corporation model used. The changes are necessary to ensure that development corporations are suitable for modern development needs. They will enable delivery of more large-scale developments, including consented sites that have been stuck in the system for far too long. They will be vital to the delivery of new large-scale projects, such as the new generation of new towns to which the Government are committed.

Existing legislation provides for five types of development corporation. It is probably worth mentioning them to aid our deliberations: the new town development corporation, the urban development corporation, the mayoral development corporation, the locally-led new town development corporation and the new locally-led urban development corporation, which was introduced in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and is subject to the commencement of its provisions.

Clause 79 clarifies that new town development corporations can deliver urban extensions—expansions of existing urban sites—and that new town development corporations and urban development corporations can develop brownfield and greenfield sites. The clause also expands the remit of mayoral development corporations so that they can be used to deliver new settlements, including on greenfield sites, as well as urban regeneration projects. That will ensure that mayors have the right powers to deliver the range of places their communities need.

Finally, the clause creates maximum application and flexibility for new town development corporations by allowing separate, non-contiguous parcels of land to be designated for development, aligning NTDCs with the other development corporation models. A single new town development corporation will also be able to oversee the laying out of more than one new town site.

By making the legislative framework clearer and more flexible, the reforms will facilitate the use of development corporations and therefore unlock more sites for development, further supporting the Government’s growth mission and the delivery of 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I welcome these measures to make development corporations fit for purpose. In my constituency, as members of the Committee may know, Ebbsfleet development corporation is building Ebbsfleet garden city. That experience shows how important it is that we align infrastructure delivery with housing growth to ensure that communities are supported from day one with everything that they need to live full and healthy lives. I welcome the clause. Development corporations outside Ebbsfleet, across the country, are an extremely important tool to get the right, well-balanced developments planned and built, so that they become communities. The clauses in part 4 give development corporations the flexibility to adapt, each one to a unique circumstance.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister to come back on if possible. First, given that development corporations are time-limited, what consideration has been given to the need for them to plan for their legacy, and to how their newly-built amenities will be catered for after closure, especially given the financial challenges faced by local government? Secondly, I know there is some desire in the sector for development corporations to have an explicit aim to provide upskilling and training for local residents, so that the economic benefits of their work can be shared across the local area. Have the Government looked at that, or might they consider looking at that in future?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for those questions. To be clear, the purpose of the clause is to ensure clarity around the remit and functions of development corporations. I understand his points about legacy and the wider contributions that development corporations can make, not least to construction and other skills areas. I am happy to take those up with him outside the Committee and to provide full responses on those points, but they are slightly outside the scope of this clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 79 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80

Duties to have regard to sustainable development and climate change

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson]

I also very much welcome the clause, which rectifies the fragmentation of housing and transport and therefore the inability to co-ordinate them. It will be hugely important to the new towns that the Government are planning in order to fulfil our housing targets.

I have one query for the Minister. The clause covers local transport authorities and their relationship with development corporations. Did he consider including a provision on the relationship between development corporations and national transport bodies such as National Highways? I can foresee situations in which co-operation between those bodies will be necessary to achieve the aims of the development corporation. In such a situation, would he use powers to ensure that National Highways co-operates with the development corporation, or at least broker the conversation to enable that to happen?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome the support for the clause that hon. Members have indicated. The integration of transport infrastructure and its timely delivery are essential to delivering large-scale urban developments, and that is what the clause will facilitate.

The shadow Minister and others asked me whether the wording is sufficient to deliver the objectives of the clause. I will reflect on that, as I always do, but we are clear that introducing a duty on local transport authorities to have regard to and co-operate with development corporations—this is our preferred approach in the instance—will facilitate co-operation. Each development corporation will respond to particular and localised delivery challenges, with differences in transport requirements for each development, so it is not possible to specify the nature of the co-operation required in all cases.

In practical terms, officials in my Department will support the development corporation to have those conversations with local transport authorities, try to get a shared understanding and resolve transport challenges in particular circumstances. As a necessary minimum, we will expect local transport authorities to engage constructively with the development corporation’s plans for transport delivery and not unduly block the delivery of transport infrastructure that is necessary to unlock growth in the red line area.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Olly Glover]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq, and thank you for your ongoing generosity to those of us who continue to learn how Bill Committees work.

Lib Dem amendment 122 would require the production of infrastructure delivery plans by local authorities and accompanying funding to meet the requirements of those. I note the comments of other hon. Members about taking into account the administrative burden on local authorities; we need to strike the optimum balance here, but I shall explain why I think infrastructure development plans are of merit and need to be mandated.

For those not familiar with IDPs—to use yet another dreaded acronym—I should say that they are developed during the local plan-making stage and serve as an important part of the evidence base and quality of those local plans. They identify and schedule the infrastructure needs for a community, including social, physical and green infrastructure, all of which are needed in addition to houses for the high quality, well-functioning communities we all wish to see.

The planning policy team at the local authority writes to all infrastructure providers to ask them to identify what infrastructure will be needed to accompany the development that the local plan is proposing. That becomes a list, which is tested through a viability assessment and local plan examination. Once the plan is adopted, and at the point where planning applications are submitted, planning officers will use the IDP to help to secure infrastructure—through direct delivery, financial contributions or indeed a mix of the two. IDPs are therefore an important part of both securing infrastructure and tracking the progress of its delivery.

However, at present IDPs are not compulsory and are not specified in the national planning policy framework or the Government’s planning practice guidance. Local plans are supposed to be reviewed every five years, although many are not, and by extension IDPs may be updated only infrequently. We think Government should compel local authorities to produce infrastructure delivery plans so that communities get the necessary infrastructure to create the well-function communities that we need to transform our country.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. As we have seen, there are very many amendments to this part of the Bill, which speaks to the fact that it is one of the most important parts of the legislation the Government are moving through. It is absolutely necessary that it should happen, but I want to make a quick point about infrastructure that is pertinent to this amendment.

As the Minister knows, and the Committee may know, I represent Ebbsfleet Garden City in Dartford: a new community that has arisen from no homes in about 2015 to around 5,000 now, and is due to be 15,000 by the middle of the next decade. We have seen with Ebbsfleet Garden City the importance of social and physical infrastructure being built alongside homes. Generally, the corporation there has done a good job in making sure that there are schools, recreation areas, community spaces and medical facilities; the timing has not always been brilliant, and sometimes the growth of the homes has outstripped the provision of infrastructure, but that infrastructure does eventually get delivered.

It is extremely important that the Minister gives an assurance, in line with what the amendment, I know, is seeking to do. I do not know whether the precise format that the amendment suggests is the right way to do it, but it is vital that we see that social and physical infrastructure grow at the same time as the housing.

[Lewis Cocking]

Does the hon. Member agree that nothing in this Bill makes developers build the social infrastructure that he is describing, which many communities desperately need, first—or at all?

[Jim Dickson]

The hon. Member is helping me to make my point. The only difference I have with him is that I know that the Government intend to ensure that infrastructure appears at the same time as homes and the Minister will provide reassurance on that. It is vital that that happens, via either a development corporation with those powers, or the spatial development strategies that we are discussing. Let us ensure that we do build the physical and social infrastructure at the same time as homes, with the examples of generally good development we see in Ebbsfleet Garden City reproduced elsewhere, as the Government meet their ambitious plans to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament.