Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[David Simmonds]

I rise in support of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister to press the Government on this point. I think the key issue for all of us is what remedy is available where there are concerns about the impact of a decision taken using these new provisions.

In the evidence sessions, there was much mockery of a so-called fish disco at a new nuclear power station. However, the local constituency MP, the local authority or fishing and wildlife organisations would be very concerned about the impact of that development on wildlife, particularly at a location with significant numbers of protected species, some of which are unique in Europe. When the detail of a project emerges and an issue of that nature needs to be addressed, and there is feedback from Parliament, if we have inserted provisions that allow the Secretary of State to say, “I am going to ignore that now,” we lose the opportunity to ensure appropriate remedies and measures to address the impact of that detail, either in planning terms or on the local environment.

I recall a judicial review brought by the local authority where I served as a councillor in respect of a scheme that had been agreed with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State had written to the local authority and said, “This is what it is going to be. This is the process that is going to be followed.” That Secretary of State was then replaced with another, who said, “I am not going to follow it. Although my predecessor wrote to you last year to tell you this is how it was going to be, I am not going to do it.” The local authority said that was clearly unsatisfactory, because of the impact at community level.

The test that was required to be met for a judicial review to succeed was that we had to be able to demonstrate that the Minister was—what the judge said has always stuck in my mind—“out of her mind” when she told Parliament at the Dispatch Box what she was going to do, on the basis that parliamentary sovereignty was so great. If Parliament had approved the Minister’s actions, regardless of whether they were a flagrant breach of an agreement previously entered into with another part of the public sector, provided they had said that at the Dispatch Box and unless we could prove that the Minister had actually been out of their mind at that point, the decision would stand and would not be subject to judicial review. It could not even be considered, because parliamentary sovereignty has such a high test.

I think the shadow Minister is right to raise the need to get this right. We are all talking about the importance of getting infrastructure and major developments through, and we can understand the desire to drive that forward, but we would not wish to find ourselves in a situation where a key point of detail, which has a significant community impact but which emerges only once some of those detailed elements of a major project are in the public domain, cannot be taken account of and is irrelevant or disregarded in the planning process. It is absolutely critical that we have that level of safeguard to ensure that constituents are assured that the concerns that they might perfectly reasonably have will be properly addressed.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I draw your attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I concur with my colleagues. I have concerns about removing the response from Ministers to Parliament. We are told that constituents and residents will be kept at the heart of such decisions—they will have some say in the national planning policy framework through consultation on national infrastructure projects when they are in their area. Indeed, I asked the Prime Minister a question on the topic at PMQs. I was not convinced by his answer.

How can the Government, on the one hand, say that we will keep local people at the heart of those decisions and allow local people to have a say on them, while on the other, in this part of the Bill, remove parliamentary scrutiny? That will fill the British people with dread, that they will not have such a say in some of those infrastructure projects in their area.

[Matthew Pennycook]

May I correct the hon. Gentleman? Local people in any part of the country affected by a development consent order will still be able to have their say on it. Nothing in the clause affects that arrangement.

[Lewis Cocking]

My point is, if we remove parliamentary scrutiny, the British people out there watching this will think, “Well, hang on a minute, the Government are saying on the one hand that we will still have a say and feed into that process, but on the other they are removing parliamentary scrutiny from the process, so how do we weigh that up?” When the Bill has been through the full process to Third Reading, how can we and the British people trust that they will still have a say over national infrastructure projects in their area if parliamentary scrutiny is being removed? That is taking with one hand and giving with the other, and it could be perceived that people will not have a say; they might not believe the Government saying that they will have a say. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me be clear. I appreciate the concerns that hon. Members have expressed. I hope that I can provide some reassurance, but I am more than happy to have further exchanges on this point, which is an important one.

The clause introduces a new streamlined procedure for making material policy amendments to national policy statements, where the proposed amendments fall into four categories of changes to be made since the NPPS was last reviewed: reflecting legislative changes or revocations that have already come into force; relevant court decisions that have already been issued; Government policy that has already been published; and changes to other documents referred to in the NPPS.

A good example is our recent changes to the national planning policy framework—consulted on publicly and subject to a significant amount of scrutiny in the House. If a relevant NPPS had to be updated to reflect some of those policy changes, which have already been subject to consultation and scrutiny on their own terms, as I said, that would be a good example of where this reflective procedure might be useful.

The primary aim of the clause is to expedite the Parliamentary process for updating national policy statements. By doing so, it ensures that amendments that have already undergone public and parliamentary scrutiny can be integrated more swiftly into the relevant NPPS. In enabling reflective amendments to be made, the new procedure will support the Government’s growth mission by ensuring that NPPSs are current and relevant, increasing certainty for developers and investors, and streamlining decision making for nationally significant infrastructure projects.

Hon. Members should be assured that, where applicable, the statutory and regulatory prerequisites of an appraisal of sustainability and habitats regulation assessment will continue to apply to amendments that fall within this definition, as will the existing publication and consultation requirements for material changes to a national policy statement. The clause does, however—this is the point of debate that we have just had—disapply the requirements for the Secretary of State to respond to resolutions made by Parliament or its Committees. We believe that change is necessary to enable reflective changes to be made to NPSs in a more timely and proportionate manner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I simply disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a matter for the House rather than the Government. On their own terms, we think the changes made through the clause are proportionate and will ensure that the system is more effective. Again, I make it clear that we are talking about reflective amendments to national policy statements in the four specific categories I have given.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way one last time, and then I will make some progress.

[Lewis Cocking]

If we are talking about small, minor changes, surely the consultation period does not need to be that long—it will not take Select Committees long to produce a report to feed into the process if these are only minor changes. I do not see the need for change that the Minister is setting out.

[Matthew Pennycook]

All I would say is that if the hon. Gentleman looked at the history of the response times on some of these matters he would see that in not every instance is there a timely response. It can delay the process quite significantly. We appreciate the concerns, but the procedure cannot and will not be used to bypass due parliamentary scrutiny.

Any court decision change being reflected in the NPS will have been scrutinised by the public and Parliament on its own terms. We are adjusting the parliamentary scrutiny requirements to update an NPS, so that it is more proportionate and enables those documents to be updated more quickly. The process retains scope for Parliament to raise matters with the Government. The Secretary of State is required to lay a statement in Parliament announcing that a review of the NPS is taking place. The Government will write to the relevant Select Committee at the start of the consultation period, and Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the relevant Select Committee during the consultation period, so far as is practical. Finally, the NPS as amended will still be laid in Parliament for 21 days and can be prayed against.

I turn to amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington; we have covered many of the issues it raises. In seeking to remove clause 2(3)(a), it is a wrecking amendment, in our view. It would fatally and fundamentally undermine the introduction of a new streamlined procedure for updating national policy statements by requiring the Government to respond to a Select Committee inquiry before being able to lay a national policy statement before Parliament. We will therefore resist it. As I have set out, the new procedure introduced by clause 2 will help to unlock growth in our country by enabling policy to be updated more easily, providing certainty for applicants using the NSIP regime and for decision makers. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, and I commend clause 2 to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I want to be very clear about the circumstances in which this measure can be used. As he will appreciate, I will not comment on a specific application, for reasons he will well understand, but, in such a scenario, I struggle to see how that application could feasibly come within the NSIP regime process at all. It sounds like a straight-down-the-line application that would be made by the applicant, across two local authorities, through the Town and Country Planning Act regime.

What the clause seeks to do is ensure that, in cases where, due to the nature of the development, the only route to go down is the NSIP regime via a development consent order, an applicant can apply to have that application determined in a different consenting order if it will lead to a faster, more proportionate and more effective decision-making process. As I say, it will therefore be for the Secretary of State to consider the unique circumstances and impacts of any specific development so that the consenting of certain developments can be undertaken by whatever body the applicant appealing to the Secretary of State says is the more appropriate route. In most instances, I would assume that that would be the local planning authority, but I gave the example of the Transport and Works Acts regime for roads.

We are trying to get at the type of examples where developments need limited consents or may not need compulsory acquisition—in a sense, when the one-stop-shop nature of the NSIP regime may not be the most proportionate means to take that through. The redirection under the clause will not be appropriate for all developments, and, for a direction to be given, the Secretary of State must consider that it is appropriate for an alternative consenting regime to apply rather than the Planning Act.

[Lewis Cocking]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Has his Department done any analysis of how many requests the Government are likely to get under the clause, and how many applications will want to change how they are determined?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think the thrust of the hon. Member’s question was about a numerical analysis. No, we cannot account for the behavioural change that would come if this clause is enacted. What we do know, from significant engagement with stakeholders in the infrastructure sector, is that lots of applicants would make use of the redirection route and are eager to do so.

The examples I have heard from particular major economic infrastructure providers are where, as I say, they have a constructive and healthy working relationship with a local authority that they are confident is resourced and able to take the decision to approve or reject an application in a timely manner and they do not want to have to take it through the NSIP regime, which is currently their only route.

As I said, section 35 already allows the Secretary of State to pull applications from other regimes into the NSIP regime. This will work the other way, and just provides a necessary flexibility. The point of clause 3, though, is to ensure that any given applicant can make a case to the Secretary of State to go into the regime that they feel is the most appropriate and proportionate for the application in question.

[Lewis Cocking]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. I just want to press him a little more. He is saying that people can choose to go through the Town and Country Planning Act regime, but we were always told by this Government that that is a long, arduous process that developments take a really long time to go through. Why are they suggesting that they might want to put more development through that process if, as they are saying, it is not working?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government are agnostic on which route a developer will wish to go down. As I say, developers will have to apply to the Secretary of State and make a case that, in the specific circumstances in which they are operating, there should be an alternative consenting route. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are making significant efforts to speed up and streamline the town and country planning regime. From previous debates, I know that he takes issue with some of that, but if he has had a conversion, I would very much welcome it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan]

I was rising to make my speech, Mrs Hobhouse, not to intervene; I apologise. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.

A crucial component of the ability to deliver homes across the country will be to deliver transport and other infrastructure projects. The measures in the Bill go some way towards speeding up the statutory processes of consultation in the delivery of infrastructure projects. As I outlined in my speech on Second Reading, the pre-consultation period for infrastructure projects is a major cause of delay for infrastructure being delivered. To echo the Minister’s remarks, the status quo in this country is simply not working to speed up the process.

As matters stand, applicants operate in what I describe as a hyper-risk-averse context. Delays caused to pre-application contribute not only to the length of time that it takes for infrastructure to be delivered, but to the cost. Other Members rightly identified the lower Thames crossing, which impacts my constituency; 2,000 pages and £800 million spent are figures that have served absolutely no one, and certainly not the taxpayer.

[Lewis Cocking]

Does the hon. Lady not agree that getting rid of the pre-planning application consultation completely will disenfranchise residents and constituents from engaging with the process? Sometimes that process can solve some of the issues down the line. I understand that it takes too long—I agree with and have strong sympathy for her points—but should we not be able to speed it up while allowing that engagement to take place?

[Nesil Caliskan]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I do not think that the change would prevent applicants from continuing to engage with residents and elected Members. All it would do is avoid putting additional onus on a process that is costing the taxpayer a huge amount of money.

I will go further. Having spoken to members of our community, I have heard over and over again that there is consultation fatigue with the endless stream of negotiations. Before we even get to a statutory consultation period, we have had many years of something that has been proposed with no statutory framework. This proposal has the good intention of a material change that will shorten the consultation period.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I understand the point the hon. Member makes, but part of me thinks, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?” For a business whose profits come from expediting the grant of planning consent as much as possible, removing potential obstacles to that is important.

However, as has been outlined in many of the examples that we have debated, there can be crucial points of detail that either would make all the difference to the level of consent and support in the local community for a project, or would engage other legal obligations that Parliament has placed on the local authorities, either to carry out an impact assessment—an evaluation of what that will mean—or, in some cases, to engage with that process to oppose the development taking place, because it contradicts other legal obligations placed on the authority by Parliament in respect of environment, health or whatever it may be. Clearly, we need to ensure that there is a functional process.

[Lewis Cocking]

Does my hon. Friend agree that removing the pre-planning application consultation entirely places too much trust in developers? Sometimes developers build absolute rubbish. I do not want them to spend too much money on something that does not have some sort of community support, or support from Government agencies. The Bill could jeopardise that, if we remove the consultation completely.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

Q I thank the panel members. I would like to dig down a bit on local plans, and to build on Ms Hills’s comments on the need for a chief planning officer. There are two parts to my question. The first is: what do you think about the lack of capacity in local authorities at the moment? It is all well and good having a chief planning officer, but planning and strategic planning does not depend on one person; it depends on a large team. The second part is around local plans. Are strategic planning and growth being hindered by the fact that the majority of local areas do not have an up-to-date local plan?

Victoria Hills: Very briefly, capacity and capability have been a hindrance in local authorities for a number of years. We have lost 25% of local authority planners alone in the last seven years, and that cannot continue. We are working with the Department and many partners; Public Practice and Pathways to Planning are both really important at this moment in time. The chief planner is there to advocate for those resources at the top table of local government and to ensure that they have a statutory basis on which to retain the budget.

Despite everything that everybody is doing to bring in more planners—with private sector money as well; we are working with the British Chambers of Commerce on a new planning scholarship, using private sector money to solve the crisis of lack of capacity—our biggest burning platform at the moment is the uncertainty regarding the level 7 apprenticeship. Some 60% of apprentices in local government come from under-represented groups within the profession. Unless we have urgent clarity soon as to whether or not our chartered town planner apprenticeship can continue, we are seriously worried about the pipeline of planners going into local government. It would be remiss of me not to mention that in the context of your capacity question.

On local plans, of course it is not good enough that only 40% of local authorities have an up-to-date local plan. That is an urgent priority. Of the 25% of local authority planners who have left local government in the last seven years, we suspect the lion’s share were in those local planning teams, and we need to work urgently to put that capacity back in. The apprenticeship will go some way, as will Pathways to Planning and the planning scholarship, but there is no time to waste in ensuring that we put that capacity back in. We think that the statutory chief planning role will not only have the right level of seniority to advocate for it, but they will actually help restore planning departments as a real career choice for graduates coming out of planning schools now.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I would like to ask a few questions—

[The Chair]

Order. Please remember to keep it short, because other colleagues want to come in.

[Lewis Cocking]

Q Sorry; yes. We have spoken about local plans and outline planning permission, and I will link those two together. There is a lot of consultation around development that comes forward, and the public in the area buy into it, because it is almost like it is painted in gold. The developers say that they can deliver all the amenities and everything the residents want, and then when they come forward for full planning permission, the proposal is completely changed. The residents have bought into something that they want, in the form of the fantastic development that the developers proposed. But when the developers come for full planning, it is completely different, so the residents are up in arms because they have not really bought into that. Would you make some comments on the differentials there?

Faraz Baber: The outline, as you say, is an outline, but the reality is that any full application that comes forward should be aligned with the agreement on social infrastructure and all the other elements that are required, whether that is the affordable housing, social infrastructure, civil payments or whatever. There was an earlier question: what is planning for? Well, planning is for that—to ensure that those community benefits are derived from development and to ensure that it is inclusive, not just for new residents but for existing residents as well.

I think that is a guardianship point, where the planning team or the local authority have to ensure that what they said they wanted to see from the plan is ultimately delivered. People will go into viability discussions and say, “I can’t afford that and I can’t afford this.” That is a judgment that has to be made about what can be delivered in the public interest. In answer to your question, that is very much where planning sits at the fore, to ensure that the right development with the right social infrastructure comes forward, and that it is fitting for the place it is sitting in.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

Q I would like to focus again on local planning authorities. I am acutely aware, from my constituency in North Warwickshire and Bedworth, of the under-resourcing of planning authorities, and this Bill enables us to charge increased fees, but I am also aware of the frustration from local developers and businesses about delays in the planning system. Do you think that the ability to charge extra fees will strike the right balance, and should they be ringfenced to make sure that decisions are made in a timely manner?

Victoria Hills: We have been advocating for the ringfencing of fees since time began. It is absolutely essential, and—I am sure that Faraz will pick this point up in a moment for his clients—I have not met a single developer that is not willing to pay for more for a service. The problem is that they are paying more but not getting the service. In some places, they are, but not in others. The opportunity, through this Bill, to strengthen the ringfencing and ensure that the money stays within the planning team to deliver the service cannot come soon enough to help to reduce some of those delays.

Having the opportunity for local areas to work out what good looks like for them is absolutely a sensible way forward within that. Again, we do feel that having the right level of seniority within the department to ensure that the money stays there is going to be a key part of it.

Faraz Baber: Moving towards this ringfencing idea within the planning service is hugely positive, although when I say the planning service, it may extend slightly to the legal side as well, because you have to get those section 106 agreements signed off to make things happen. The key, though, is that it has to stay ringfenced for that resource to happen. We often see that PPAs—planning performance agreements—are paid up front for meetings, and that there is a very uneven balance in how well those deliver, in terms of the service that the clients receive when they pay those large chunks of change for that service. So, developers are right—applicants are right—to get frustrated when they think they are getting a premier service to help facilitate the bringing forward of an application, then find that it does not move the dial one iota.

I think the very basic premise is that instead of the chief executive or the finance director of the council saying, “I’ll take that because I need to put it into social care or into education,” the money actually stays there. Remember, if we keep that money inside the planning service, it will drive the growth that the Government have said that they want to achieve. The devil is in the detail, and we need to see that more, but it is the right direction to take.

Hugh Ellis: I would say that it would stabilise issues for development management, but, for the policy officers who we work with, it would not necessarily support their work.

Also, a piece of heresy, if it is okay: the private sector complains a lot about delays, despite getting 86% of all its applications approved, but I think that there needs to be more debate about competence in the private sector. When a private sector developer applies for a category 3a floodplain development and then complains that the Environment Agency wants it to go through a flood risk assessment process, my blood boils. Planners are doing life-and-death stuff. For example, no house built after 2009 is part of the insurance compact, so if we get this wrong, negative equity will look like a picnic. Planning is trying to do really complicated stuff and it needs time to do that. Statutory consultees are also crucial to that, and they need to be resourced properly to play that role as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Q Very few homes have been built in my constituency in the last decade. Sam, you highlighted how previous Governments failed catastrophically with the amount of time and taxpayers’ money that was put into planning and development across the country. Jack, you said the existing system is “okay”. Is “okay” enough for my constituents who need homes and communities with natural environments around them?

Jack Airey: I think what I said is that the system for securing and spending developer contributions is okay. I do not think the wider planning system is okay. In terms of how you can improve it, a lot of the measures in the Bill are very worth while, and a lot of the changes in the NPPF are incredibly worth while. There are many more things that the Government can do, especially on the national development management policies.

Sam Richards: The system is fundamentally broken. I am sure your constituents are furious that their energy bills are through the roof and they cannot afford the rent, and they are right to be so.

[Lewis Cocking]

Q I want to come back to something you said at the beginning, Jack—I probably should say that I am still a local councillor until 1 May. You basically said that no one engages with the planning system, or that the public—constituents—do not engage with it. What evidence do you have to suggest that? I would slightly push back on such a sweeping statement, so I just want to understand what evidence you have to back that up.

Jack Airey: At Public First we do lots of opinion research. We do public polling, focus groups and something we call immersives. We go and speak to people and ask what they think about things. In some polling we have asked, “Have you engaged in planning applications? Do you get involved in the local plan?” and it is minuscule proportions of people. We go and speak to people about developments that are happening.

There is definitely opposition to development and it is often very intense. Often, if you listen to debates in the building across the road or you look online, it looks like it is totally representative of a local community, but often, if you speak to people on the ground, most do not care about it. They might even support it. While there is some opposition—I am sure you hear it a lot in your constituencies when you go doorstep to doorstep —it is much smaller than it seems. That is the message I was trying to give. It is about engaging those people who need to be housed, if we are talking about housing, just as much as the people who oppose development. We should talk to them a bit more.

[Lewis Cocking]

I do not agree.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

Q From your experience and the best practice out there, where in the system is the best place to engage with local voices and have those voices heard?

Jack Airey: Do you mean geographically?

Residential Estate Management Companies

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I am a local councillor. I also understand this issue more than most, because I live in a leasehold property.

I have a number of cases across my constituency of Broxbourne of leaseholders being ripped off by management companies, including High Leigh in Hoddesdon; Academia Avenue, Robinia Road and Watery Lane in Turnford; Aldermere Avenue and Magnolia Way in Flamstead End; and Eleanor House in Waltham Cross. These companies are completely unaccountable. There is a lack of transparency, and they simply do not care. If they deem that residents have underpaid by £10, or even £1, they are straight round to their door. However, when my residents—or constituents across the country—write or email asking for answers to their questions, these companies are absolutely nowhere to be seen. That is absolutely shocking, and it cannot be allowed to continue. As we have heard from Members across the House, our postbags are full with issue after issue. Sadly, I am yet to come across a company that is good in this area.

In the limited time available, I want to touch on the issue of solicitors and what people are being told when they buy these properties. Solicitors are not doing enough to point out all the red flags, including everything that residents are accountable for, what money they may have to pay and the previous accounts of the different estates. We really need to shine a light on the issue of solicitors; we cannot let them off the hook. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s view on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

To be clear, the protections we are talking about, which we intend to switch on as soon as is feasible and were provided for by powers under the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act passed by the previous Government, will benefit existing residential freeholders on existing estates. I will come to the prevalence of those arrangements in due course, but I can reassure hon. Members that we intend to carry out that consultation this year, as promised, and that I am doing everything I can to expedite it.

Beyond the short-term need to protect residential freeholders better, we have to take steps to reduce the prevalence of private estate management arrangements, which are the root cause of the problems we are considering today. In my written ministerial statement, I committed the Government to consulting on legislative and policy options to achieve that objective. I hope that hon. Members appreciate that this is not a simple and straightforward area of policy and that the implications of policy choices are potentially far-reaching.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Yes. I will try to give way to as many hon. Members as I can.

[Lewis Cocking]

I want to make a point about solicitors’ practices and what information people get when they buy their properties. I think that a number of people go into these contracts under false pretences and do not fully understand what they are responsible for and what they may end up paying for.

[Matthew Pennycook]

There are undoubtedly issues around the purchase of homes on these estates. For example, it appears to be fairly common for residential freeholders not to be notified of their future liability for charges early in the conveyancing process. We are giving due consideration to those issues as well.

On the prevalence of future arrangements, the Government intend to seek views from a wide range of interested parties, including local authorities, management companies, developers and residential freeholders themselves. Our consultation will need to consider a wide range of trade-offs, including costs to homeowners, costs to local authorities, potential impacts on housing supply and the links with the planning system. As promised, we will consult on that matter this year.

Birmingham: Waste Collection

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I have already covered the value that the MOD has provided, and of course, we work in partnership. The offer of support was made to the council, which received that offer gratefully. However, the MOD, whose logistical planners have been on the ground in Birmingham, has been clear that the council is at a point at which it does not need its support, because it has the collection rounds in place. I hope the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Just eight weeks ago, during a Select Committee evidence session, the Minister told me that

“there is a lot of good work taking place in Birmingham”.

The Government want to create super-councils, covering half a million people and reaching over vast areas to manage bin collections and other vital services, against the wishes of my constituents. We have seen the result in Birmingham. Does the Minister believe that tons of rubbish on the streets is the model that the rest of the country should follow?

[Jim McMahon]

In a way, that question shows a misunderstanding of why Birmingham is in the situation it is in. It makes no more sense to say that Birmingham’s problems are because of its size and scale than it would to say, “Look at the debt liabilities built up by some of the smallest councils in the country, which have borrowed many hundreds or thousands of times their revenue.” In a way, these problems are down to long-term issues. Some of this situation is due to the foundational funding that Birmingham city council has been given, but Birmingham is getting its house in order. It is not an easy process, and that council would say itself that it has a way to go. When it comes to resolving historical equal pay liabilities, and issues with the Oracle IT system, the council faces a significant financial liability. It is making progress on modernising its workforce and on the future operating model, but it has some way to go.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)]

This Government are tackling the root causes of homelessness by delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, and that is being backed by £2 billion of investment for social and affordable housing. Our Renters’ Rights Bill will abolish section 21 no-fault evictions.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

My constituents in Broxbourne rightly expect new schools and health facilities, particularly GP surgeries, to be in place before any new housing development. What action is the Minister taking to force developers to deliver infrastructure first?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that new housing development is supported by appropriate infrastructure. The revised national planning policy framework, which we published last year, included changes designed to improve the provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, we are also committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions to ensure new developments provide the necessary infrastructure that communities such as his expect.

Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 General Committees

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Hobhouse. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a local councillor.

I have just a few comments. The delay in elections for these local authorities was not really a choice for them; it was a mandate from Government. The Government’s White Paper set out their expectation for all two-tier areas, regardless of their personal views, to move to unitary structures. The Minister said that 21 areas have replied to the Government’s letter in support of that move, but the Government’s letter was intended to make them come forward with proposals. The Government have quite clearly said, “If you do not come forward with proposals for your area, we are going to do this to you.” They will introduce a managerial direction within the White Paper.

[Jim McMahon]

I think it is important that the record reflects the actual situation. First, there was no mandating, because this is about postponing elections to allow reorganisation; it is not about the reorganisation process itself. To be clear, 18 councils applied to have their elections postponed and we agreed to nine, because not all met the high bar that we have set. Also, to be clear, 24 of the 33 elections that were due to take place in May 2025 are going ahead as normal.

[Lewis Cocking]

I thank the Minister for his intervention. However, if the Government’s White Paper sets out their expectation for two-tier areas to reorganise, those two-tier areas do not have a choice. They either get on that train and do what the Government are telling them, or they wait by the sidelines and get forced to do it by the Government. This is definitely a top-down approach, not bottom-up.

The decision to delay elections should not be taken lightly. Other Members have touched on this, but nine councils have asked for delays in elections because the Government are making them reorganise. What happens if they are delayed for longer than 12 months? When we were last in government, three areas were done over three years, so the Government are very ambitious in doing nine.

If we are to believe what is in the news about a 15% reduction in the civil service, how will the MHCLG cope and get those nine councils done within a year? As has been alluded to already, how will the MHCLG get consensus within the local area, and how will it take those councils through that process of reorganisation? The process should be thought about over a longer period of time, rather than rushed through over 12 months. I have concerns that some of these elections, which we may agree today should happen in a year, will actually need longer.

I also have concerns about what the Boundary Commission will do with these delayed elections, and its capacity to draw up new boundaries for whatever authorities come forward. We have touched on the half a million population figure; but I have seen very little evidence to show that that is an appropriate figure for a new authority. The Minister’s own authority is well below half a million people, so I do not understand where the Government have got that number from—I think they have just plucked it out of thin air.

Lastly, it has been suggested that, when we go through this process, there will be loads of money for local government, as local government will save millions of pounds. I ask the Minister to comment on this: Somerset council has gone through reorganisation to a unitary structure; it has asked the Government to increase council tax bills by 7.5%, which was accepted, yet it is still in financial difficulty. So if reorganisation is the answer to all of local government’s problems, why do we have a council that has just gone through the process still asking for extra money, and still in financial difficulty?

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I think my hon. Friend will find that the problem, of course, is that Somerset is run by the Liberal Democrats, and run very badly.

[Lewis Cocking]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend.

[Vikki Slade]

Actually, the Liberal Democrats took over after a long time when the whole area had been run by the Conservatives, and so picked up a complete car crash.

[Lewis Cocking]

The area is under Liberal Democrat control now, and they have gone for a massive council tax increase of 7.5%, even though when the Prime Minister launched his local election campaign he said everyone’s council tax would be frozen. I will leave that there.

When we talk about the millions of pounds to be saved through local government reorganisation, we need to be very careful about the figures we use, because that is not the answer to all the local government questions. We need to look at population size again, and really I want the Minister to comment on capacity in the civil service. If we managed three areas over three years with strong local support, how will the Government be able to do nine within 12 months—having elections and making sure all the structures are in place—and what happens to people’s right to vote in those areas, if it goes on for longer than 12 months?

Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 Draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 General Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. The draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations were laid before the House on 13 February. The draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025 were laid before the House on 25 February. Let me set out in turn the reasons why we are bringing each set of regulations forward, and what they will provide for, starting with the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations.

Planning is principally a local activity, but a well-established principle is that, in limited circumstances and where issues of more than local importance are involved, it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to make planning decisions. Recent experience, including the response to covid-19, has exposed that the existing route for securing planning permission on Crown land, namely the urgent Crown development route under section 293A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which was introduced in 2006, is not fit for purpose. Indeed, it is telling that it has never once been used. Furthermore, Departments have struggled to secure local planning permission for nationally important public service infrastructure such as prisons.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, passed by the previous Government in the last Parliament, made provision to address those challenges by providing two new routes for planning permission for Crown development in England. The first route, referred to as Crown development, is for planning applications for Crown developments that are considered of national importance. Such applications are to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate directly, instead of to local planning authorities. An inspector will consider and determine the application, unless the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government recovers the application to determine herself.

The second route is an updated urgent Crown development route, which will enable applications for nationally important developments that are needed urgently to be determined rapidly under a simplified procedure. Applications under the urgent route will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. Those new routes can be used for developments only where clearly justified. Provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act require that applications can be accepted by the Secretary of State only if she deems that the proposed development is of national importance and, in the case of the urgent Crown development route, urgent.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that I am a local councillor. Given what the Minister has outlined, will he give us a flavour of how local people can make representations, even if it is straight to the Secretary of State or the Planning Inspectorate? I am concerned that removing applications from local councils and putting them through the new routes he has described will make it harder for local residents to feel that their voice has been heard, even on important national infrastructure projects.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me deal with community engagement under both routes. With the Crown development route, community engagement will be a key part of the process. Communities will be fully engaged throughout. Much like an application submitted to a local planning authority, there will be mandatory consultation and publicity about the consultation for a minimum period of 21 days. That period will be 30 days if the development is one that requires an environmental impact assessment and is therefore an EIA development. That will enable members of the community to view and comment on the application.

We expect that the majority of Crown development applications will be subject to a public hearing. Those who made comments will be notified when that is to take place. Interested parties may attend the hearing if the inspector allows it. Only comments made during the consultation, the publicity period and the hearing that raise material planning matters will be taken into account as part of the decision-making process.

The local planning authority will be consulted and will have a role to play in publicising the application. It will need to place the application and associated documents on its planning register. Where PINS—the Planning Inspectorate—does not have a local presence, the local planning authority will be required to affix site notices during the mandatory period and to notify those owners or occupiers who adjoin the site. For urgent Crown development, the other route that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provides for, the local planning authority will again be consulted as part of the application. That is mandated by section 293C(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In the draft regulations, we have made provision about the consultation procedure.

While we appreciate the importance of community engagement, given the urgency with which decisions must be made, under the approach to consultation with the community in this process they will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In circumstances in which decisions need to be made very quickly, it may not be possible to conduct a meaningful public consultation and reach an urgent decision. I hope that satisfies the hon. Member for Broxbourne on the different types of community engagement under both routes.

The new routes, as I said, can be used only for developments for which it is clearly justified, and provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act require that applications can be accepted by the Secretary of State only if she deems that they are of national importance and, in the case of the urgent Crown development route, urgent. I made a written ministerial statement on 13 February that set out the principles under which national importance and urgency will be determined. When submitting an application, applicants are required to set out the reasons why they consider that the development is of national importance and, in the case of urgent Crown development, needed as a matter of urgency.

The draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations make amendments to primary legislation to reflect the two new Crown development routes. For instance, they amend references to planning permission set out in a range of pieces of legislation. They also remove references to the previous urgent Crown development route in section 293A of the Town and Country Planning Act, which now applies only in Wales. The instrument also sets the fee for an application for planning permission under both routes, set at the same fee, which would have been paid to the local authority.

Following the statutory instrument coming into force, a further suite of statutory instruments will be made through the negative parliamentary procedure. They will set the procedures for the two routes and make further consequential changes to secondary legislation to reflect their implementation. We have published the instruments in draft ahead of the debate, in order to provide proper transparency about how the routes will operate. I reiterate that the Government are committed to ensuring proper transparency to Parliament at every stage when the routes are used. When the matter was considered in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee, I stressed that point to the then Minister.

The following are the ways in which we want to ensure that proper transparency takes place. First, where an application under any of the routes is accepted, the relevant Members of Parliament will be sent a letter. That letter will include details of where the application can be viewed and the next steps. The letter will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Secondly, when a decision is made on whether to grant planning permission, the relevant Members of Parliament will be sent another letter. That letter will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Finally, on an annual basis, the Secretary of State will publish a report of all decisions taken under the routes. Taken together, those steps will ensure that Members in the other House are properly appraised of any applications that relate to their constituencies. It also means that both Houses of Parliament will be provided the opportunity to consider and scrutinise the general operation of the routes.

The second set of regulations we are debating make changes to the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. The changes will ensure that when development comes forward after it is granted planning permission through the Crown development route, such development can be liable to pay the community infrastructure levy if the local authority charges CIL in that area. In addition, under section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act, applicants can apply to the Planning Inspectorate, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, for a planning permission decision when an authority has been designated for poor performance. We are amending the CIL regulations to ensure that the levy can be charged on development that comes forward under this route if the local authority charges CIL in its area. That ensures that fair financial contributions to local infrastructure are made by such development.

Finally, some incidental and consequential amendments are made to the Town and Country Planning (Section 62A Applications) (Procedure and Consequential Amendments) Order 2013 to enable relevant information to be provided in relation to CIL where an application is made under section 62A.

To summarise, the regulations are important in ensuring a more timely and proportionate process for dealing with planning applications for Crown development in England. The Government are taking steps to ensure that the routes are used appropriately, and that there is full scrutiny of the use of the powers. The changes we are making to the CIL regime are also important to ensure that CIL can be charged on development in a consistent and fair way, even when the local planning authority is not the decision maker.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I gently say to the right hon. Member that it is this Government who have brought forward mandatory local plans, and it was his Government who did not. For too long we have left home ownership to collapse, with homelessness soaring and over 160,000 children in temporary accommodation. This is a country that simply is not working.

The time it takes to secure planning permission for major projects has almost doubled in the last decade, and it now takes more than four years. It is slower and more costly to build big infrastructure in England than in France and Italy. No new reservoir has been built for over 30 years. There are countless other examples, such as the critical new road improvement scheme for Norwich, which would create jobs and speed up journeys yet was held up for two years by unsuccessful legal challenges. We have the ridiculous situation where 139 desperately needed houses were delayed in Bingley because of a row over the speed of balls at the neighbouring cricket club.

The result of such delays has been fewer homes built, higher energy bills, and lower productivity and growth. For 14 years, the country has been crying out for a Government with the will to change that. Successive Tory Prime Ministers promised that change, but when the bold action was demanded they were too afraid to stand up to their Back Benchers.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Can the Secretary of State outline what powers in the Bill she will use to take on developers and make sure that they build based on the planning permissions they already have?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Member will know as a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that we have already made changes through the national planning policy framework, and we have our new homes accelerator programme, which is already providing thousands of homes. The Bill is about building on those powers to ensure that we get Britain building. It was his Government who did not build the houses and the infrastructure that we desperately need and who were too timid to face down the vested interests. This Labour Government are on the side of the builders, not the blockers, and we are saying, “No more.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the register of interests.

At his first Prime Minister’s Question Time in July last year, I asked the Prime Minister to reassure my constituents that they would have a meaningful say over the new development in the green belt in their area. He said that the Government “will work with communities”—but this Bill could not be further from that promise. We are seeing housing targets go through the roof in rural areas, as green-belt protections are removed. In my local councils of East Herts and Broxbourne, the targets are going up by more than 20% and within Broxbourne district specifically they are almost doubling. The loss of protections for unrestricted sprawl around the villages I represent is extremely worrying for my constituents who live in those villages of Brickenden, Hertford Heath, Great Amwell, Stanstead Abbotts and St Margarets, as their unique character and historical charm could be lost forever.

At the same time, targets are going down in London, where there is the infrastructure to cope. The plans do not add up. There is something in this Bill on which I can agree with the Government: the explanatory notes state that limited infrastructure delivery is a real cost on the lives of working people. I completely agree. It is far too common for new housing to be built without the increase in public service capacity to match.

[Joy Morrissey]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point on key infrastructure. Not only are we waiting for GP surgeries in my constituency, but we need a sewerage upgrade across my patch. We cannot even have new homes put in, because they cannot be attached to the sewerage system in its existing state. His point is valid: until infrastructure is put in place we cannot put homes in these new areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and she is right that infrastructure must come first. I will come on later in my speech to the fact that there is nothing in this Bill to make developers put that infrastructure in first.

In Broxbourne, we have already had more than our fair share of development. Thousands of new homes have been built in the past few years, but new or expanded infrastructure to take the strain off our already overstretched services is nowhere to be seen, and it is having a serious impact on my constituents. A Health Minister has admitted to me that patients trying to see their local GP in my constituency are more likely than the national average to wait two weeks. Drivers are forced to sit in traffic as roads clog up, and I hear time and again that parents are unable to get their child into the local school that they want.

The Bill before us seeks to make it easier to build major infrastructure. Of course I support building roads, airports and runways more quickly, but what the Government define as major infrastructure is way too narrow. Major infrastructure, to my constituents, is whether they can get a GP appointment or a school place. I see no mention of that in this Bill. There is nothing about providing new powers for local councils to ensure that that kind of infrastructure is in place before new housing is built.

I had to fight extremely hard to get the NHS round the table to say that we desperately need a new surgery to meet the demand from existing residents, but it would not listen to me—and now the Government are forcing us to build even more houses. In December, the Housing Minister said he was

“considering what more we can do to ensure that we get infrastructure for developments up front”.—[Official Report, 12 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 1068.]

But where is that within the Bill? That is how to get existing residents on side and get people behind the new development that we desperately need in the right location. Local councillors are in fact having more of their powers over and responsibility for planning taken away, which dilutes local accountability and removes the voice of residents in deciding what is built in the local area. That is an attack on local democracy.

The Minister should be taking on developers, not local communities and councils. I have sat on a planning committee, and the reason the process is sometimes so long and—developers would argue—so onerous on the developers is that they try to build utter rubbish. Some of the stuff they put forward is utterly disgraceful. I would not want to live on some of the developments that they bring forward and try to get councillors to approve.

Of course we must have a robust process, because we need to focus more on urban design. Simply making it easier for developers to get through the planning system is putting way too much trust in developers to build appropriate communities, with all the infrastructure that our residents need.

[Bradley Thomas]

Does my hon. Friend agree that with regard to good-quality design, not only society but particularly the Government in their relationship with developers have to shift their mindset away from seeing design as a cost to instead seeing it as an investment that will reap benefits in the form of better-quality placemaking and better quality of life for residents?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

I know my hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for urban design, and he makes an important point. Of course we must invest in urban design, because it is the council—and MPs through our casework—that picks up the pieces. If a development is not planned correctly, with the right number of car spaces, for example, there are issues when people try to park their cars. Our inboxes get clogged up with all of those issues and the council is put under extra pressure with antisocial behaviour and so on.

We really have to think about planning the communities, rather than just saying, “Oh, we will give in to the developers—they say it takes too long, so we’ll make it quicker and just rely on them to create places that people want to live.” As I said, I have sat on a planning committee, and I have seen developments come forward that are utter rubbish. We need to change the mindset of developers, and we must ensure that we have good design. The Government are not seeking to change that; they are embracing it by committing to a target that can only be achieved by rushing the construction of low-quality homes with no plans for those who will live there. The Government need to focus more on the communities that we are trying to build within this country, rather than specific targets and house building across the country.

This Bill reveals that the Labour Government have their priorities wrong. Local people should have the largest influence over where new housing development goes and when it happens in their communities, not Ministers in Whitehall.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I am surprised to hear the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) trashing hard-working local builders in his constituency and calling the homes that his constituents live in dreadful trashy houses. Before I came to this place—

[Lewis Cocking]

rose—

[Rachel Taylor]

I am not going to give way; you have had your time. Before I came to this place—[Interruption.]

[Rachel Taylor]

Before I came to this place—

[Lewis Cocking]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to seek your advice. I have just been cited as saying something in my speech that I did not say. I was merely talking about developers and my time on the planning committee, when developers would come forward and propose utter rubbish. I did not say the houses my residents live in are rubbish.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Member has made his point. It is a matter of debate, but his point is now on the record.

Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 General Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank both the Liberal Democrat spokesman and the shadow Minister for their contributions. I note that the shadow Minister does not feel strongly enough about the reforms to formally divide the Committee, but he makes a number of pertinent challenges and asks a number of questions that I will seek to answer.

Both Members outlined the problem we face, which is that local planning authorities are significantly under-resourced and hard pressed. On planning application fees, despite the increases made by the previous Government in December 2023, we have a funding shortfall across the whole of England of £362 million. That is the problem we are attempting to address with the regulations. Fees were consolidated in 2012 by the coalition Government and have been increased only twice since, in 2018 and 2023. Importantly, prior to changes in 2023 that will come into effect on 1 April, they were never index linked, so they have never risen with inflation. As such, the gap between the cost of processing an application and the fees charged has widened over time.

The Government propose, through the regulations, to increase the fees on certain types of applications, which as I said in my opening remarks constitute the bulk of applications to local authorities, where the funding shortfall is most acute. The current fee of £258 on householder applications—just to give the shadow Minister a sense of the shortfall we are talking about—covers less than half the cost of processing the application to the local authority. As I have said, we think it is right in principle that taxpayers should not bear that burden, but the people making the application who will directly benefit from consent once it is processed. The planning application fee represents a small proportion—as I said, less than 1%—of typical overall development costs and, through permitted development rights, certain types of applications incur no fee at all.

The shadow Minister rightly raised ringfencing. The Government are clear that they expect the income from planning fees to be retained and directly invested in the delivery of planning application services. Managing public money principles should ensure that planning fees are effectively ringfenced. We believe that they are in most instances, but I have heard anecdotal accounts of planning fees being used to cross-subsidise other council services. We are therefore considering ringfencing as part of the Government’s longer-term plans for planning fees, which will enable local planning authorities to set their own fees.

On performance, in return for increasing planning fees, we expect local authorities to invest more in their planning service to deliver better performance. We are able to monitor, and will continue to monitor, the performance of local planning authorities through the planning performance dashboard and the quarterly planning statistics seen by the Department. The planning performance regime ensures that underperforming local planning authorities are held to account. The previous Government took action in that respect and we stand ready to do so where necessary.

Both Members raised concerns about general funding for local authorities. The Government are under no illusions about the scale of the financial issues facing councils and the potential for continued instability as we work to fix the foundations of local government. That is why we have a framework in place to support councils in the most difficult positions and why we work on a collaborative basis to help councils to manage their financial challenges.

Lastly, let me say something about local fee-setting. As we have said, it is important that local planning authorities are well resourced so they can deal with planning applications efficiently and do not hold up the development necessary for economic growth.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a local councillor. The Minister proposes to increase fees, but from my understanding they will not go to full cost recovery. Will he set out why they are taking a leapfrog approach and not going to full cost recovery, if that is indeed where the Government want to get to?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We think we are striking the right balance between increasing fees on the type of applications outlined in the regulations and making it very clear that nationally set planning fees can never be set in a way that covers every local authority’s costs for their planning application service, because costs vary between local authorities. The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware of that in his role. We think the only way to do this is ultimately for local planning authorities to be able to set their own planning fees. As I said, we intend to introduce a power in the proposed planning and infrastructure Bill that will enable local planning authorities to set their own fees, so that they will be able to recover their costs for their planning application services.

The proposed increases in fees are necessary and timely. The changes address the critical funding shortfalls faced by our local planning authorities and will provide them with the resources they need to deliver improved services in the short term. I hope the Committee will welcome them. As I have made clear, they will help to ensure that our planning system is faster and more efficient, and better equipped to facilitate our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority Regulations 2024 Draft Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority Regulations 2025 Draft Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2025 Draft Lancashire Combined County Authority Regulations 2024

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 General Committees

[Jim McMahon]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Mundell. Regulations were laid before Parliament on 26 November 2024 for Lancashire and for Devon and Torbay. The Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2025 was laid before Parliament on 4 December 2024, and the Greater Lincolnshire regulations on 11 December 2024. Although I recognise that combined authorities and combined county authorities are distinct legal bodies with different enabling statutory instruments, I hope Members will be content for me simply to use the term “the combined authorities” hereafter, unless there is a specific reason to separate them out.

To deliver on our manifesto commitment, in December 2024 the Government published the “English Devolution” White Paper, which sets out how the Government will widen and deepen devolution across England as part of our central mission to drive economic growth and improve living standards. These instruments are part of fulfilling the mission to move power out of Westminster and back to those who know their areas best. They are significant milestones in the devolution journeys of these four areas. The instruments provide for the implementation of the devolution agreements confirmed on 19 September 2024 between the Government and upper-tier councils in each of the areas concerned. On 18 November 2024, all the respective constituent councils consented to the making of these instruments.

The combined authority order will be made, if Parliament approves, under the enabling provision in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. The three sets of combined county authority regulations will be made, if they are approved, under the enabling provision in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. All four authorities will be established on the day after these statutory instruments are made. The Greater Lincolnshire combined county authority and the Hull and East Yorkshire combined authority have chosen to adopt a mayor for their authorities, with the inaugural elections taking place on 1 May this year. The elected mayors will take up office on 6 May, with a four-year term, and will take up their seats on the Council of Nations and Regions.

The statutory instruments make provision for the Government’s arrangements for combined authorities. Each authority has specific arrangements, enabled by either the 2023 Act or the 2009 Act and set out in these establishing instruments. In each case, the constituent councils nominate one or more of their members to form the combined authority, sitting alongside the mayor where one is being adopted. District council representation and input into the combined county authorities is determined locally within the framework provide by the 2023 Act. I know from conversations with local leaders, and through commitments they have made, that district councils will play a key role in ensuring the success of devolution in those areas.

The instruments confer public authority and local authority functions on the respective combined authorities, as agreed in their devolution agreements and set out in each area’s proposals. To accompany the order, we have laid before Parliament a section 105B report, as required by the 2009 Act; and we have laid before the House a section 20(6) report for the regulations, as required by the 2023 Act. The reports provide details about the public authority functions that are being devolved to these authorities. They include powers over transport and Homes England concurrent regeneration functions, as well as mayoral development corporation functions for the mayoral combined authorities. Additional funding will be available to the areas through the adult skills fund, which will be devolved to the combined authorities from the ’26-’27 academic year, as well as education and skills functions.

The Department for Education will work with the combined authorities to support their preparations and ensure that they meet the necessary readiness criteria, and we will legislate in due course when the Secretary of State for Education is assured that they are operationally ready and is satisfied that the required statutory tests have been met in each area.

As provided for in the enabling Acts, the constituent councils consulted on the proposals to establish the combined authorities based on their devolution agreements. Those consultations took place between December 2023 and March 2024 for periods of either six or eight weeks. Councils promoted the consultations using social media, communications campaigns, dedicated websites, and online and in-person events with the public. The councils also undertook targeted stakeholder engagement with businesses, the voluntary sector and key institutions in their areas. Responses could be made online via their website or email, on paper via the post or at dedicated events or collection points such as local libraries.

I can report that the necessary statutory requirements under the 2023 and 2009 Acts have been considered, and that the authorities preparing the proposals have provided the Secretary of State with a summary of the consultation responses when submitting their proposals to the Government in spring 2024.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Some of the areas that we are looking at are still two-tier areas. Will the Minister outline the Government’s approach? Can two-tier areas create combined authorities, or is it the Government’s ambition that new combined authorities will be created only in areas that are wholly made up of unitary councils?

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about how we manage the transition from where we are today to the situation under the English devolution Bill when it eventually becomes law. We have broad ambitions to widen and deepen devolution, which means that we do not wish to wait for the English devolution Bill to be in place. The expressions of interest that we had had by the deadline last week showed that there is significant interest among local areas that want both reorganisation and devolution. There will be a streamlining of the process between devolution and reorganisation, in which a two-tier area could apply to become a combined county authority today and go through reorganisation, and convert to a combined authority in a single-tier system when that reorganisation has taken place. Those arrangements are transitional. Ultimately, by the time the devolution programme has finished, we expect that in most areas, if not all, the two-tier system will come to an end, with unitary councils forming that combined arrangement.

In laying the draft instruments before Parliament, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the statutory tests under the 2009 and 2023 Acts are met, namely that the constituent councils have consented to the establishment of the combined authorities, that no further consultation is necessary and that making the instruments would be likely to improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of some or all of the people who live or work in the area; would be appropriate, in having regard to the need to reflect the identities of local communities and to secure effective and convenient local government; and, in establishing the combined authorities, will achieve the purposes specified in the constituent councils’ proposals. The making of the draft instruments will shift money from central Government to our regions, as set out in their devolution agreements. That includes capital funding for each area and mayoral investment funds for the areas that choose to adopt a mayor.

I personally thank the local leaders and their councils for their hard work and the vital role they play in making the Government’s critical mission to widen and deepen devolution a reality in their areas. I commend the draft instruments to the Committee.