Green-belt Development: Rayleigh and Wickford

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Let me begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on securing this debate. While I may disagree with a number of the arguments he made, for reasons I will expand upon in due course, I know that he speaks with genuine conviction on behalf of those he represents, and no one can doubt his commitment to his constituency.

In the time available to me, I intend to touch on all the substantive issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised, although I will not go into individual planning applications, for reasons that he will understand. I start by reminding the House about the problem that the Government are working to resolve. It is not, I believe, in doubt that England is in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis. To ensure that we have a planning system that is geared towards meeting housing need in full, the Government introduced a new standard method for assessing local housing need as part of the revised national planning policy framework we published in December, and we made that standard method mandatory.

That standard method now relies on a baseline, set at a percentage of existing housing stock levels, to better reflect housing pressures across the country, and uses a stronger affordability multiplier to focus additional growth on those places facing the biggest affordability challenges —south-east Essex would be one of those. We have been entirely open that that will mean that all parts of the country, including Essex, must play their part. I appreciate that some right hon. and hon. Members simply do not want to see housing growth in their constituencies—I do not name the right hon. Gentleman in this respect—and some may even question whether housing need exists on the scale that it does, and that the Government are clear that it does. However, the Government are clear that we must have ambitious targets to begin fixing the housing crisis afflicting our country, and that decisions made locally should be about how to meet housing needs, not whether to do so at all.

Turning briefly to local plans, the plan-led approach is and must remain the cornerstone of our planning system. As I know the right hon. Gentleman understands, due to the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial role in the planning system, I am unable to comment on the details of his, or any other, specific local plan. However, I want to underline that the best way of allowing communities to shape development in their area is to have an up-to-date local plan that ensures the provision of supporting infrastructure, so that development proceeds in a sustainable manner. In the absence of an up-to-date plan, there is a high likelihood that development will come forward on a piecemeal and speculative basis, with reduced public engagement and fewer guarantees that it will make the most of an area’s potential.

Having failed to adopt a plan since 1998, Basildon now has one of oldest local plans in the country, a state of affairs that is—I put this as diplomatically as I possibly can—detrimental to the residents of Rayleigh and Wickford. So I am pleased that the new leadership at Basildon council is seeking to address the failures of its predecessors by bringing forward a new local plan, premised on meeting housing need. I want to make it clear that I expect their neighbours at Rochford to progress their local plan, and consult later this year, in line with the updated plan timetable.

To support local planning authorities in their efforts, the Government are awarding £28 million of new funding. As part of that, Rochford and Basildon councils were each awarded approximately £228,000 for local plan delivery, and £70,000 for support with the costs of undertaking a green-belt review. It is now each authority’s responsibility to ensure that their plans unlock growth and secure the housing, jobs and infrastructure their local people deserve.

Turning next to the process of plan making, which is important in regard to some of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised, national planning policy is clear that the standard method should be used by local authorities to inform the preparation of their local plans. Once local housing need has been assessed, authorities should make an assessment of the number of new homes that can be provided in their area. This should be justified on the basis of evidence of land availability and constraints on development—for example, in national landscapes—and any other relevant matters. Planning inspectors will consider those issues if they are raised when the plan is submitted to them.

We expect local authorities to explore all options to deliver the homes that their communities need, including maximising the use of brownfield land, working with neighbouring authorities and, where necessary, reviewing green-belt land. When allocating land, the first port of call must be previously developed land. I put on record again that this Government are fully committed to a brownfield-first approach to development. That is why we made changes to the revised national planning policy framework last year to place an even stronger emphasis on the value of brownfield land development.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, in September last year we published a working paper on a brownfield passport to explore how further to prioritise and accelerate development on brownfield land and ensure that the default answer to suitable proposals on such land is a simple and straightforward “yes”.

Just last month, we published a working paper exploring ways that we can speed up the build-out of consented sites, including brownfield sites, so they are delivered as quickly as possible. On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the existing developer contribution system, we are committed to strengthening that to ensure that councils are able to negotiate properly on what public gain can come through the developer contribution system, and to hold developers to account for the commitments they make. However, we know that there is simply not enough brownfield land in the country to deliver the volume of homes that working people need, let alone enough sites that are viable and in the right location. That brings me to the green belt.

The Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large, built-up areas, and in preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another. We have not changed the five purposes of the green belt that are set out in paragraph 143 of the national planning policy framework, and we do not propose to alter its general extent. Instead, our reforms replace a haphazard approach with a strategic and targeted approach to green-belt land designation and release. As a result of our changes, the national policy now includes a clear direction that where development on the green belt is necessary, it should be directed towards the least valuable parts of the green belt: previously developed or low-quality grey-belt land.

The sustainability of sites must be prioritised, and local authorities must pay particular attention to transport connections when considering whether grey-belt land is sustainably located. Because we recognise the value that the public place on the green belt, we have taken steps to ensure that any necessary development on land released from it must deliver high levels of affordable housing; the provision of new—or improvements to—existing green spaces that are accessible to the public; and the necessary improvements to local infrastructure to ensure that residents benefit. Those new golden rules, which are the mechanism by which we will deliver that public gain, will apply where a major housing development is proposed on green-belt land, but I should be clear that the requirement for a high level of affordable housing is for green-belt land specifically, regardless of whether it is released through plan-making or subject to a planning application.

[Mr Francois]

Am I right to say that the Minister described sustainability, particularly for green-belt developments, as a golden rule? I understand that the Planning Inspectorate is beginning to take that approach too. Could he quickly confirm that I heard that correctly?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In judging particular applications, particularly when local authorities seek to release land as grey-belt land, they do have to have sustainability as a concern. When cases go to the Planning Inspectorate—for example, on appeal—all these matters will be considered, but the right hon. Gentleman can find the definition of what needs to be considered in the NPPF. I am more than happy to point him to that.

I turn very briefly to nature, because the right hon. Gentleman did mention the environment. Our reforms will help to deliver the homes and development that our country needs, but we have been very clear that these must not come at the expense of the natural environment or rural communities. We are clear that policies and decisions should recognise the intrinsic character of the countryside, and we are maintaining the strong protections for the best and most versatile agricultural land. We have preserved protections for high-quality green-belt land, and for land safeguarded for environmental reasons, such as national landscapes. As I have said, we are ensuring that major new developments in the green belt deliver more accessible green space and support nature recovery.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman once again for sharing his concerns on this matter with the House. While I appreciate that there is a principled and strongly felt difference of opinion between him and me on these matters, I trust that I have clearly laid out the Government’s position. As ever, I would be more than happy to speak to him outside the Chamber, and to discuss any issues of local concern.

Question put and agreed to.

National Housing Bank and National Housing Delivery Fund

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Written Statements

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

I am today updating the House on further steps the Government are taking to deliver our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in this Parliament.

National Housing Bank

To accelerate house building across England, we intend to establish a new, permanent national housing bank to act as the Government’s investment arm.

Established as a public financial institution, and operating as a subsidiary of Homes England, the new bank will deliver a long-term financial return for the Government, drawing on the approach taken to the national wealth fund. The bank will deploy finance in line with the Treasury’s financial transaction control framework, which will ensure long-term value for money.

By giving Homes England greater autonomy and freedom to flexibly deploy loans, equity and guarantees, the new bank will support additional housing development and reinforce our ongoing efforts to reform the housing market.

Today’s announcement sets out an initial allocation of £16 billion of new financial capacity for the bank—comprising £10.5 billion of investment capital and £5.5 billion of contingent liability capacity that can be used to deploy housing guarantees. The £10.5 billion investment capital package includes £2.5 billion of low-interest loans for social and affordable housing providers to further boost their capacity to invest in new developments.

The bank will offer a broad range of products, including direct lending to SMEs to help them to grow, equity investments to support new platforms that can bring new capital into housing, and guarantees to leverage private investment into complex development projects.

The bank will build on Homes England’s impressive track record of investment. Since October 2016, the agency has deployed over £9.6 billion of capital through existing investment programmes, working alongside delivery partners to attract an estimated £48 billion of private sector investment into the vehicles it supports. This investment will deliver or unlock over 600,000 homes.

The detailed investment strategy for the bank—which will form a key part of Homes England’s overall strategy – will be developed in the coming months and agreed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and HM Treasury. Subject to the development of that investment strategy, our current estimates are that, over the lifetime of the initial £16 billion investment allocation, the bank will support the delivery of over 500,000 homes in all parts of the country and of all different tenures, create hundreds of thousands of job opportunities in the construction sector, and leverage in an additional £53 billion of additional private investment.

The national housing bank will work closely with mayors and local leaders to develop integrated packages of financial support to deliver on the housing and regeneration priorities of local areas, alongside wider land and grant funding. Following this announcement, MHCLG and Homes England will engage mayoral strategic authorities to agree an approach that works best for the needs of each place.

MHCLG will work with the Mayor of London to establish a City Hall developer investment fund—supporting London’s ambition to build over 80,000 homes per year, and support housing regeneration around London Euston. We will also extend the successful Greater Manchester housing investment fund, which has supported over 10,000 homes since 2015.

The creation of the national housing bank will not change the delivery of Homes England’s existing investment programmes or impact arrangements for customers with help to buy loans provided by Homes England.

I must make clear that Homes England is not currently designated as a public financial institution. However, the Government will designate a subsidiary of Homes England as a public financial institution once established in line with the Government’s financial transaction control framework. MHCLG, HM Treasury and Homes England will work together to agree the changes to Homes England that are needed prior to establishing the bank.

The name “national housing bank” is provisional and will undergo all normal regulatory approvals before the bank is established.

New capital grant funding for investment in infrastructure and land

In many cases, Government grant funding is critical to making large-scale, complex and transformational housing regeneration and infrastructure projects viable. That is why, alongside the intention to establish the national housing bank, we are announcing £5 billion of new capital grant funding for infrastructure and land.

This additional grant funding will be administered by a new, single national housing delivery fund that will complement investment from the national housing bank. This fund will be fully operational from 1 April 2026.

MHCLG and Homes England will work with mayors and local partners to understand priorities for this investment and will set out further detail on funding later this year.

[HCWS712]

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore]

That is exactly why I am so frustrated by the intent of the Government’s Bill. It gives Natural England more compulsory purchase powers, more funds through environmental delivery plans, and an ability to scrutinise and, indeed, to dictate to landowners how their land or farm may be utilised. That is wrong, especially when, as I say, a farmer farming in my constituency of Keighley could be subject to a CPO as a result of a development elsewhere in the country.

The Government and I absolutely disagree on the right to use CPO, and I really struggle with the expansion of section 14A orders, which will allow an acquiring authority to discount the hope value of a seized property. Property rights matter, because they are the foundation of our society. If the state chooses to use its powers to confiscate the property of a law-abiding person, stipulates how that land must be used, and then tells the landowner how much they are entitled to receive, that is wrong—in my view, it is an absolute theft of private property. So-called hope value is not a capitalist trick, a racket or unfair; it is simply the true market value of the property. That is why I fundamentally disagree with the purpose of the Bill, which entails the Government’s stipulating that hope value must be disregarded over and above the agricultural value that is to be paid. It should not be the law that decides the value of something; it should be down to negotiation and the market.

That brings me to fairness. Although I admire the Government’s aspiration to increase development, the Bill is fundamentally flawed on the issue of fairness, because it takes away the property rights of landowners—the very landowners who will have been encouraged by their local authorities to put forward their land to be zoned as part of a local plan, and encouraged through a service level agreement process to have their land zoned for housing, employment or whatever it may be. As a result of this piece of legislation, the local authority, or indeed Natural England, will have the ability to compulsorily acquire the land not at market value, but at agricultural value.

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

The powers to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and which his amendment seeks to remove— I will come on to speak about it in more detail—were set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he voted for that Act? He voted for these powers.

[Robbie Moore]

But the Government are going way beyond that and giving more powers to local authorities and, indeed, Natural England. If the Minister has gone out and spoken to anyone in the agricultural world, he will realise that trust in Natural England is shot, yet the Government are giving it more powers to compulsorily acquire land and then effectively dictate to our farmers and landowners how their land is to be managed. I am not in favour of that. That is why I urge the Government to consider my new clause 127 and amendment 153. It is frustrating that, despite this issue being raised in Committee, the Government have not given it due consideration, and I therefore urge them to rethink their position.

Section 14A orders represent an attempt to run roughshod over our landowners. We can debate the merits of that approach, but we must start by calling it out for what it is. This Bill extends the section 14A powers to parish councils and Natural England, and applies the cut valuation of occupier’s loss, which is a separate payment meant to reflect the disruption to the occupier, not the loss of an asset. That is exactly why I wholeheartedly support Opposition new clause 42, which would increase the occupier’s loss payment from 2.5% to 7.5% of what is paid for the land. It adds to my frustration that the valuation will be based on the agricultural value, not the market value.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella]

I thank the shadow Minister for his question. Let me take the case of the disused railway in my constituency. It is not in public ownership any more, and it is fragmented. We can fund as many feasibility studies as we want to invest in cycling infrastructure, but an incidental green space is not used by landowners at all. If we compulsorily purchased such land—obviously we would offer compensation—we could have high-quality cycling infrastructure that would link up villages to the major towns, so that people can attend GP appointments, schools and so on. The paths are also off-road—away from our gridlocked roads.

Development must come with green and wild spaces, not just tarmac and bricks. That is why I strongly support new clause 114, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), which would ensure that development corporations include green space provision in all new developments. Green spaces are not a luxury; they are essential for mental health, biodiversity, wildlife, flood prevention and community cohesion. Like green spaces, playing fields and recreational facilities are fundamental for the development of grassroots sports and for youth opportunities, and therefore I support amendments 88 and 89 of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).

We also need serious, measurable action on climate. Development corporations are being handed significant powers, yet the Bill fails to guarantee that they are delivering in line with the UK’s climate targets. That is why amendment 151 is so important. It would ensure that the Secretary of State publishes a report on whether development corporations are meeting their legal duties on sustainable development and climate change. With so much at stake, we need transparency and accountability built into the system.

Finally, we need new homes that are genuinely affordable, warm and built to high standards. In Stratford, many families and young people are priced out of their own community. It is not enough to build houses; we must build the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure, green spaces and recreational and sports facilities that create communities.

I urge the Government to back these amendments and take this opportunity to deliver a planning system that is fair, sustainable and community led.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is a pleasure to respond to what has been a thoughtful and, largely, well-informed debate about a piece of legislation that is, to quote the shadow Minister, “groundbreaking”. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon. Can I take the opportunity to thank the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), for their robust but civil and fair approach to scrutiny in Committee?

I want to respond to the key amendments and the arguments that have been made this afternoon. Among other reforms and interventions, the Government are clear that significantly boosting our housing supply requires a renewed focus on building large-scale new communities across England. Development corporations are vital vehicles for delivering large-scale and complex regeneration and development projects. The Bill creates a clearer, more flexible and more robust framework to ensure that they can operate effectively. While there is clearly widespread support across the House for the effective use of development corporations where appropriate, a number of amendments have been tabled that seek to impose specific requirements on them.

New clause 114 in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington would ensure that development corporations include provision for green spaces in new developments. The Government absolutely agree that delivery of large-scale development and regeneration projects must include the provision and stewardship of green space, which has a wide range of benefits, including supporting health and wellbeing, climate mitigation and adaptation, and biodiversity and wildlife.

We do not believe that the new clause is necessary to deliver on these objections. First, development corporations have a strong track record of providing suitable green space. Ebbsfleet development corporation, for example, has a target for the delivery of parks, open spaces and recreation areas, providing almost 15 hectares of parks in recent years, and this year aiming to provide around 10 hectares of new parks and open spaces.

Secondly, development corporations that take on local plan-making powers are already subject to national planning policies, including those concerning green infrastructure. This means that where development corporations take on local planning authority powers, any planning decisions made should be informed by the national planning policy framework, which, as hon. Members will be aware, is a material consideration when determining planning applications.

As the House will know, the NPPF sets out policies to encourage the provision of green infrastructure and outlines that plans should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, making sufficient provision for the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including green infrastructure. The NPPF also sets out that planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision that plans should seek to accommodate. It is the Government’s view that the duty proposed in this new clause may unhelpfully constrain some development corporations—for example, where development corporations are designated specifically for the redevelopment of smaller commercial spaces.

On the stewardship of green spaces, each development corporation has a designated oversight authority, which is either the Secretary of State, a mayor, or local authorities, and it is for them to set specific frameworks for stewardship arrangements. Although I commend the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for once again highlighting this important issue, I hope that with the explanation I have provided he will agree to withdraw his amendment.

I turn to the reforms to compulsory purchase in the Bill, which are designed to improve the CPO process and land compensation rules to enable more effective land assembly through public sector-led schemes. New clause 127 and amendment 153 tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) would repeal section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961. Let us be clear: the amendments propose to repeal a power introduced by the last Conservative Government, in which the hon. Member served and in which he voted for the specific piece of legislation containing the power.

The power allows acquiring authorities to take forward certain types of scheme by compulsory purchase and to pay a reduced value for land where it will deliver clear and significant benefits and is justified in the public interest. The hon. Member’s amendments do not seek, as proposed in the Bill, to limit the extension of the power to parish and county councils or to the use of compulsory purchase powers as they apply to Natural England. The amendments seek to repeal a power contained in a piece of legislation that he voted for, and it is frankly embarrassing to listen to him try to explain that sharp U-turn.

To support the delivery of the housing and infrastructure that this country desperately needs, we must make better use of underutilised land across the country. We know that many local authorities share this objective, but their plans are often frustrated by unrealistic compensation expectations on the part of landowners. This can result in significant amounts of developable land remaining unused and overpriced, with the result that the building of homes, transport links and schools becomes prohibitively high.

[Chris Hinchliff]

In the debate today, Conservative Members have robustly defended the principle of paying landowners the uplift from the current-use value to the value that land would have with planning permission. Given how Winston Churchill said such unearned increments in land are “positively detrimental” to the general public, are they not attacking their own best traditions?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a shame that the Conservative party has seemingly changed its view. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State said, “Yes, that’s right. We’ve changed our view. It was a bad piece of legislation.” Many provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 were some of the best introduced by the previous Government. There is lots in the previous Government’s record that Conservative Members should rightly feel embarrassed about; these powers are not among that. Far from removing that power, we want acquiring authorities to use the power. For that reason, we cannot possibly accept the hon. Member’s amendment.

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) suggested that market value would not be paid for such land in compulsory purchases. Will the Minister confirm that the amount paid in compulsory purchases is the market value for the existing use of that land?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Liberal Democrat spokesman tempts me to stray beyond the specific measures in the Bill and how that power can be used. We are clear and have recently issued guidance about how that power can be used.

That leads me helpfully to amendments 68, 88 and 89, which would expand the LURA power in question. Sympathetic as I am to the more frequent removal of hope value from the assessment of compensation, the use of the relevant power must be proportionate and justified in the public interest so that it does not fall foul of article 1 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights. Seeking to expand the use of the power beyond that test and apply it much more widely is problematic for that reason. I cannot accept the amendments on that basis.

However, I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) that use of the direction power can be sought on mixed use schemes that include sports or recreational uses, but within those schemes there must be education provision, health provision or affordable housing provision to justify the use of the power in the public interest. On that specific point, and to respond to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I confirm that clause 104 does not extend the LURA power to other uses or social objectives; it merely enables parish and town councils to make use of the existing power.

[Munira Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not give away any more. I want to bring our remarks to a close because, as hon. Members are aware, there is a statement to follow our proceedings on the Bill.

I turn to new clause 85, which would change the lost payments regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973. To be clear, lost payments are an amount of compensation paid to eligible claimants to reflect and recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused by CPOs. They are an additional payment to compensation claimable under the Land Compensation Act 1961 for the market value of land or property taken by compulsory purchase. The new clause would allow claimants to claim compensation for the market value of their interests twice, and result in over-compensation being paid. That would be disproportionate. It would also run counter to the established, overriding principle of equivalence in compensation law where a person subject to compulsory purchase should be left no better or worse off in financial terms after an acquisition than they were before. On that basis, we cannot accept the new clause.

I will touch briefly on new clause 42 in the name of the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), regarding loss payments. It would introduce a change to the loss payment compensation regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973, increasing the amount that occupiers of buildings or land subject to a CPO would be entitled to and placing them on an equal footing with owners. As we discussed at some length in Committee, the Bill already achieves in part what the hon. Gentleman is seeking in the new clause as it increases the loss payment compensation due to occupiers of buildings and land.

The purpose of loss payments is to reflect the inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase. It is occupiers, rather than investor-owners, who bear the greater burden in that respect: they are the ones who will need to close or relocate their businesses. Loss payments are a separate head of claim from compensation paid for land taken under compulsory purchase. The Bill rebalances loss payment compensation to allow occupiers to claim a higher amount and landowners to claim a lower amount. We believe that the rebalancing of loss payment compensation in favour of occupiers is the right approach and will benefit, for example, groups such as tenant farmers, for which Opposition Members have made a case in this afternoon’s debate. On that basis, I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment and I request that the hon. Member does not press it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It has been a real privilege to take this crucial piece of legislation through the House—“groundbreaking legislation”, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), described it earlier. I thank everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage. I thank my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for her unwavering support throughout the Bill’s passage; I thank the Department’s Bill team, led by Alex Bush, for their prodigious efforts over many months; I thank my consistently excellent private office, including its head, Grace Doody, and my brilliant private secretary Gabe Allason; I thank the Clerks, Chairs and parliamentary counsel for facilitating the Bill’s progress; I thank the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee; and I thank the hon. Members on both sides of the House who provided valuable input and challenge, today and at earlier stages.

This landmark Bill will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth, and deliver on the promise of national renewal. It is critical in helping the Government to achieve their ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England during the current Parliament, to making planning decisions on at least 150 major economic infrastructure projects, and to supporting the clean power 2030 target and transforming Britain into a clean energy superpower.

As the House will know, the Bill will deliver five key objectives. First, it will deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for nationally significant infrastructure projects. This is a crucial part of the Bill. Upgrading our country’s economic infrastructure—electricity networks, clean energy sources and public transport links—is essential to basic services and a growing economy. The Bill makes a number of changes. It will ensure that national policy statements are kept up to date by providing for a reflective amendment process so that the Government can quickly make minor policy changes or factor in legal impacts.

Secondly, the Bill adopts a more strategic approach to nature recovery that will unlock a win-win for development and the environment. As we discussed at length yesterday, the status quo is not working. It is not working for development, and—let me be clear—that is because constraints such as nutrient neutrality are stifling development and disincentivising planning applications across the country, which is having an impact on house builders, particularly small and medium-sized house builders. We need to remove those constraints. The status quo is also not working for the environment: all too often, the site-by-site process of assessment and meeting obligations is not driving nature recovery. Instead of retaining that suboptimal status quo, we want to take forward a new strategic approach across wider geographies, ensuring that Natural England presents plans that go beyond offsetting harm to driving nature recovery as well as unlocking development.

Thirdly, the Bill will improve certainty and decision making in the planning system. There has been widespread support for the measures on mandatory training for local councillors and on fee localisation. Local planning authorities, which we know have been hard-pressed in recent years, will be able to set their own fees and ensure that more of the burdens that they face in processing applications can be covered by those fees. The House has welcomed that.

We have taken the decision to introduce a national scheme of delegation. I appreciate that that is controversial, but we think it is an absolutely necessary means of introducing more certainty and clarity into the decision-making process. We have launched a technical consultation on the measure, and I urge hon. Members from across the House to engage with the detail of that consultation. I think that when they do so, they will understand that a category of planning applications should be delegated to expert local planning officers. However, with the agreement of the relevant chair of the committee and the lead planning officer in the authority, it will always be possible for the most serious and controversial applications to come before elected members, just as it should be the case that they take decisions on the most significant applications.

Fourthly, we are unlocking land and securing public value for large-scale investment. Today we have debated changes to development corporations, which will play an essential role in driving the delivery of more large-scale communities across this country, and we have discussed CPO powers. We want to see those CPO powers, including the very important CPO reforms passed by the previous Government, which I am sad to hear the Conservatives regret they passed—the shadow Secretary of State said very clearly from the Dispatch Box that it was a mistake. We think those powers are useful, and we want to see their application taken forward. The Bill makes targeted changes to those powers to ensure that they can be used by parish and county councils and, when it comes to nature recovery and the production of environmental delivery plans, by Natural England in certain circumstances.

Fifthly, the Bill introduces effective new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning. We must do planning on a larger than local scale if we are to get the best outcomes, and the Bill introduces new spatial development strategies. These are not big local plans; they are higher-level strategies for different sub-regions of the country to come together and decide, in co-operation, the most appropriate places for housing growth and the best way for infrastructure to be delivered across those areas. In response to feedback, we made a series of targeted changes in Committee: we are removing the statutory pre-consultation requirements from the NSIP regime, which we know are driving perverse outcomes, and we have introduced targeted improvements to the nature restoration fund and a new funding mechanism for statutory consultees.

When it comes to delivering new homes and critical infrastructure, the status quo is patently failing the country and the British people. We can and must do things differently, and this Bill will enable us to do so. It is transformative. It will fundamentally change how we build things in this country and, in doing so, help us to tackle the housing crisis and raise living standards in every part of the country. This Labour Government were elected on the promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this Bill, we will do just that. I wish Baroness Taylor and Lord Khan all the best with progressing the Bill in the other place, and I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Chinese Embassy Development

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government what assessment she has made of the United States Government’s national security concerns regarding the proposed Chinese embassy development at Royal Mint Court.

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

This Government are committed to the probity of the planning process at all levels to ensure robust and evidence-based decision making. The process includes a role for planning Ministers in deciding on called-in planning applications and recovered appeals, so I hope that the House will appreciate why I cannot comment in any detail on specific planning applications at the Dispatch Box. That said, it may be helpful to Members if I set out the process that these cases follow.

The application referred to by the right hon. Member was considered to meet the published call-in policy set out in the October 2012 written ministerial statement, so it will be determined by Ministers. The application is not yet with the Department. All decisions that come before Ministers are subject to examination by an independent planning inspector, usually through a public inquiry. The planning inspector then provides an evidence-based recommendation, and set out their full reasons for that recommendation. The inspector’s report considers the application against published local, regional and national planning policy, which is likely to contain a wide variety of material planning considerations; in this case, those are likely to include safety and national security.

A public inquiry was held on this case between 11 and 28 February, at which interested parties were able to put forward evidence and make representations. Should any further representations be made that raise material planning considerations before the decision is made, they will also be taken into account. At all times, the decision will be dealt with in line with the published propriety guidance on planning casework decisions. The right hon. Member will be aware that the Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary made a joint representation to the Planning Inspectorate ahead of the start of the inquiry. That will be taken into account, alongside all other relevant matters. Once the planning inspector’s report and recommendation is received, the case will be determined by a planning Minister, who will come to a decision based on material planning considerations.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The US Government, and today the Dutch Parliament, have expressed concerns about sensitive cables under Royal Mint Court. Beijing has a recent history of cutting cables and confirmed infrastructure hacks, including embedding malware capable of disabling all that infrastructure. Surprisingly, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology said on television yesterday that this issue is “in the planning process” and could be managed. Will the Minister correct the record? The planning inquiry has concluded, and no changes at all can be made to the Chinese planning application.

I remind the Minister that the application contains nothing about cabling. Indeed, the Chinese have rejected only two requests by the inquiry—requests to which he referred; they were made by the Government, in the letter from the Foreign and Home Secretaries. That is despite Ministers regularly saying that the letter should “give those concerned comfort.” Rerouting the cables would, we know, cost millions, if the Government are even thinking about that, so I ask the Minister: why did the Government strongly deny, rather than tell this House about, the presence of the cables until the White House actually confirmed it?

Chinese state media have reported that the UK has given assurances to the Chinese that the UK would allow the development, no matter what. Indeed, The Guardian newspaper reported in 2023 that the Chinese would not apply again unless they were given governmental assurances. Can the Minister confirm, or even deny, any of this? Speaking as one of those in the Chamber who have been sanctioned by China, I see this as Project Kowtow. There has been one denial after another, and one betrayal after another. No wonder our allies believe that this Chinese mega-embassy is becoming a walk of shame for the Government.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Member for those questions. I hope he will appreciate, not least because of the quasi-judicial nature of the role of planning Ministers in the planning process, that I cannot comment on the details of the application. As I have said, no decision on the case has been made, and the case is not yet before the Department.

The right hon. Member mentioned cables, but it would not be appropriate to comment on any specific national security issue. On whether the Chinese embassy issue was raised during UK-US trade talks, again it would not be appropriate to comment on the details of those talks. Suffice it to say that we do not recognise the characterisation set out in The Sunday Times article, in which that was referenced. It is important to emphasise that only material planning considerations can be taken into account in determining this case. As I say, I cannot comment in any detail on such a case, and this case is not yet before the Department.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I understand that the Minister cannot comment on this case, or any individual case, but national security is of the utmost concern to everybody in this country and in this Chamber. When an application comes before the Secretary of State, and in granting applications from foreign Governments, will national security be a material concern for the Government?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I made clear in responding to the initial question, the inspector’s report considers the application against published local, regional and national planning policy, which is likely to include consideration of a wide variety of material planning matters. In this case, that is likely to include safety and national security.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this very important urgent question. Question after question, and letter after letter, the Government have consistently treated Parliament with complete disregard on this matter. They have stonewalled legitimate inquiries about national security, ministerial discussions and warnings from security bodies. I get that the Minister is compromised, in that he has a quasi-judicial responsibility here, but his colleagues in the Home Office and the Foreign Office do not, and they could answer these questions.

As the Government know, their own cyber-security experts, Innovate UK, have warned about the threat to the City of London from the embassy. The Wapping telephone and internet exchange is surrounded on three sides by the new embassy, and there are fibre cables carrying highly sensitive information running beneath the site. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology said yesterday that these matters could be dealt with in the planning process, but the inquiry has ended, so they cannot. If the Government are considering moving the cables, how many millions of pounds of public money will that cost? I recently sent yet another cross-party letter to the Prime Minister, signed by 59 parliamentarians, urging him to pause and reconsider. Since then, the US and Dutch Governments have both sounded the alarm.

Have MI5 and GCHQ been able to submit their own warnings to the planning inspector? Does the inspector have access to unredacted plans of the embassy, which the Chinese Government have refused to make public? Have the Government assessed the potential sinister uses of the secret basement in the so-called cultural exchange building? What discussions have taken place with the Bank of England, given its role in cyber-security regulation in the City? Why will the Government not follow the example of the US, Australian and Irish Governments, who vetoed similar embassies that threatened their national security? The Government are on the verge of making a decision that will lead to a huge risk that will persist for decades. Will they change course before it is too late?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate that the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks were written before he listened to my response, but I could not have been clearer about the fact that no decision has been made on this case and no application is yet before the Department—[Interruption.] It was a question. He is pre-empting a decision that has not been made, on a case that is not before the Department. I have been very clear that, should any further representations be made that raise material planning considerations—they may, in this case, relate to safety and national security—before a decision is made, these will be taken into account. But again, as I said to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), on matters of security it would not be appropriate for me to comment. On specific issues such as cables, it would not be appropriate for me to comment. Planning Ministers have a quasi-judicial role in the planning process and, as I have said, the case is not yet before the Department.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Minister can understand the sensitivity of how we all feel about this. China has a track record of aggressive state-backed espionage. Surely this country cannot afford to make a massive underestimation of the risk, should this go ahead as expected. Experts warn that there could be the foreign leverage of signals, interception and monitoring of sensitive Government and corporate communications. To what extent can individuals make representations, because everyone is extremely concerned that such a massive and historic building was sold some years ago? This is pre-empted. This is how China works: it plans years ahead. We cannot not say anything in this House; we must comment on what we see. Please, understand that we must.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do understand the strength of feeling conveyed by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members when it comes to the People’s Republic of China. The Government are taking a consistent, long-term and strategic approach to managing the UK’s relations with China, rooted in the national interest. We will always protect our national security and keep the country safe, but those are separate issues from this specific planning application. I understand why she does so, but she tempts me to speculate—again, as I have said—on a decision that has not been made, on a case that is not yet before the Department.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for submitting this urgent question.

The potential approval of the Chinese super-embassy sends precisely the wrong signal at a moment when we should be pushing the Chinese Government hard on human rights abuses and their repression of the people of Hong Kong, both in that city and right here on our streets. Notwithstanding the risk of interception of sensitive comms at the site, Hongkongers and Uyghurs are deeply worried about what it might mean for China’s expanding surveillance capacity here in the UK. In March, alongside other Opposition Members, I spoke at the protest in front of the proposed site. I say the same thing to the Minister as I said that day: the Government must block it. Taking into account the scale of opposition, both domestically and by our allies, will the Minister confirm that representations made in this place will be considered as part of the planning approval process? If I may, I will also ask: considering that the original timetable for the China audit to be published has now passed, will the Minister tell the House when they expect finally to present it?

[Matthew Pennycook]

On the audit, the hon. Gentleman’s final point, the relevant Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), has confirmed that that will be coming before the summer. He raises two very distinct issues and I must treat them separately. On human rights, we stand firm, including against China’s repression of the people of Xinjiang and Tibet. Human rights issues are raised every time FCDO Ministers meet their Chinese counterparts. On the application specifically, he asks me a very direct question. Should any further representations be made, by Members or other interested parties, that raise material planning considerations that need to be taken into account in a decision, they will be taken into account and they will be considered before a decision is made.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

Earlier this year I spoke at a huge demonstration outside the proposed embassy site, which was attended by thousands of British Hongkongers who fear that the hands that throttled their freedoms in Hong Kong are reaching into our society, too. I understand the Minister’s point and the limitations on what he can say on the issue at this time, but this is not just a matter of national security; does he understand that it is also a matter of personal security for many of our constituents, given the increase in transnational repression emanating from Beijing?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend has been a vocal advocate for the Hong Kong community in his constituency and across the country. We will stand with and support members of that community; we have a long, shared history with Hong Kong, and many people from Hong Kong have made the UK their home in recent years. Again—I must emphasise this point, and I will continue to do so as questions on this come in—that is a distinct and separate issue from the planning application that will, in due course, come before Ministers in my Department.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) today; I spoke before him at the rally to which he refers. Those of us who have been sanctioned—I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are among our number—are particularly conscious of the effect that the Chinese state has on our country. Do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, honestly believe that the Minister thinks that the Chinese would look at this proposal in the same way? Do we in this House honestly believe that something threatening our economic security, as highlighted by the Americans and the Dutch, should go through a bureaucratic planning process, with no ability to vary it, because, frankly, them’s the orders? I do not think that is the way China would do it, and it is certainly not the way we should do it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It is a very clever question, but it is the Minister who is responding.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Gentleman’s views on China are well known, and he knows my views on China, too—we have discussed the matter in the past. He raises two distinct issues. On sanctioned parliamentarians, let me take this opportunity to make it clear that the sanctions are completely unwarranted and unacceptable, and this issue will remain a priority under this Government. The Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor have raised their case at every meeting with their counterparts, including with President Xi at the G20 in November and Foreign Minister Wang Yi in February. The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to comment on the Chinese planning system. I am very glad that we have a different and more robust system than the People’s Republic of China.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment on individual planning applications from the Dispatch Box, but when I speak to Hongkongers in my constituency, they are seriously concerned about the risks that come with transnational repression and that might come along with the creation and construction of this embassy. When I was speaking with Hongkongers in my constituency last week, on the 36th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre—something that can be commemorated in Leeds, but not in Hong Kong—they were seriously concerned that those with £100,000 bounties on their heads might be more at risk now because of the construction of this embassy. I appreciate that the Minister’s portfolio does not necessarily cover this, but what assurances can he give on behalf of the Government that if such an embassy is built, we will do everything in our power to protect those from Hong Kong who have made the UK their home?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope hon. Members will appreciate why I will not comment on hypotheticals, again, on a decision that has not been made on a case that is not before the Department. I have made it very clear that we stand with the Hong Kong community. The Minister with responsibility for Asia and the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), met members of the Hong Kong community in this country, along with my hon. Friend the Security Minister. We will stand by them.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary have all had recent, high-level interactions with Ministers of the Chinese Communist party—the Chinese Government. Has the Chinese embassy been brought up in any of the meetings with those Ministers, and have those Ministers in any way corresponded with the Minister’s Department on the Chinese embassy application?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details of any talks—

[Sir James Cleverly]

I was not asking for details.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Gentleman is asking for details, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment. On the particular issue of whether representations have been made, as I made clear in answering the initial question, the Home and Foreign Secretaries made a joint representation to the Planning Inspectorate ahead of the start of the inquiry, and that will be taken into account alongside all other relevant matters.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

From a response to a freedom of information request, which I have with me, we now know that just two protests at the Royal Mint Court site in February and March this year required the deployment of nearly 600 officers in total, including 101 in February and 485 in March. The FOI request reveals that the cost of policing these two protests alone amounted to £345,000. This is a staggering use of resources for a site that is not yet operational, and it reflects the serious concerns among the Hongkonger, Tibetan and Uyghur diasporas in the UK. These are communities that fear that the embassy will become a hub for transnational repression. What assessment have Ministers made of the cost implications of this proposed development on policing, and will they commit today to rejecting this super-embassy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not going to commit to rejecting an application that has not yet come to the Department and, as I keep saying, where a decision has not been made. I have made it clear that we understand the concerns of members of the Hong Kong community and others about the potential—I make clear that it is a potential—approval of this application. When it comes to police resourcing, all I can repeat is that only material planning considerations can be taken into account in determining the case.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I think we can all agree that we would like a decision to be made in this case that does not encourage the Chinese Government to think that we are a soft touch. Let us try another tack. National security is going to be taken into account as part of this planning decision. I ask the Minister this hypothetical question: if there is only a 1% chance that the granting of this planning application causes some detriment to our national security, would it not be better to take a risk management approach and put the embassy somewhere else?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman invites me, again, to consider a planning decision that has not been made, on a case that is not yet before the Department. I am clearly not going to set out from this Dispatch Box the decision-making process that planning Ministers in my Department might take to the application once it is submitted.

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

Given the serious concerns about national security, can the Minister confirm that his Department has consulted on this issue with UK and allied intelligent agencies, including those of the USA? Can he say whether a full national security review will be conducted before any planning decision is taken?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have made clear, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any specific national security issue. What I have been at pains to make clear is that the inspector’s report, which will come before Ministers in my Department at the point when the case comes to us, will include a wide variety of material planning matters, and in this case they are likely to include safety and national security matters.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

Further to the question from the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), the Home Affairs Committee has written to the Metropolitan police asking for details of any concerns it may have about the policing of this site and any particular disorder that might occur around it. I once again put it to the Minister that he must take account of these concerns. There could be very serious and significant concerns for policing in the capital.

[Matthew Pennycook]

All material planning considerations that have been brought to the attention of the inspector will be taken into account as part of the decision when it is made in due course.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

National security and security is a valid planning consideration, so does the Minister accept that, in the event that the Secretary of State allows this decision to go ahead, regardless of the planning inspector’s recommendation, this Government will essentially be putting our relationship with China ahead of our security relationship with the United States?

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is pure speculation. As I have said, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any national security matters.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Does the Minister believe that China will always try to exploit and infiltrate data communication in this country?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Widespread cyber-activity or interference in our democracy will not be tolerated and will be met with a strong response.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Moving on from national security, according to the documentation—I have double-checked—community safety is a significant material planning consideration. In such a multicultural area, what assessment of risk to community cohesion and the safety of local people is being made? How does taking such decisions more centrally align with the Government’s much-publicised commitment to devolution?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not know whether hon. Members can hear me. I keep answering the questions as posed, and I have answered that question. If the issue that the hon. Lady raises is a material planning consideration, the inspector will take it into account in their recommendation to Ministers to make a decision, once the case comes to the Department.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

China is already revelling in the Government’s spectacular own goal in handing over Chagos. China looks as if it is about to benefit again. Even if the Minister cannot say what amounts are involved, will he say what works would need to be done in advance of the embassy being set up at the Royal Mail site, and who would pay for that? Would it be the Chinese, or would it be the UK Government, and which part?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I said, a public inquiry was held between 11 and 28 February, and all the relevant documents submitted to that inquiry are available online. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to go and look at them. Again, he invites me to speculate on matters that are part of the application that the inspector will have considered in making his report and recommendation—when that arrives—to the Department. I emphasise again that no case is yet with the Department.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

If national security is a material consideration, will that be judged only by what is in the inspector’s report? If so, how could that be adequate, since the UK’s China audit will not have been published before the inspector concludes his report?

[Matthew Pennycook]

At the point when the planning inspector’s report and recommendation is received, it will be determined by a planning Minister, who will come to a decision based on material planning considerations that have been analysed.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

I understand that the Minister cannot comment on the specifics, but does he at least agree with the principle that if there is a risk that a nation state will act nefariously against the British state’s interests, the British Government should not reward that state?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have been at pains to make clear, the Government will always protect our national security and keep this country safe. There is a distinct issue from the planning application and the questions about process that have been put to me. On that basis, I cannot comment, as the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, on a decision that has not been made, and on a case that is not with the Department.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

My constituency is home to a growing number of people from Hong Kong who have been forced to flee their homeland as a result of actions by China. I appreciate what the Minister says about this being a quasi-legal matter, and the fact that a Foreign Office Minister is sat next to him speaks volumes about how this is not just a planning issue. Does he agree that this country owes a debt to Hongkongers, whom we need to protect from the Chinese interference that they consider this super-embassy would enable?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do recognise that point. As I have made clear, the Government will stand with and support members of the Hong Kong community. As I said—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber for this—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), and the Minister for Security met members of the Hong Kong community only recently. We will continue to stand with them.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

The Minister has made it clear that he will not comment on the specifics of the case, and I will not ask him to, but can he offer a view in principle on why we would ever offer a foreign state with known cyber-espionage capabilities that it deploys regularly easier access to critical cyber-infrastructure?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Again, the hon. Gentleman is making assumptions that I do not recognise, and thereby tempting me to comment on the case. I am not going to make blanket, in-principle statements, given the quasi-judicial nature and involvement of planning Ministers in the process.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Lee Anderson, are you bobbing or not bobbing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am somewhat thrown off there.

I thank the Minister for his answers. He will be aware of concerns that Chinese-born residents in my constituency and across Northern Ireland have about the reach, and indeed the overreach, of the Chinese Government in the United Kingdom. I can well understand US concerns and, with all due respect—he knows I always ask my questions with respect—does the Minister truly believe that this massive embassy will alleviate the concerns of those who know best the reach of the Chinese Government’s arm? Should we not be showing that, while we will accord them courtesy, as we do with other national embassies, they are not entitled to a Chinese “Vatican City” in the midst of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do recognise the concerns the hon. Gentleman raises, but—forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker—I have to repeat again that no decision has been made in this case. No case is yet with the Department. I have laid out in quite some detail the process that has been followed in how the application has been taken forward, and what needs to happen for Ministers to reach a decision at the appropriate point, when a case comes to the Department.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

Things that seem politically and economically expedient at the time can become things that Governments regret very much in the long term, as I found when I was the telecoms Minister having to lead the £2 billion strip-out of Huawei from our 5G infrastructure. It took only a few minutes for the Prime Minister to change his position on the Chinese embassy after a call from President Xi Jinping. The Minister has said he cannot answer any questions on the substance of the issue, but on a planning level will he commit personally to having a secure briefing ahead of making any planning decision, and also to publishing and sharing with this House details of all the representations he has received on the planning application, including those from his own Government?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will take the two aspects of the hon. Lady’s question in turn, if I may. We will be vigilant against the full range of hybrid, cyber, space and other threats from state and non-state actors, including those emanating from China. On her specific question about the planning application, all the representations made to the Planning Inspectorate as part of that public inquiry are publicly available for hon. Members to see. Ministers, when they come to make a decision on the basis of the inspector’s reports and recommendations, will do so taking into account material planning considerations.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Is the planning officer who is considering this case cleared to receive top-secret information?

[Matthew Pennycook]

A planning inspector is assessing the case as part of a public inquiry. Although I recognise why the hon. Gentleman has asked the question, I am afraid it would not be appropriate for me to comment on national security matters.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

“China is likely to continue seeking advantage through espionage and cyber-attacks, and through securing cutting-edge Intellectual Property through legitimate and illegitimate means.” Those are not my words, but the words of the Government’s own strategic defence review. Given the sub-threshold threat posed by China and its starring role in the SDR, where it is referred to explicitly alongside Russia and Iran, why has China not been included in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme ahead of any potential approval of its super-embassy?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend the Minister for Asia and the Indo-Pacific tells me that that particular report is coming forward in due course. Again, on the planning application, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on specific national security issues but, as I have said, material planning considerations, including those relating to safety and national security, will be taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

24. What steps she plans to take to reform the leasehold system.

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

The Government continue to progress the implementation of the reforms to the leasehold system that are already in statute, while at the same time undertaking the work required to bring forward the wider set of reforms necessary to end the feudal leasehold system for good. We remain on track to deliver our ambitious leasehold and commonhold reform agenda, as set out in the written ministerial statement that I made on 21 November last year.

[Chris McDonald]

I thank the Minister for his positive engagement with me on the issue of a safe crossing at roads on the Wynyard and Queensgate estates in my constituency, but can I also bring to his attention the issue of service charges at the Willow Sage Court estate? Does he agree that our leasehold reforms must ensure fair service charges? I can send him further information about this case if he wishes.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, and I would like further information on that case. The Government recognise the considerable financial strain that rising service charges place on leaseholders and tenants. Overcharging through service charges is completely unacceptable. We intend to consult in the very near future on the measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 designed to drive up the transparency of service charges to make them more easily challengeable if leaseholders consider them to be unreasonable.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky]

I congratulate the Government on the bold action they are taking to end the feudal leasehold system for good, which will ensure that future flat owners will never again be treated as second-class homeowners. But as the Minister is well aware, there are millions of existing leaseholders, including thousands in my constituency of Hendon. Will he update the House on the work the Department is doing, building on the path forward outlined in the commonhold White Paper, to strengthen protections for existing leaseholders, including on the conversion of leaseholds, ground rents and right to manage?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government remain committed to providing existing leaseholders with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes. We commenced the right-to-manage measures contained in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 on 3 March. We remain firmly committed to tackling unregulated and unaffordable ground rents, and we will deliver that in legislation. We will set out further detail on our proposed approach to enabling the conversion of existing leaseholds to commonhold in our draft leasehold and commonhold reform Bill later this year.

[Ms Minns]

Inflation-busting estate management fees for little or no service plague residents across the country, including those of the Brackenleigh, Greymoor Meadows and Denton Mill estates in my Carlisle constituency. What assurances can the Minister give my constituents and those of other hon. Members that the Government’s actions will curb those atrocious practices by estate management companies?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point; I recognise that many hon. Members across the House are affected by this issue. The Government remain committed to protecting residential freeholders on private and mixed tenure housing estates from unfair charges. We will consult this year on implementing the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act’s new consumer protection provisions for the millions of homes subject to the charges affecting my hon. Friend’s constituents, and we will bring measures into force as quickly as possible thereafter.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I am glad to see the Government starting to tackle some of these issues. Will the Minister assure me that people on freehold housing estates with covenant issues in places like Basildon and Billericay will also be included in any legislation? They often face service charge increases of tens of per cent every single year, and they need that same assurance being provided to leaseholders that the Government will think about that and take action.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are thinking about the plight of residential freeholders alongside leaseholders. As I just said, we will consult this year on implementing the provisions in the 2024 Act, which provides those residential freeholders with new consumer protection provisions. They will have that immediate safety to come in, as we look at how we reduce the prevalence of such arrangements in the longer term.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Leaseholders at South View on Upperton Road in Eastbourne face an extortionate bill of up to £40,000 each to repair unsafe balconies. The communication from Morgans and Stredder Pearce, who are both responsible for fixing that, has been woeful, and delays are leading to costs spiralling further. Will the Minister urge those organisations to improve the speed and responsiveness of their communications to protect South View’s leaseholders from further costs?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that case. I recognise the problem that he alludes to. We want to bring in as soon as possible measures to standardise service charges in particular and make them more transparent. I wonder if he might write to me and the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), who is responsible for building safety, with details of that case so that we can look into it further.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Developers are now creating facility and management companies, with new homeowners and tenants finding themselves as shareholders without their consent. Will the Minister look at that issue across the country to protect those homeowners?

[Matthew Pennycook]

If I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he pointed to how a variety of arrangements can be put in place under freehold estates; we need to capture that variety across the country. That is one of the challenges in looking at what measures we might bring forward to reduce the prevalence of such arrangements, and we certainly intend to do that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I must say that the shadow Minister is developing a bit of a habit here; he seems to have conflated a number of separate issues. The Government have a very clear commitment to ending the feudal leasehold system within this Parliament. That requires a wider set of reforms than switching on the powers that are already on the statute book via the 2024 Act, though we are going to do that and are doing so at pace. If he cared to look at the written ministerial statement where I set all this out in a lot of detail, he would see that we remain on track with implementing our reform agenda.

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

3. If she will make an assessment of the adequacy of the funding model for the repair of council housing stock.

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

The Government recognise the strain placed on housing revenue accounts as a result of changes in rent policy, inflationary pressures and increased costs associated with investing in existing stock. The principle of self-financing remains the right one, but we are committed to working with councils to overcome the pressures on their HRAs so that they can invest in new and existing stock.

[Will Stone]

Will the Minister join me in praising Swindon borough council for its fantastic vision in investing in fixing our council stock—something the previous Conservative administration failed to do for 20 years?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I certainly will. My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for council housing and highlights that Swindon borough council is putting significant investment into its housing stock over the next five years. The Government recognise that councils, like other registered providers, need support to build their capacity. That is why we consulted last year on a new five-year social housing rent settlement and have allowed councils to keep 100% of the receipts generated by right-to-buy sales. We will set out details of further investment in the forthcoming spending review.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

In Kendal on Friday afternoon, I came across a constituent in a Home Housing property who had been the victim of a house fire several months ago. Although they were still living in the property, it had not been fully restored or fixed. I am on the matter personally and dealing with the casework issues; if I share the details of this case with the Minister, will he take a personal interest in it, and does he agree that it is outrageous for someone to have to live in a fire-damaged property for five months without it being properly restored?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that case. It does sound outrageous; if he writes to me, I will certainly look into the matter further.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

4. What steps she is taking to support high streets. 

--- Later in debate ---

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

5. What steps she is taking to ensure that new homes meet the minimum standard of EPC C rating.

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

The December 2021 uplift to energy-efficiency standards means that most new build homes already achieve EPC ratings of A or B. As recently announced, the Government intend to introduce future standards in the autumn that will set more ambitious energy-efficiency and carbon emissions requirements for new homes to ensure that they are net zero-ready.

[Charlotte Cane]

As well as energy, water is an important utility. In Ely and East Cambridgeshire, we suffer drought and floods. What is the Minister doing to encourage new builds to have proper rainwater harvesting and dual piping, so that we can use rainwater to flush our toilets and for other non-drinking water uses?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are looking at how we might make household water use more efficient, as well as a range of other interventions in my hon. Friend’s part of the country to ensure that we make the best use of water and that the necessary infrastructure is put in place to accommodate housing growth.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

In Hartlepool, 24,000 existing homes have an energy performance certificate rating of D or below. That means too many homes are too cold and have bills that are too high. What can the Minister do to accelerate the improvement of those homes to ensure warm homes for Hartlepool constituents?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend tempts me into the responsibilities of another Department, but I will get the relevant Minister from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to write to him to set out what measures are being put in place as part of the warm homes plan.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

In 2010, just 12% of homes had an EPC C rating or above, so those homes were too cold and had bills that were too high. It was 60% by 2024 when we left power. Will the Minister share with the House the ambition and give us a number for the percentage of homes that we should expect to have that basic EPC C rating by the end of this term, which I hope will be the only one the Minister has, so he should make a difference while he can? [Laughter.]

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

That’s a bit harsh.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Gentleman is certainly not charitable. As I made clear, I recognise the December 2021 uplift in energy efficiency standards means that most new builds that come through achieve an EPC rating of A or B. Off the top of my head, though I stand to be corrected, I think about 84% of new homes meet those standards. But as I said, we have announced that we want to introduce future standards this autumn, which will drive even more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emission requirements for new homes.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

Having long campaigned on the need for much tougher regulations for solar panels on new homes, I was delighted to hear the Government announce last Friday that we will bring forward requirements to do exactly that. That will not just boost EPC ratings, but save new homeowners thousands of pounds in bills, all while reducing energy usage. How can we ensure that we move at speed so that as many of the new homes we build over the course of this Parliament as possible will benefit from our ambition here?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend has been a champion of ensuring that we get more solar panels on to new build homes and other types of building. As I said in answer to a previous question, we want to move at pace to put future standards in place. We are looking at this autumn, and that will ensure more of the new homes coming forward meet those more ambitious standards. It will mean, as he is aware, that the vast majority of new build homes have solar panels on them as standard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

8. Whether her Department is taking steps with independent training colleges to train construction sector specialist apprentices to support house building targets.

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

The Government recognise the need to expand and upskill the construction workforce to meet our ambitious plan-for-change milestone of delivering 1.5 million safe and decent homes in this Parliament. We are working closely with industry to provide high-quality house building training opportunities, and we welcome the £140 million industry investment late last year in 32 pioneering new home building skills hubs, which will create up to 5,000 more construction apprenticeships per year.

[Alison Hume]

The construction skills village in Scarborough is an innovative real-world training environment for the specialist trades that we desperately need to build homes. Does the Minister acknowledge the importance of independent training providers in our plans to build 1.5 million new homes, and will he meet me to discuss how we can ensure that ITPs, which deliver the specialist skills that the construction industry is asking for, are included in our plans to train 60,000 new construction workers?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government are investing significant amounts of money to train more construction workers. We appreciate fully the importance of independent training providers in training the workforce needed to deliver more homes across England. I suggest that my hon. Friend and I find time to meet Baroness Smith from the Department for Education to discuss matters relating to ITPs, including the CSV in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to supporting skills training in the construction sector. Does he agree that skills training needs to be particularly focused on the sustainable skills, and will he join me in congratulating the low-carbon technology training centre in my constituency, as well as the new university in Hereford—its first cohort of engineers graduated just last month? Does he welcome such initiatives, and will the Government put more funding into supporting the construction and engineering skills that our building sector will need?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope that the hon. Lady recognises that we are putting significant amounts of investment into construction skills. In the spring statement, the Government announced a £600 million investment that will recruit an additional 60,000 construction workers by 2029. I am more than happy to recognise the contributions made by initiatives of the sort that she mentions in her constituency. We absolutely need skills across the built environment to meet our targets.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

9. If she will take steps through the spending review to increase social housing supply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

T2. We are very good at growing things in South Norfolk, including food, businesses and thriving communities. However, if we want our young people to share in that success, we need to plant a new town in my constituency. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we will achieve that?

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

I do not blame my hon. Friend for trying, but for good reason we established an independent expert advisory panel—the new towns taskforce—to make recommendations to Ministers on the location and delivery of new towns. The taskforce will submit its final report to Ministers in the coming months.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

T3. In the light of some worrying small-site applications on previously undeveloped green-belt land in my constituency, and of concerns from the Campaign to Protect Rural England, will the Minister undertake to monitor and assess the initial impact of the new grey-belt provisions and look at refining the wording, to avoid salami-slicing of the green belt?

[Matthew Pennycook]

No. We are confident that the protections in place for the green belt—the tests that have to be met for grey-belt release—are robust. It is ultimately for local planning authorities to conduct green-belt reviews and to bring forward those sites as part of local plans.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

T8. Across London, 90,000 children are living in temporary accommodation, denied the essentials of a stable home, which has terrible consequences for their physical and mental health and education. This is a scandalous inheritance from the previous Conservative Government. When does the Secretary of State believe that we will begin to see those numbers drop substantially?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

T5. It has been estimated, and reported, that billions-worth of unspent community infrastructure levy may be available at local authority level for investment in critical infrastructure. Will the Minister ensure that the money is invested in roads and drainage, so it can deliver the improvements that our residents deserve?

[Matthew Pennycook]

There are legitimate reasons why developer contributions can be held by local authorities—for example, so that they can complete phased development, or bring forward other sites over a period of time—but we are aware that certain local authorities hold, in some cases, significant sums, and we are giving the matter some attention.

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

The Shared Health Foundation recently published a vital report on children living in temporary accommodation, which revealed the scandalous fact that all too often, children living in such accommodation are not safe, secure or able to thrive. Does the Minister agree that it falls to this Labour Government to fix that wrong, on which there has been silence for too long?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

People have lived in Earsdon View in my constituency for more than 15 years, but the estate remains unadopted due to an ongoing issue between the landowner, Northumberland Estates, and the developer, Bellway, involving the securing of sewer adoption. I continue to press all parties to resolve the problem, but how can we ensure that people are not left in this situation for decades, often paying management fees on top of council tax, and that developers deliver?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend has been a doughty champion of leaseholders and residential freeholders in her constituency. We must start to provide the consumer protections that are already on the statute book, but as I have made clear, we are determined to end the injustice of fleecehold entirely, and will consult later this year on legislative and policy options to reduce the prevalence of private estate management arrangements.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I broadly support unitarisation on a strategic scale, but I am concerned about how historic debts will be treated in Surrey, especially those of Woking and Spelthorne councils. How will those debts be handled as our councils come together, and will the Minister assure my constituents in Virginia Water and Englefield Green, in the well-run borough of Runnymede, that they will not foot the bill for this as part of the reorganisation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the enhanced protections for tenants in the Renters’ Rights Bill, but data from The Londoner shows that for London tenants, there is only one enforcement officer per 7,500 private rented homes. Given the new enforcement burdens that the Bill places on councils, will the Minister please ensure that they have the resources to protect private tenants?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend will know that in the Bill we have taken a “polluter pays” approach. Local authorities will be able to levy fines on landlords to raise revenue, but—my hon. Friend can check the transcript on this point—we did commit ourselves to “new burdens” funding as appropriate.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Given the environmental importance and scarcity of chalk streams, may I urge the Deputy Prime Minister and her team to support amendments to this afternoon’s legislation that would protect those streams? They are vital, and they need as much protection as we can give them.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, chalk streams already have protections in national planning policy, but I am sure that we will continue this discussion on Report of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill later today.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Will the Minister meet me and residents of Beech and Willow Rise in Kirby, where a combination of failed leasehold law, previous corporate entities and inadequate regulation risks leaving residents facing unaffordable costs and eviction?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend. I know she has had constructive conversations with the Minister with responsibility for building safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), but I am happy to meet her.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Three hundred social homes are at risk in my Chichester constituency, despite having outline planning permission, because developers are rejecting offers from registered providers. Will the Minister commit to action to stop developers evading their obligation, and will he meet me to help me protect the delivery of these social homes?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We recognise the challenges around uncontracted section 106 units. A complex array of factors has led us to this point, but we are giving serious consideration to how we unblock the problem, and how we get those section 106 homes allocated and people living in them.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Steps to be taken when exercising functions under Part 3—

“When exercising any function or fulfilling any duty under Part 3 of this Act, the Secretary of State and Natural England must take all reasonable steps to—

(a) avoid, prevent and reduce any identified significant adverse effects on the environment, and only permit such adverse effects where they cannot be avoided and where the adverse effects will be compensated for;

(b) enhance biodiversity;

(c) permit a significant adverse effect on a European site or Ramsar site only where justified by imperative reasons of overriding public importance and where the adverse effect will be compensated for, and

(d) prevent the loss of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and veteran and ancient trees, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and any loss will be compensated for.”

This new clause would ensure that the Secretary of State and Natural England must take all reasonable steps to avoid causing adverse environmental effects.

New clause 2—Zero carbon standard for new homes—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 to require that new homes must—

(a) be built to a net zero carbon building standard, and

(b) include provision for solar power generation.

(2) Regulations must include a presumption that, as far as is reasonably practicable, new developments will include facilities for the rooftop generation of solar power.”

This new clause would require that new homes to be built to a net zero carbon building standard and include provision for the generation of solar power.

New clause 3—Transfer of land to local authority following expiry of planning permission—

“After section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, insert—

“91A Transfer of land to local authority following expiry of planning permission

(1) This section applies—

(a) where a development includes the construction of 100 or more homes and has not begun within the applicable period, and

(b) where section 91(4) of this Act does not apply.

(2) There is a compelling case in the public interest for the compulsory purchase under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 of land on which any such development was permitted provided that such purchase is—

(a) in accordance with the terms of the Land Compensation Acts, and

(b) complies with the relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.

(3) In this section—

(a) “applicable period” has the meaning given in section 91(5) of this Act;

(b) ”Land Compensation Acts” means—

(i) the Land Compensation Act 1961;

(ii) the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965;

(iii) the Acquisition of Land Act 1981;

(iv) any other relevant Act which the Secretary of State may specify.””

This new clause would mean that, where permission for a development of 100 homes or more is not used within the applicable period, there is automatically a justifiable case for the compulsory purchase of the land under the Housing Act 1985.

New clause 4—Sustainable drainage—

“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act—

(a) bring into force Schedule 3 (Sustainable drainage) of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and

(b) provide guidance to local planning authorities, land and property developers and other relevant stakeholders on how to incorporate sustainable drainage into new developments.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and provide guidance on the building in of sustainable drainage in future developments.

New clause 5—Local planning authority discretion over affordability of housing—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, provide guidance to local planning authorities on how to define or classify new or prospective developments as affordable housing.

(2) The guidance must make clear that a local planning authority may, while having regard to national or general guidelines, determine what is to be understood to be affordable housing in its area based on local needs and circumstances.”

This new clause would enable local planning authorities to use their discretion to determine whether certain housing is to be “affordable housing”.

New clause 6—Development plans to aim to improve health and well-being—

“(1) Any national or local plan or strategy relating to the planning or development of an area must be designed to improve the physical, mental and social health and well-being of the people who are to reside in that area.

(2) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local planning authorities on how local plans and strategies can be designed to achieve the aims outlined in subsection (1).”

This new clause would require national or local development plans to be designed in a way that aims to improve the physical, mental and social health and well-being of residents.

New clause 7—New car parks to include solar panels—

“(1) No local planning authority may approve an application for the building of an above-ground car park which does not make the required provision of solar panels.

(2) The required provision of solar panels is an amount equivalent to 50% of the surface area of the car park.”

This new clause would require solar panels to be provided with all new car parks.

New clause 8—Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, before Part 3 of this Act comes into force, establish an independent body to monitor the administration of the nature restoration levy by Natural England.

(2) The independent body may request information from Natural England relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy additional to the information and reports provided to the independent body by Natural England under section 66(5).

(3) The independent body may report to the Secretary of State on—

(a) any concerns relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy, and

(b) any other matters relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy as the independent body deems appropriate.”

This new clause would provide for independent oversight of Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy.

New clause 9—Environmental infrastructure in new developments—

“(1) Within six months of to the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 for the purpose of protecting and enhancing biodiversity.

(2) Regulations made under this section must—

(a) take account of biodiversity targets and interim targets set out in sections 1(2), 1(3)(c), 11 and 14 of the Environment Act 2021;

(b) include measures to enable the provision in new developments of—

(i) bird boxes;

(ii) bat boxes;

(iii) swift bricks;

(iv) hedgehog highways; and

(v) biodiverse roofs and walls.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to protect and enhance biodiversity in new developments.

New clause 10—Inclusion of wildbelt in planning considerations—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act—

(a) create a category of protection for wildbelt areas in England for the purpose of permanently protecting such areas from or during development, and

(b) issue guidance for local planning authorities and other relevant parties on how wildbelt land is to be protected.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “permanently protecting” areas means protecting or restoring the natural environment in a wildbelt area, and in ecosystems functionally connected to a wildbelt area.

(3) Guidance issued under subsection (1)(b) must—

(a) provide assistance to local planning authorities and others on the identification of wildbelt sites;

(b) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the development of spatial development strategies regarding—

(i) the use of Local Nature Recovery Strategies to protect and enhance wildbelt;

(ii) the reporting of progress towards the development of wildbelt sites; and

(iii) the reporting of progress towards the use of wildbelt designation to increase public access to nature.

(4) For the purposes of this section, “wildbelt” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify in guidance, but must include—

(a) areas of land;

(b) bodies of water and adjacent land;

(c) wetlands.”

This new clause would enable the creation of new wildbelt areas and associated ecosystems, and require guidance to be issued regarding the use of provisions of the bill to protect wildbelt areas.

New clause 11—Register of planning applications from political donors—

“(1) A local planning authority must maintain and publish a register of planning applications in its area where—

(a) a determination has been made by the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning, and

(b) the applicant has made a donation to the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning within the period of ten years prior to the application being made.

(2) A register maintained under this section must be published at least once each year.”

This new clause would require a local planning authority to keep and publish a register of applications decided by the Secretary of State where that Secretary of State has received a donation from the applicant.

New clause 12—Considerations when deciding an application for development consent—

“In section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (acceptance of applications), after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) When deciding whether to accept an application, the Secretary of State must have regard to the extent to which consultation with affected communities has—

(a) identified and resolved issues at the earliest opportunity;

(b) enabled interested parties to understand and influence the proposed project, provided feedback on potential options, and encouraged the community to help shape the proposal to maximise local benefits and minimise any disbenefits;

(c) enabled applicants to obtain relevant information about the economic, social, community and environmental effects of the project; and

(d) enabled appropriate mitigation measures to be identified, considered and, if appropriate, embedded into the proposed application before the application was submitted.””

This new clause to the Planning Act would require the Secretary of State to consider the content and adequacy of consultation undertaken with affected communities when deciding an application for development consent.

New clause 13—Removal of statutory consultees—

“(1) A party may only be removed from the list of consultees—

(a) in or under section 42 of the Planning Act 2008, or

(b) in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009,once Parliamentary approval for the removal has been signified.

(2) Parliamentary approval may be signified by—

(a) the approval of a relevant statutory instrument;

(b) the agreement of a relevant motion.”

This new clause would make the removal of statutory consultees subject to parliamentary approval.

New clause 14—Electricity distribution networks: land and access rights—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, consult on and implement measures to give electricity distribution network operators powers in relation, but not limited, to—

(a) the acquisition of rights over land for new and existing overhead lines and underground cables;

(b) the acquisition of land for new substations or the extension of existing substations;

(c) the entering into of land for the purposes of maintaining existing equipment;

(d) the entering into of land for the purposes of managing vegetation growth which is interfering with the safety or operation of overhead equipment.

(2) Any powers granted must be compatible with the need to complete works related to development in a timely, inexpensive and uncomplicated manner, and may include the provision of compensation to relevant landowners.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on giving electricity distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land.

New clause 15—Extension of permitted development—

“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act—

(a) make provision for the following to be included as permitted development—

(i) upgrading of existing lines from single to three phase;

(ii) alteration of conductor type;

(iii) increase in the height of distribution network supports to maintain minimum ground clearances under the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002;

(iv) increase in the distance of supporting structures by up to 60m from their existing position when replacing an existing overhead line;

(v) in relation to new connections from an existing line, an increase in nominal voltage to a maximum of 33kV and related increase in pole heights;

(vi) upgrading of existing lines from 6.6kV to 11kV;

(vii) installation of additional stays supporting wood poles;

(viii) upgrading of existing apparatus, including the increase of capacity of pole mounted transformers, subject to the provisions of section 37(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 and the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002;

(ix) temporary placement of a line for a period of up to two years.

(b) consult on the introduction of further measures for the purposes of enabling distribution network upgrades and reinforcements to be delivered as permitted development.”

This new clause would expand permitted development rights for upgrades to the transmission network.

New clause 16—Preservation of playing fields and pitches—

“(1) A local planning authority must, when exercising any of its functions, ensure the preservation of playing fields and playing pitches.

(2) The duty in subsection (1) may, when granting permission for development, be met through the imposition of conditions or requirements relating to—

(a) the protection of playing fields or playing pitches affected by the development; or

(b) the provision of alternative, additional or expanded playing fields or playing pitches.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “playing fields” and “playing pitches” have the same meanings as in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.”

This new clause would require local authorities to preserve playing fields when granting permission for development.

New clause 17—Community benefit from major energy infrastructure projects—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a scheme under which communities with a specified connection to a major energy infrastructure project are entitled to financial benefits.

(2) In subsection (1), “major energy infrastructure project” and “specified connection” have such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify, provided that any such definition includes all newly consented renewable energy projects.

(3) Financial benefits provided for by a scheme under this section must—

(a) be provided by the owner of the relevant major energy infrastructure project, and

(b) amount to 5% of the annual revenue of the relevant project.

(4) Where a major energy infrastructure project is onshore, regulations made under this section must—

(a) provide for two-thirds of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid to the council of that community, and

(b) provide for one third of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid into a strategic fund operated by the council.

(5) Where a major energy infrastructure project is offshore, regulations made under this section must provide for the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid into a strategic fund operated by the relevant council.

(6) Regulations made under this section may, among other things—

(a) specify the powers, purposes, responsibilities and constitution of a council strategic fund;

(b) make further provision determining which communities are qualifying under this section, and defining community for this purpose;

(c) confer functions in connection with the scheme;

(d) provide for delegation of functions conferred in connection with the scheme.”

This new clause sets out a scheme for providing financial benefits to communities in areas connected with major energy infrastructure schemes.

New clause 18—Local Area Energy Plans—

“(1) All local authorities and combined authorities must create a Local Area Energy Plan.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a “Local Area Energy Plan” means an outline of how the relevant authority proposes to transition its area’s energy system to Net Zero.”

This new clause would require all local and combined authorities to develop Local Area Energy Plans which set out how they will meet their Net Zero goals.

New clause 19—Extension of use classes C5 and C6 to England—

“In article 1(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2022, after “Wales” insert “, except in relation to articles 2(e) and 2(f), which apply in relation to England and Wales”.”

This new clause of existing regulations would extend use classes C5 (Dwellinghouses, used otherwise than as sole or main residences) and C6 (Short-term lets), which currently only to apply to Wales, to England.

New clause 20—Change of certain use classes to require permission—

“In article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, at end insert “, subject to paragraphs (1AA) and (1AB).

(1AA) Where a building is used for the purpose of Class C3, the use of that building for the purpose of Class C5 or Class C6 (or vice versa) is to be taken to involve development of the land.

(1AB) Where a building is used for the purpose of Class C5, the use of that building for the purpose of Class C6 (or vice versa) is to be taken to involve development of the land.””

This new clause would require planning permission to be obtained to change the use of a dwelling to a second home or to a short term let use class and for changes of use between those classes.

New clause 21—Local plan compliance with Land Use Framework and nature recovery strategies—

“When developing a local plan, a local planning authority must consider whether the plan complies with—

(a) the Land Use Framework, and

(b) any nature recovery strategy relevant to the area covered by the plan.”

This new clause seeks to ensure that Local Plans comply with the Land Use Framework and local nature recovery strategies.

New clause 23—Review of drainage performance of new developments—

“(1) A review of a development’s drainage performance must take place five years after the completion of the development.

(2) Where a review recommends that action be taken to improve the development’s drainage performance, the developer must implement such recommendations, giving priority to those relating to flood risk.”

This new clause requires developers to review the drainage performance of a development five years after being built.

New clause 24—Housing needs of ageing population—

“Any plan or strategy produced by a local planning authority which proposes the development of housing must include an assessment of the housing needs of an ageing population.”

New clause 25—National Landscape Partnerships to be statutory consultees for planning applications—

“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is a real pleasure to bring this landmark Bill back to the House on Report. Let me begin by thanking hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for their engagement with the Bill over recent months. In particular, I thank the hon. Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), as well as hon. Friends on the Government Benches, for their considered line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill in Committee.

Over the past 11 months, the Government have acted decisively to restore economic stability, increase investment and reform our economy to drive up productivity, prosperity and living standards in every part of the country. To build the homes and critical infrastructure we need, we have already delivered the most significant reforms to our planning system in a generation, including the publication of a revised, pro-growth national planning policy framework, which the Office for Budget Responsibility concluded will permanently increase the level of our real GDP by 0.02% by 2029-30—the equivalent of £6.8 billion in today’s prices.

We are making further progress on our plan-for-change mission of rebuilding Britain and kickstarting economic growth this week by progressing this critical legislation. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, helping us to achieve our ambitious milestones of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England, and making planning decisions on at least 150 major economic infrastructure projects in this Parliament, as well as supporting our clean power 2030 target by ensuring that essential clean energy projects are built as quickly as possible.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, the mother body of which is the National Farmers Union. Others will comment on this, but the UFU has told me that it is concerned about losing farmland for housing. Should it not be the policy of Government to ensure that brownfield sites are used first? If they are used first, farmers will have the opportunity to retain their land to produce food, which is important. Does the Minister feel there must be balance in what is put forward tonight to ensure that that happens?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention—he knows I have great affection for him. He tempts me into a debate that does not directly relate to the Bill, but I can tell him the following: the Government’s position is brownfield-first when it comes to development. He knows that we strengthened the national planning policy framework to give greater weight to brownfield release. We have consulted on a brownfield passport to ensure that bringing forward previously developed land becomes the default and that people get a yes in those circumstances. When it comes to agricultural land, very strong protections already exist. They remain in force in terms of what is in the NPPF.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way briefly, and then I will make some progress.

[Greg Smith]

When the Minister says that agricultural protections are very strong, that simply is not true, is it? In the new NPPF that the Government brought in after being elected, they removed the important clause that explicitly protected land used in food production.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I slightly take issue with the hon. Member’s interpretation. We made targeted changes, but the strong protections that apply to agricultural land exist. He knows that, and I have spoken to him before about the fact that, in particular parts of the country, we see high numbers of applications for things like solar farms. But as I have said to him before, even under the most optimistic scenarios, less than 1% of agricultural land will be brought forward for solar farm applications, and those protections remain in place, so we are confident that that is robust.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will take this one last intervention because these are not matters relating to the Bill, and then I want to move on.

[Sir Roger Gale]

This relates directly to the Bill. Not only does it relate directly to the Bill, but there are dozens of amendments all relating to this one single issue. The fact of the matter is that, under the proposals as they stand, we will lose vast swathes of prime agricultural land because planning consent will effectively be driven straight through. That is simply not satisfactory.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard the point I just made. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, less than 1% of agricultural land will be turned over to solar farm use. Some of the hyperbole that has been associated with the issue over recent months is unwarranted. I say directly to him, because I want to move on and speak to the Bill, that these are matters that relate to the national planning policy framework, rather than to any proposals in this piece of legislation. I am more than happy to sit down with him and talk about them outside of the context of this debate, but I do want to make some progress.

We made a number of improvements to the Bill in Committee to ensure that it operates as intended and that its expected benefits are fully realised. In many cases, the changes were a direct result of constructive feedback from key stakeholders and parliamentarians. The result is the stronger and more impactful Bill before us. I will briefly outline the more substantive changes made to the Bill in Committee, including in relation to the nationally significant infrastructure projects, statutory consultee funding and the nature restoration fund, before turning to further amendments that the Government tabled last week.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the very open way in which he has approached this process so far. He is absolutely right that the Government made many positive changes and concessions in Committee, but he will be aware that many stakeholders remain concerned about the Bill’s impact on nature. As the Bill progresses, is he minded to listen to representations from people who are absolutely behind him on his growth mission but who want to ensure that there is no further loss of natural habitat in one of the most nature-depleted nations on the planet?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend and I spoke just days ago about that issue. We are of course more than happy to continue engaging with and listening to the views proposed by hon. Members from across the House and by organisations. If he will allow me to make a little progress, I will deal specifically with the nature restoration fund in fairly short order.

Let me begin with the improvements made to the consenting process for critical infrastructure. As set out in my written ministerial statement of 23 April, the Government have removed the overly prescriptive and burdensome statutory consultation requirements for major economic infrastructure projects that were unique to the NSIP system established by the Planning Act 2008. Over this Parliament, that change could result in a cost-saving of over £1 billion across the project pipeline. By speeding up delivery, increasing capacity and reducing constraint cost, it will also contribute to lower household bills.

We have decided to proceed with the change because considerable evidence attests to the fact that the statutory requirements in place are driving perverse outcomes. Rather than providing a means by which engagement drives better outcomes, statutory pre-application procedures have become a tick-box exercise that encourages risk-aversion and gold-plating. The result is consultation fatigue and confusion for communities; longer, more technical and less accessible documentation; and an arrangement that actively disincentivises improvements to applications, even if they are in a local community’s interests, because applicants worry that a further repeat consultation will be required.

In removing the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for NSIP applications, and bringing requirements more closely in line with other planning regimes, the Government are not downgrading the importance of high-quality pre-submission consultation and engagement. We still want the NSIP regime to function on the basis of a front-loaded approach in which development proposals are thoroughly scoped and refined prior to being submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and we still expect high-quality, early, meaningful and constructive engagement and consultation to take place with those affected as part of that process. Given that such engagement and consultation routinely takes place and leads to improved proposals in other planning regimes without such statutory requirements, and because the development consent order examination procedure rewards high-quality applications, we are confident that developers will continue to be incentivised to undertake it.

To support that change, the Government intend to publish statutory guidance setting out strong expectations that developers undertake consultation and engagement prior to submitting an application. We will work with stakeholders to design that guidance—a public consultation will be launched in the coming months—so that it encourages best practice without recreating the flaws of the current system.

We have also made a number of other changes relating to the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, including by amending the Bill to ensure that promoters can gain access to land to carry out surveys assessing its condition and status and inform environmental impact assessments, and to make the process for post-consent changes to development consent orders more proportionate to the change requested.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My inbox is full of correspondence from Harlow residents who cannot get a home and cannot get on the housing ladder. They find that the planning framework means that it takes too long to get houses built. The main purpose of the Bill is to speed up that process and build people the homes that they need.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right: the Bill does streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure. Although the changes I have just referred to relate not to homes but the regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects—big clean energy projects, water reservoirs and so forth—there are other changes in the Bill that do support a more streamlined local planning process.

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

Before the Minister moves on, will he give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am going to make some progress, because I know a lot of hon. Members want to get in and there are lots of points I need to make before I can bring others in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Is the Minister not concerned that he has lost the audience among wildlife organisations and trusts that say they are offended by Ministers’ portraying nature as a blocker to development rather than an enhancement to life and the economy, and are now asking for part 3 of the Bill to be scrapped?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will come on to address that call, which I know is being made, but in general the Bill aims for, and I have always focused on, a win-win for development and the environment. We had extremely productive engagement with ENGOs in the development of the Bill, and we continue to have fruitful conversations with them, aside from the campaigns that I know are being fought out there in the country and in some of the national media.

While critics of this part of the Bill may be content to maintain the suboptimal status quo, in full knowledge of the fact that it is frustrating the building of new homes and failing to drive the restoration of nature, this Government are not. To those who believe this Government might buckle and scrap part 3 of the Bill entirely, I simply say, “You have underestimated the resolve of this Government and this Minister.” The case for moving to a more strategic approach that will allow us to use funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in driving the recovery of protected sites and species, is compelling.

That is why so many organisations indicated their in-principle support for the purpose and intent of part 3 when the Bill was first introduced.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will make some progress.

As Beccy Speight, the chief executive of RSPB, put it at the time:

“With bold leadership, collaboration, and smart planning through initiatives like the Nature Restoration Fund, we can build a future where nature, climate, people and the economy thrive together”.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I welcome the enhanced environmental protections in the nature restoration fund. My constituency of Bournemouth West has some unique heathland habitats, many of which are protected as sites of special scientific interest. They hold deep value for the local community, so can the Minister reassure me that these unique habitats will be protected as well under this Bill?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We must make a distinction between irreplaceable habitats, where the model does not remove the strong protections that exist for them, such as ancient woodland in the national planning policy framework, and habitats where Natural England will be allowed to take a view as to whether conservation measures that apply to them meet the overall improvement test in the Bill, and any intervention in those circumstances will be driven by what is in the environmental best interests of the relevant feature. There are, therefore, protections in place that address my hon. Friend’s concerns.

In recent weeks, there has been a not inconsiderable amount of spurious commentary attempting to convey a false impression of what the nature restoration fund does.

[Ellie Chowns]

On that specific point, will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

If the hon. Lady will let me develop my argument a little, I am more than happy to give way to her in due course.

As such, I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. First, some have claimed that the nature restoration fund is driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment and that the Government are creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute—a “cash to trash” model, as some have dubbed it.

In reality, the nature restoration fund will do the precise opposite. I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not—and need not—come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest that the nature restoration fund would allow developers simply to pay Government and then wantonly harm nature. Instead, it takes payments from developers and hands them to Natural England, a public body with regulatory duties to conserve and enhance our natural environment, to develop environmental delivery plans, setting out how various conservation measures will not only address the impact of development, but go further to demonstrate how they will improve the conservation status of the environmental feature.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The Minister is making a strong case for the legislation, on which he has worked very hard. However, does he accept that many concerns were raised in Committee, on which we both served, about Natural England’s ability to undertake the duties that he is asking it to undertake, and that he was unable to give an answer about the extra funding that may be needed for that to happen? Will he elaborate on that?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The shadow Minister’s memory is different from mine: I did provide those assurances. We have already allocated £14 million in the Budget to support the delivery of the nature restoration fund, and through measures set out in the Bill, we will move to a system of full cost recovery so that Natural England has the resources it needs to carry out those functions.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Matthew Pennycook]

I know lots of Members wish to contribute to the debate but I will make some progress. If I may finish the argument I am trying develop about taking on those misconceptions, I will give way to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) very shortly.

We have been perfectly clear that the new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable, which is why the Bill gives Natural England the ability to request planning conditions to ensure that appropriate actions are taken by developers as part of using an EDP.

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the Minister warmly for giving way. He dismissed “spurious” criticism of part 3 of the Bill, but would he use that phrase to dismiss the very expert criticism of the Office for Environmental Protection? In complete contrast to the Secretary of the State’s claim that the Bill does not reduce environmental protections, in its independent expert advice, the OEP says that it does and that the Bill constitutes “a regression” in environmental protection?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The simple answer is no, I would not characterise the OEP’s advice as “spurious”, but I am characterising some of the arguments that have been made over recent days and weeks as such. The OEP is not saying that the Bill is a “cash to trash” model, but some people out there in the public discourse are making that claim.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not give way again. We have to make this argument to take on the critics of the Bill who are intentionally trying to malign the objectives—

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

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not. I have just been very clear that I am not going to give way again as I want to make some progress.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire is more than welcome to have another go at intervening in due course. I know that she will be putting forward her views later. The Government’s view is that the Bill is not “regressive”. As I have said, environmental delivery plans will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation. As the hon. Lady knows, because we had extensive debates in Committee, we are giving very serious consideration to the OEP’s technical advice on how the Bill might be strengthened in various areas.

Another claim that has been put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, that amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation. The very strong protections for important sites set out in national planning policy are untouched by the legislation. It is only when an EDP is in place, following consultation and approval by the Secretary of State, that developers can avail themselves of it to discharge the relevant obligation.

In the same way that developers can build only once they have met existing requirements, development supported by the nature restoration fund will only be able to come forward when there is a credible and robust EDP in place that will deliver better environmental outcomes. The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), has rightly flagged the importance of these plans relying on robust scientific evidence, which is why they will only ever be put in place where they can be shown to deliver better environmental outcomes.

Finally, there has been a suggestion by some that the new approach provided for by the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or for irrecoverable harm. Again, that is patently false. Not only do all existing protections for irreplaceable habitats remain in place, but the overall improvement test in clause 59 simply could not be met if an EDP proposed to allow irrecoverable harm. Natural England would not propose such measures, and the Secretary of State could not sign them off if it did. If any Secretary of State signed them off, they would be open to judicial review on the basis of that decision.

In short, the nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests: it will restore, not harm nature. It is smart planning reform, designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery, while improving the state of nature across the country. By shifting to a strategic approach, leveraging economies of scale and reducing the need for costly project-level assessments, it will deliver a win-win for development and the environment.

While the Government have no time for spurious and misleading attacks on the nature restoration fund, I am acutely conscious of the views expressed both within and beyond this House from those who are supportive of the purpose and intent of part 3 of the Bill—those who are not calling for it to be scrapped, but are not yet convinced that the safeguards within it are sufficiently robust or that there is the required certainty that it will deliver in practice the potential environmental benefits it offers.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

I find it remarkable that the Minister repeatedly accused the over 30 leading environmental groups, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has described the Bill as a “cash to trash” model, as making “spurious” remarks, given that he quoted the chief executive of the RSPB, Beccy Speight, to try to shore up his own argument. However, the quote that he took was from a much earlier comment made before the debate in Committee. More recently, she has said:

“The evidence clearly shows nature isn’t a blocker to growth. The Government has identified the wrong obstacle to the problem it’s trying to overcome”.

She went on to say that, with no possibility for improving the Bill through amendments,

“the complete removal of Part 3 of the Bill is the only responsible option left.”

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is for the chief executive of the RSPB to justify why she has changed her view on the Bill when the Bill has not changed. If anything, as I will come on to explain, quite a lot of amendments that the Government made—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The list of Members wishing to speak is extensive, so I hope that the Minister will be coming to a conclusion shortly.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I was not planning to, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I need to set out some important changes that the Government have made and the amendments that we are proposing. However, on the basis of your stricture, I will not take any further interventions.

The Bill has not changed; if anything, it has been strengthened in Committee in ways that I will set out. To assuage what are entirely reasonable questions in respect of an approach that is novel, we have already made some targeted improvements to part 3 in Committee, including requiring environmental delivery plans to demonstrate how conservation measures will be maintained and over what period; strengthening the overall improvement test by clarifying that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that it will be passed by the end date of the environmental delivery plan; clarifying that the negative effect the Secretary of State must consider relates to the maximum amount of development covered by the environmental delivery plan; and ensuring that Natural England has sufficient powers of entry, used only when absolutely necessary, to survey or investigate land alongside appropriate constraints, including notice requirements and introducing further protections in respect of Natural England’s use of compulsory purchase powers. Those changes significantly strengthen the nature restoration fund and, I hope, will be welcomed across the House.

However, as I was at pains to make clear in Committee, and will more than happily restate once again today, I continue to reflect on the reasonable points made by hon. Members and the advice of the Office for Environmental Protection with a view to deliberating on what more might be done to ensure everyone is confident that the outcomes for nature provided for by this part of the Bill will be positive. For the purposes of clarity, that includes giving serious consideration to ways in which we might instil further confidence in respect of the rigour of the overall improvement test, provide for greater certainty in respect of the delivery of EDPs, and ensure that there is more clarity about the evidential basis and environmental rationale for strategic network level conservation measures. As we do so, I put on record my thanks to all those who have continued to engage constructively with the Government with a view to providing reassurance that the nature restoration fund will operate as intended. As ever, I will listen carefully to the contributions made by hon. Members in respect of part 3 of the Bill, and I look forward to a constructive debate on these clauses.

In Committee, we discussed the need to do more to rapidly increase the coverage of swift bricks across the country as an important means of arresting the long-term decline in breeding swift populations. In responding to the debate, I intend to cover some of the ways forward that the Government intend to take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for that point of order. It is simply not the case that it has to be withdrawn on the Floor of the House; this has happened on numerous occasions.

I call the Minister.

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

It is a pleasure to rise to respond to what has been a very comprehensive debate. [Interruption.] A significant number of amendments have been spoken to in the course of the debate—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) should not be shouting at the Clerks in that way. I have made my point.

I call the Minister.

[Matthew Pennycook]

A significant number of amendments have been spoken to in the course of the debate and the House will appreciate that I do not have the time to address the vast majority of them. I will therefore focus on addressing as many of the key amendments and points of contention as I can. I have been extremely generous in giving way in opening the debate, but I hope that hon. Members will now appreciate that to get through as many points as possible I will not be taking further interventions.

The debate this evening has evidenced support from across the House for nature and for ensuring we get the nature restoration fund right. I spoke in detail about the Government’s position in opening the debate. As I repeatedly made clear in the Bill Committee and will reiterate this evening, we are listening to the concerns raised by hon. Members and stakeholders. We are clear that this is the right model to take us forward.

We are of course open to ways to improve the legislation, however, and on that basis, and to emphasise the point I made earlier in the debate, we are giving serious consideration to ways in which we might instil further confidence that part 3 will deliver the outcomes we believe it will, such as providing greater confidence in the rigour of the overall improvement test, as raised by the OEP and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos).

We are also giving due consideration to how we can provide for greater certainty in the timescale for delivering conservation measures, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), as well as seeking to clarify the evidential basis and environmental rationale for strategic conservation measures, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins). The status quo is not working. The case for moving to a more strategic approach is compelling and I look forward to further consideration of part 3 in the other place.

Turning to the important issue of children’s play areas and playing fields, I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling new clause 16 and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for tabling new clauses 82. I particularly commend my hon. Friend on all that he is doing to make the case for high-quality, accessible and inclusive areas for play. The Government agree that access to play space is vital, which is why strong protections are already in place.

The national planning policy framework is clear that local planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities, and opportunities for new provision, including places for children’s play. In December, we strengthened the strong protections already in place in the NPPF by adding explicit reference to safeguarding “formal play spaces”. That means that those facilities can be lost only where they are no longer needed, or where there is a justified and appropriate alternative

Given the existing policy expectations, safeguards and sources of support, we do not believe that it is necessary to add the sort of legislative requirements the amendments would entail. However, I recognise the importance of what the amendments seek to achieve, and the provision of play space is one of the areas we are considering as we prepare a new set of national planning policies for decision making, on which we will consult this year. I commit to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East to writing to my counterparts at the Department for Education and at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that we are acting across Government to increase spaces for play. I will work with him to broker the necessary ministerial meetings that he seeks. With those assurances, I hope that he and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Turning to swift bricks, which were mentioned several times during the debate, we recognise that they are a vital means of arresting the long-term decline of the breeding swift population. While swift brick coverage is increasing, with nearly 30 house builders having made a voluntary commitment to install one for every new home built, the Government want to do more to drive up swift brick installation. However, there is a principled difference of opinion as to the best way to achieve that objective. Although I understand why many are attracted to the argument that the only way to make a significant difference to swift numbers and other red-listed species is to mandate the incorporation of swift bricks into all new-build properties, through building regulations or free-standing legislation, I take a different view.

In all sincerity, I do not believe that amending building regulations is the most appropriate way to secure the outcome that the House as a whole seeks. As building regulations are mandatory, going down that route would compel developers to install swift bricks in all new buildings, irrespective of what they are or where they are located.

[Chris Curtis]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

No, I will not.

Contrary to what hon. Members might assume, amending building regulations is not a quick fix. It can take years for changes to feed through into building design and we do not think that swifts can afford to wait that long. For those and other reasons, I remain of the view that changing national planning policy is the more effective route to securing swift bricks as a standard feature of the vast majority of new buildings.

As the House will be aware, the revised NPPF published in December expects developments to incorporate features that support priority or threatened species such as swifts, bats and hedgehogs. However, as I have made clear to many hon. Members over recent months, we have always intended to go further. We are specifically giving consideration to using a new suite of national policies for decision making to require swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings, unless there are compelling reasons that preclude their use or that would make them ineffective. That would significantly strengthen the planning policy expectations already in place, so that, for example, we would expect to see at least one swift brick in all new brick-built houses.

I believe that is the best way we can achieve the objective of seeing swift bricks used as widely as possible, as the use and placement of swift bricks can be integrated into the planning process and become a standard expectation in the design of new developments. We will be consulting on a new set of national policies for decision making later this year. So that no one can be in any doubt about our intentions here, the Government have today published new planning practice guidance setting out how swift bricks are expected to be used in new developments, as an interim step ahead of the planned consultation.

We also heard from several hon. Members who want to see stronger protections put in place for chalk streams. The measures in the Bill will not weaken existing protections for those valuable areas for nature, but the Government continue to give careful consideration to this matter in the context of ongoing reform to national planning policy and I am more than happy to engage with hon. Members from across the House on it.

I turn to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, which would have the effect of preventing the Government from implementing a national scheme of delegation for planning committees. Put simply, it is a wrecking amendment, and the Government cannot accept it for the following reasons. Planning is principally a local activity, and the Government recognise the vital role that planning committees play. However, we must ensure that they operate as effectively as possible. At present, every council has its own scheme of delegation, and 96% of planning decisions in England are already made by planning officers. However, there is significant variation across the country, which creates risk and uncertainty in the system. As such, we believe that there is a robust case for introducing a national scheme of delegation.

Since Committee stage, when we debated these issues at length, the Government have published a technical consultation setting out our detailed plans for reform in this area. I encourage hon. Members to read that consultation, in which we propose splitting planning applications into two tiers, providing certainty about what decisions will be delegated to expert officers and at the same time ensuring that councillors can continue to focus on the most significant proposals for housing and commercial developments to allow for effective local and democratic oversight of the most controversial applications where warranted. I believe that if Members engage with the detail of that conversation, they will recognise that what is being proposed is not an attempt to ride roughshod over local democracy, but a sensible and proportionate change designed to improve certainty and decision making in the planning system. However, on the fundamental point of whether we should introduce a national scheme of delegation, the Government’s position is an unequivocal yes. For that reason, I cannot accept the new clause in question.

I turn briefly to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington relating to the Bill’s new reflective amendment procedure for national policy statements. I reassure the House that our changes are not about eroding parliamentary scrutiny, but about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made, and we absolutely recognise the value that such scrutiny brings to getting important changes right.

As I have discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, several safeguards are in place that will ensure parliamentary oversight is protected; I will happily restate them for the record. Where we intend to make a reflective amendment, a statement will be laid in Parliament announcing a review and we will write to the relevant Select Committee. Ministers will make themselves available to speak to that Committee as far as is practicable, and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period.

Let me be very clear in response: the Government recognise the importance of Ministers attending Committee to explain the proposed changes, and I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the Deputy Prime Minister and I will write to colleagues to ensure that is fully and clearly understood. Importantly, the NPPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted. I hope that clarifies the process and reassures my hon. Friend and the House more widely.

Finally, I will address some of the amendments about provision of affordable and social housing, including new clauses 32 and 50, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). The Government are committed to the biggest generational uplift in social and affordable housing, and in our first 10 months in office we have put our money where our mouth is. We have announced new £800 million in-year funding to top up the 2021-26 affordable homes programme, and we announced in the spring statement an immediate injection of £2 billion in new capital investment to act as a bridge to the future grant programme, which is to be announced this week in the spending review.

To date, we have not chosen to define a target for social and affordable housing, and there is good reason why that is the case, including the fact that the sector has faced significant financial constraints and needs regulatory certainty. That was made worse by many of the completely irresponsible and unacceptable decisions made by the Opposition when they were in government over the past 14 years. It would not be appropriate to set a target until after the sector is stabilised, knows what is required and, importantly, is clear on what investment will be available to support delivery, which will become apparent only after the spending review. A range of complex factors contribute to the numbers of affordable houses coming forward in this country and impact on the sector’s ability to build more homes, but we will of course keep that matter under review.

I will very briefly mention the green belt and the protection of villages. As the House will be aware, we recently published guidance in relation to the green belt. None of the long-standing green-belt purposes are touched by those changes, including the purpose of precluding the merging of towns. The guidance does not remove those appropriate and relevant protections from land around villages, and any green-belt land—including land in, or near, villages—that conflicts with the relevant purposes would not be identified as grey belt.

To conclude, I once again thank all hon. Members who have participated in today’s debate for their contributions. The Government will continue to reflect on the arguments that have been made. I urge the House to support the targeted amendments to this Bill that the Government have proposed, to ensure we can realise its full potential.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 69 accordingly read a Second time.

Street Parking on Estates: Bracknell Forest

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for raising this important matter with the Government, and congratulate him on securing this debate. I have heard his concerns regarding the inadequate provision of parking across his constituency, and I recognise the issues he raises on the accessibility of parking. These are important issues which have a direct link to the welfare of local communities and the economic prosperity of our towns. Let me cover some of the main points raised in his remarks and other interventions.

As my hon. Friend will be all too aware, competition for parking spaces, especially for accessible street parking, across this country is already substantial. The Government recognise the provision of accessible and reliable parking is particularly important outside of the major metropolitan areas, where public transportation is often limited and where people need to be able to drive to access basic services and economic centres. Although the Government understand the benefits of private car use for individuals up and down the country, with many across our communities relying on private vehicles as a key part of their lives, I also recognise that many estates are simply not equipped to deal with the number of cars on our roads. That is most keenly felt by residents in older estates.

This problem has been exacerbated by the fact that modern cars have grown not only in number but in size, as my hon. Friend rightly referenced in his remarks. As a result, the growing demand for the provision of parking risks becoming unmanageable. That will not only be frustrating to residents who own vehicles, but can also lead to irresponsible or even dangerous parking in prohibited areas.

My Department is aware of the complaints many residents of Bracknell Forest have raised about parked vehicles preventing the flow of traffic, and I welcome the measures the council has now put in place to prevent this. While the Government recognise the importance of adequate provision of street parking for local communities, in line with the Government’s position on localism, parking is ultimately the responsibility of local authorities and it is for them to determine what is appropriate in their area, and local authorities already have powers to implement and enforce parking restrictions.

The Government understand that Bracknell Forest council has acknowledged the pressures with street parking in the community and is in the process of implementing a parking strategy with the objective of supporting the provision of parking in the borough. I note the concerns my hon. Friend raises regarding the council’s progress to date; however, it is right that local authorities have autonomy over the nature and scope of parking policies within their local area. As he rightly recognised when he spoke about local solutions, local authorities are best placed to balance the needs of residents, emergency services, local businesses and those who work in and visit their area.

Of course, the Government are committed to investing in local communities and improving local transport infrastructure. The Department for Transport recently allocated £203,000 to Bracknell Forest council from the local transport resource funding scheme. Under the scheme, local transport authorities can use this funding to build their capability and capacity to develop ambitious transport schemes, develop and update local transport plans, deliver local delivery plans, fund individual projects and retain the transport expertise to do this.

On pavement parking, I well understand that this can be a real problem for pedestrians, wheelchair users, those with prams and buggies, and especially people with mobility or visual impairments. We are mindful of the concerns many people have raised about inconsiderate pavement parking.

As my hon. Friend is likely already aware, the Department for Transport held a consultation back in 2020 on the complex problem of pavement parking. This Government intend to publish a formal response to that consultation later this year, which will summarise the views received and announce the Government’s next steps for pavement parking policy. In the meantime, highways authorities may introduce specific local pavement parking restrictions using their existing TRO-making powers—traffic regulation orders—and these can be enforced by councils using their civil parking enforcement powers.

My hon. Friend also raised the topic of electric vehicle charging on housing estates with roadside parking. The Government are committed to making EV charging infrastructure more affordable and accessible, particularly for those without off-street parking. Most electric vehicle drivers charge overnight at home, which is often the most convenient and cost-effective option. To support those without on-street parking, the Government offer a grant for homes to purchase a charge point when paired with a cross-pavement charging solution. The Department is aware of at least 26 trials and hundreds of individual installations of cross-pavement solutions across the UK. The Government are also working with local authorities to encourage this technology. In December 2024, the Government published cross-pavement guidance to help local authorities understand what they need to consider for the roll-out of cross-pavement solutions. That includes relevant planning permissions, minimum existing standards, responsibilities and case studies of trials.

For private land, such as the residential estates my hon. Friend mentioned, the landowners or private car park operators are responsible for parking provision and enforcement. I am pleased to hear that Bracknell Forest council is working with local landowners, including housing associations, to deliver more parking capacity across the community. Housing associations are private bodies and must make their own decisions on how they run their business, but the neighbourhood and community standard is clear that providers must co-operate with partners to promote social, environmental and economic wellbeing. The standard includes a specific expectation that housing associations co-operate with local authorities to support them in achieving their objectives. However, the regulator of social housing does not dictate how individual housing associations demonstrate how they comply with this duty. I welcome the co-operation my hon. Friend mentioned. I am glad to hear his local authority is working collaboratively with Abri, the housing association in question, and I am pleased by Bracknell Forest council’s commitment, through its parking strategy, to work with housing associations generally to help alleviate the pressures on parking.

To conclude, I thank my hon. Friend once again for raising this matter with the Government. We recognise the significant concerns many communities, particularly those residing in older estates, face regarding the accessibility and availability of parking. This essential resource is under increasing pressure, and we fully support local councils in their endeavours to mitigate the challenges. As I said, local councils are best positioned to lead the initiatives, as they possess the intimate knowledge of their areas and can effectively consider factors such as traffic flow capacity, road safety and the diverse needs of residents, visitors and businesses, but I hope I have given my hon. Friend a sense of what the Government are doing to support them.

Question put and agreed to.

Planning Reform and Housing Delivery

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Written Statements

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

I am today providing an update on various measures the Government are taking to further reform the planning system and achieve our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in this Parliament.

Speeding up build-out rates on large sites

Last year, the Government took decisive action to overhaul national planning policy through our December 2024 updates to the national planning policy framework. The changes made included the introduction of a new, mandatory standard method for assessing housing needs, and a new strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release that prioritises development on lower-quality grey-belt land. By allocating more land for development, the pro-growth framework that is now in place provides the foundation for higher rates of house building.

However, to significantly boost housing delivery we must close the gap between the amount of land allocated and permissioned and the number of homes being completed. The Competition and Markets Authority and others have concluded that most homes in England are not built as fast as they can be constructed, once permission is granted, but only as fast as the developer expects to sell them at local second-hand market prices. This leads to a build-out rate for large sites which can take decades to complete. While it is commercially rational for developers to operate in this way, the systemic impact is a lower level of house building than is needed.

As a result, the Government have published a “Planning Reform Working Paper: Speeding Up Build Out”, setting out a five-part strategy and a series of proposals to speed up build-out. These include measures to support mixed-tenure development; the implementation of conditional confirmation of compulsory purchase orders; and, as a measure of last resort, exploring the case for a delayed homes penalty, for use in instances where build-out is falling significantly behind the agreed schedule without a reasonable justification.

Alongside the working paper, we published a technical consultation on implementing measures to improve build-out transparency to gather views on the introduction of a new statutory build-out framework, which requires developers to submit information at different stages of the planning and development cycle, and a power for local authorities to decline to determine applications submitted by developers who persistently fail to build out sites quickly. We will also make it easier for councils to issue completion notices, which require housebuilders to complete development within a reasonable period of time, else the planning permission will cease—a form of “use it or lose it”.

Supporting small and medium-sized housebuilders

The Government are clear that we cannot achieve our ambitious house building targets without diversifying the housing market and making it more competitive. That means supporting a range of different developers, including small and medium-sized housebuilders.

The share of new-build homes delivered by SMEs has declined significantly since the 1980s, when smaller house builders delivered 40% of the country’s homes. To arrest and reverse the decline of SME house builders, and so maximise the contribution they can make to new housing supply, the Government are acting to support them by increasing their access to land, providing further financial assistance and easing the burden of regulation.

In respect of land, the Government have launched a pilot of a new form of partnership between cities, developers and the private sector—a small sites aggregator—that will bring together small plots of land and accelerate their development. The pilot will be trialled in Bristol, Sheffield and the London Borough of Lewisham, with support from the relevant regional authorities.

Alongside this, Homes England will release more of its land exclusively to SMEs, and the Government have also announced a £1.2 million PropTech innovation fund for up to 12 tech innovators to share to work with industry on scalable solutions that accelerate housing delivery and unlock the development potential of small sites.

In respect of finance, the government is allocating up to £100 million of the £700 million extension to the home building fund announced in December to introduce SME accelerator loans. These will provide SMEs with the finance they need to acquire new sites while they are building out existing developments.

We have also provided longer-term certainty of access to finance for SMEs by committing to providing a range of funding tools for SMEs as part of a new national housing delivery fund. This will include revolving credit facilities, alongside loans and lending alliances, to provide unprecedented Government support and ensure SMEs have the access to finances they need to grow, invest and support delivery of 1.5 million homes. Further detail will be provided at the forthcoming spending review.

Lastly, in respect of regulation, the Government have published a “Planning Reform Working Paper: Reforming Site Thresholds” to seek views on reforming site size thresholds in the planning system to better support housing delivery. The working paper proposes a gradated approach to the planning system—removing and streamlining disproportionate requirements on small and medium sites, while maintaining and strengthening requirements on major ones.

The proposals would see minor developments of up to nine homes benefit from streamlined planning and eased biodiversity net gain requirements, alongside faster decisions being taken by expert planning officers, not planning committees. A new proposed category of medium development for 10 to 49 homes would come with simpler rules and fewer costs—including a potential exemption from the building safety levy, and simplified BNG rules that make it easier to deliver biodiverse habitats on these sites, delivering a win-win for nature and development.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has also launched consultations on how the implementation of BNG for small and medium developments could be simplified and improved, as well as BNG implementation for nationally significant infrastructure projects. The respective consultations can be found on www.gov.uk/government/consultations/biodiversity-net-gain-for-nationally-significant-infrastructure-projects

Planning committee reform

To further support the changes set out above, we have published our promised “Reform of Planning Committees: Technical Consultation”, providing detail on how we intend to implement the Planning and Infrastructure Bill provisions relating to the delegation of planning decisions, the size and composition of planning committees and mandatory training for members of planning committees.

The Government have been clear that planning committees have an integral role in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. However, in exercising that democratic oversight, we must ensure that planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications which require member input and not revisiting the same decisions.

Our detailed proposals for the operation of a national scheme of delegation involve directing the majority of minor and technical planning applications to expert local planning offers (tier A), while enabling all other planning applications (tier B), which will include all significant new housing and commercial developments, to be determined by committee, if the local planning authority chief planning officer—or equivalent officer—and chair of planning committee mutually agree to depart from an assumed delegation. This will ensure that there is greater consistency and certainty across England about who in a local planning authority will be responsible for making planning decisions.

We believe these proposals strike the right balance between empowering professional planning officers and ensuring elected local representatives determine the most significant and contentious applications. I look forward to receiving feedback from hon. Members, local authorities, house builders and other important stakeholders.

[HCWS673]

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns]

I do not at all dispute that there is potential to go further and faster within the framework of building regulations to address the risks that I am outlining. However, there is also potential within the planning framework to do it, which is exactly the point that I have made. The removal of “overheating” from the planning framework in 2022 meant that things have got worse. We have an opportunity in the Bill to ensure that we tackle overheating through the planning framework, as well as the building regulations framework. It really is not an either/or. There is scope and need within both those frameworks to address the risks that I am outlining.

New clause 80 would ensure that local plans must consider passive design in residential development, from cross-ventilation to thermal mass. These are well-established strategies that can drastically reduce indoor temperatures during extreme heat events without energy use.

Finally, new clause 81 would ensure that local authorities have access to up-to-date, localised overheating risk data. Evidence-based planning is possible only when planners are equipped with timely, spatially accurate information. Datasets such as these have already been pioneered in places like Bristol, with its Keep Bristol Cool map and local plan policies. Likewise, the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs has been developing national data on overheating, and that could form the basis of rolling out such support nationally.

We really must not miss this opportunity. Climate adaptation cannot be an afterthought; it needs to be embedded in our planning framework and how we plan our communities, protect our citizens and shape the homes of tomorrow. These five new clauses offer a clear, practical and urgently needed framework to ensure that our planning system is fit for a warmer world. I urge the Committee to support them.

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

It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for tabling the new clauses and raising the very real social and economic issue of overheating in our homes. I absolutely agree with her aims to ensure that homes being built do not give rise to the health and lifestyle risks that come with overheating.

In 2021, a new part of the building regulations—part O —was introduced, which was designed specifically to ensure that new homes are built to mitigate the risk of overheating. As the hon. Lady will know, compliance with building regulations is mandatory. Given the transitional arrangements that accompany new building regulations, it is only relatively recently that we have seen new homes built specifically to mitigate the risk of overheating, so we are seeing that effect come through the planning system. As part of the future homes and buildings standards consultation, which ran from December 2023 to March 2024, my Department ran a call for evidence on part O. This was to investigate how industry was finding part O, how it was being implemented and whether further improvements could be made. The Government response to that call for evidence, with details of next steps, will be issued later this year.

Different regulatory regimes exist for different purposes, and aspects of building construction concerned with heating and cooling are best addressed through these regulations. The planning system absolutely has a role in mitigating the risks of overheating, but in the Government’s view, that is more in the overall layout and form of development—matters that are covered in national planning policy. Notwithstanding the comments that the hon. Lady made about changes introduced by the coalition Government, paragraph 161 of the national planning policy framework sets out that concern must be given to

“taking into account the long-term implications”

of a range of matters, including overheating.

I reassure the hon. Lady that there is specific reference to overheating in the NPPF as it stands. As we have discussed several times, the framework was partially revised in December last year, but we have again committed to consult on clearer policies for development purposes, which is how decisions on applications are made. These will cover the full range of planning considerations, including how the planning system can address the risks posed by climate change. This is a really important topic, but we think that we are addressing it through our work to strengthen building regulations and planning policy in the future. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady is somewhat reassured and will withdraw the motion.

[Ellie Chowns]

I am somewhat reassured that the Minister recognises the severity of the problem. None the less, I maintain that there is need and scope to go further in ensuring that the planning system specifically enables us to address this issue. In the interests of gently encouraging the Minister further in the direction of tackling overheating, I will press this new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for speaking to new clause 88, tabled by the hon. Member for Henley and Thame. The new clause would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish guidance within 12 months of the Bill becoming law on what is considered a compelling case in the public interest for the use of compulsory purchase powers, and to clarify that active travel schemes are in the public interest. The Government already publish guidance on the compulsory purchase process, including advice on how local authorities can demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest for the use of their CPO powers in general terms. It also provides more detailed guidance on the most commonly used local authority powers.

The Government are keen to support local authorities to use their CPO powers in the public interest, and we published updated guidance in October last year. We also intend to publish updated guidance to reflect the reforms being implemented through the Bill. In addition, CPO powers can already be used for active travel routes and can be executed by local authorities as part of their wider statutory functions. To assist authorities in deploying the powers more effectively, Active Travel England is developing guidance to support local authorities in the design and delivery of active travel routes. The guidance will be published in consultation with local authorities in due course.

Given that the guidance that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage has requested on the CPO process already exists, and further guidance is set to be published by Active Travel England, we believe the new clause is unnecessary, and I am afraid I cannot accept it for those reasons.

[Olly Glover]

I thank the Minister for his comments. I was very pleased to hear him reference Active Travel England; as one of the vice-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking, I have been very impressed by the leadership of Chris Boardman, and it is good to hear the Minister making encouraging noises in that direction. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 91

Embodied carbon assessments

“(1) Local planning authorities must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act—

(a) require applications for permission for developments which exceed a specified gross internal area and number of dwellings to include an embodied carbon assessment;

(b) consider a relevant embodied carbon assessment as a material factor when considering whether to grant permission for the development.

(2) The Secretary of State must—

(a) approve a methodology for calculating embodied carbon emissions;

(b) provide guidance on how the whole-life carbon emissions of buildings must be expressed; and

(c) establish a centralised reporting platform to which embodied carbon and whole life carbon assessments must be submitted.

(3) For the purposes of this section—

‘embodied carbon’ means the total emissions associated with materials and construction processes involved in the full life cycle of a project;

‘whole life carbon’ means the combination of embodied and operational emissions across the full life cycle of a project;

‘operational emissions’ means the carbon emissions from the energy used once a project is operational, including from heating, lighting and cooling.”—(Ellie Chowns.)

This new clause would require the submission of embodied carbon assessments for larger developments as part of the planning application and consideration of these by local planning authorities. The Secretary of State will be required to approve a methodology, issue guidance, and establish a centralised reporting platform for whole-life carbon emissions.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

New clause 91 would require the submission of embodied carbon assessments for larger developments as part of the planning process. It is a practical, forward-looking measure that I think will make a significant difference. It has been called for widely by industry, and indeed by parliamentarians, for some years, and it relates to a critical and currently unregulated area of the UK’s built environment emissions. The new clause would require planning applications for development only over a certain size to include an embodied carbon assessment, and it would provide for the Secretary of State to approve a methodology, issue guidance on how the assessments should be carried out, and establish a centralised reporting platform. Crucially, it would require that local planning authorities consider these assessments as a material factor when reviewing an application.

Embodied carbon refers to the emissions associated with materials and construction processes throughout the whole life cycle of a building or of infrastructure. This is typically from any processes, materials or products used to construct, maintain, repair, refurbish or repurpose a building. The UK Green Building Council estimates that the UK releases around 60 million tonnes of embodied carbon per year. That is more than aviation and shipping combined, and it accounts for over 10% of UK emissions. This is really significant. As I mentioned on a previous day, as we become more efficient in the operational carbon in our buildings, the embodied carbon in them becomes an increasingly significant part of the carbon reduction challenge in the building sector.

Embodied carbon has not substantially reduced over the last 30 years, unlike operational carbon, despite initiatives to decarbonise material manufacturing. Unlike operational carbon, which can be regulated through building performance standards, embodied carbon remains unaddressed by policy. As a result, decisions with very significant long-term climate implications are being made every day without a consistent framework for assessing their carbon impact. It is a huge unregulated problem.

The new clause seeks to close that gap in a measured and industry-ready way. It would not impose a burden on small-scale development—only major schemes, where carbon savings from early design choices are both most impactful and most achievable. It would buils on existing tools and industry momentum, and industry actually really wants this. There are already widely used standards and guidance available, including the whole life carbon assessment guidance from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the UK net zero carbon buildings standard and the embodied carbon primer from the London Energy Transformation Initiative.

Many local authorities, such as the Greater London Authority, Bristol and Manchester, have begun requiring whole life carbon assessment as part of planning. Embedding this requirement in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would provide clarity and consistency, saving time and minimising potential legal challenge by ensuring that planning authorities are demonstrably committing to the fulfilment of statutory climate duties. It would empower local planning authorities to make more informed, balanced decisions that take account of our legally binding net zero commitments and provide a consistent policy environment in which developers can operate.

This next bit is really important: there is strong consensus from industry that there is a need for this requirement to be widespread. Over 140 organisations have signed up to Part Z, a proposal developed by industry that calls for embodied carbon regulation. The industry is ahead of the politicians on this, and they are calling for it. This new clause requires a central database and consistent measurement framework to streamline and simplify the current diversity of approaches. Standardisation of embodied carbon measurement is a major priority, with leading industry organisations—such as UKGBC, the Royal Institute of British Architects, CIBSE, the Institution of Structural Engineers and RICS—calling for a national framework to ensure consistency between planning authorities.

Importantly—this is my final paragraph—this new clause aligns with the Bill’s aim to accelerate the delivery of housing and infrastructure while ensuring that the system is fit for future needs. The decisions that we make today about what we build and how we build it will lock in emissions for decades. This new clause is not a barrier to development: it is a tool to build better, more responsibly, more efficiently and more sustainably. It enables early intervention, supports innovation and ensures that the carbon cost of our buildings is not ignored in the rush to meet targets. It is pragmatic, proportionate and backed by industry. If the Minister is not inclined to accept the new clause, I would very much welcome a meeting with him to discuss how we can ensure that embodied carbon is taken forward and we use Government policy to address this important issue.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Lady for tabling this new clause, and I very much recognise the challenge that she has outlined. The Government are committed to the 2050 net zero carbon emissions target, and we recognise that embodied carbon can account for a significant proportion of a building’s whole life carbon emissions. Climate change is obviously one of the greatest challenges facing the world today, and managing carbon emissions and carbon storage is vital to mitigating the speed and impact of climate change. The national planning policy framework is clear that the planning system should contribute to and support the transition to a low-carbon future. Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications, in line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008.

Our consultation in the summer of last year on changes to the NPPF deliberately sought views on whether carbon can be accurately measured and accounted for in plan-making and planning decisions to establish industry readiness and identify any challenges to widespread use of carbon assessments in planning. We received a wide range of views on this topic, and based on the responses received, we do not consider it appropriate to make carbon assessments a mandatory requirement using a standardised methodology at this stage. However, we consider that both local authorities and developers could benefit from clearer guidance on the use of appropriate tools to assist in reducing the use of embodied carbon and operational carbon in the built environment, and we have committed to updating the relevant planning policy guidance to support this.

Addressing embodied carbon is a challenge across the built environment and construction supply chains, not just in buildings. As other policies take effect, and industries that supply construction decarbonise, the embodied carbon emissions of buildings will fall in turn. I am happy to give the matter further thought, and I am more than happy to have the hon. Member for North Herefordshire take one of my Tea Room surgery appointment slots.

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the Minister, and look forward to discussing this with him further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 94

Considerations when deciding an application for development consent

“In section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (acceptance of applications), after subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) When deciding whether to accept an application, the Secretary of State must have regard to the extent to which consultation with affected communities has—

(a) identified and resolved issues at the earliest opportunity;

(b) enabled interested parties to understand and influence the proposed project, provided feedback on potential options, and encouraged the community to help shape the proposal to maximise local benefits and minimise any disbenefits;

(c) enabled applicants to obtain relevant information about the economic, social, community and environmental effects of the project; and

(d) enabled appropriate mitigation measures to be identified, considered and, if appropriate, embedded into the proposed application before the application was submitted.’”—(Gideon Amos.)

This amendment to the Planning Act 2008 would require the Secretary of State to consider the content and adequacy of consultation undertaken with affected communities when deciding an application for development consent.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I will be brief, Mrs Hobhouse. Earlier in the progression of the Bill, we debated the removal of the pre-application requirement—all the statutory requirements for pre-application consultation under the Planning Act 2008. It may be wishful thinking, but it seemed to me that it was a generally held view that a qualitative test of some sort was needed for the consultation carried out by applicants before a DCO NSIP application is accepted for examination. That is certainly the opinion among the Liberal Democrats.

We therefore drafted the new clause, which repeats the four key paragraphs on the requirements for good consultations, which are in Government guidance, and places them on the face of the Bill as something to which the Secretary of State should have regard when considering whether to accept an application for development. In other words, in simple terms, when an application comes in, the Secretary of State and the inspector should consider the extent to which the applicant has consulted people and how well they have consulted people. That seems to be a basic, straightforward and simple requirement. I am sure the Government will have many complicated reasons for why this cannot be done, but to my mind it seems a straightforward way of dealing with it: introducing a qualitative test for Government to apply, given that they are removing all the pre-application consultation requirements from the primary legislation.

I have a quotation from Suffolk county council. As many will know, Suffolk has had more than its fair share of nationally significant infrastructure projects, far more than anywhere else in the country, starting with the Ipswich rail chord a number of years ago, with which I had some involvement. Suffolk is the site of numerous offshore wind farms, solar farms, Sizewell and huge numbers of cable routes and substations so, as the council describes it:

“Suffolk County Council has been involved with the delivery of projects under the Planning Act…since 2010”.

It states:

“The proposed replacement of a statutory requirement, by statutory guidance alone, is therefore, neither sufficient nor robust.”

I will not continue the quotation in the interests of time. I am sure that the Committee gets the gist. We offer the new clause as a way of securing sensible test, so that there is proper pre-application consultation, and that that continues to occur despite the removal of all the requirements under the Act.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving the new clause. Without testing the patience of the Committee too far, I will speak fairly briefly to set out the Government’s position, because I recognise the concerns that were expressed in previous debates. As he described, the new clause would result in the Secretary of State having to take into account how community consultation has taken place in the determination of whether an NSIP application should be accepted for examination. Specifically, the new clause would require the Secretary of State to consider whether the application has sought to resolve issues, enabled interested parties to influence the project during early phases, obtained relevant information about the locality, and enabled appropriate mitigation through community consultation.

We recognise the crucial role that communities’ engagement and consultation can play in building infra-structure that mitigates impacts and increases benefits for communities, but the Government do not agree that a statutory test is the right way to achieve that objective. Evidence shows that the statutory consultation requirements —as debated at length in an earlier part of the Bill—which are unique to the NSIP regime, are creating perverse alternatives. Risk-averse developers end up producing lengthy documentation that is aimed at lawyers and not communities. Moreover, developers are disincentivised to change their schemes in light of responses to those consultations for fear that they would have to go out to consultation again. Let us be clear; this slows down delivery and increases cost to all our detriment.

As we discussed with the pre-application stage, the times have nearly doubled since 2013 to over two years, and we estimate that our proposals could save businesses up to £1 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. For this reason, as we have already debated, the Government have tabled amendments to remove all statutory consultation requirements during pre-application. This includes amending the acceptance test in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 to remove the adequacy of consultation test.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would remove section 150 from the Planning Act 2008, which would restore the ability to elected Ministers, when making decisions on NSIPs, to make decisions on other consents, which is currently reserved to executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies.

In other aspects of the Planning Act, these big development consent order projects are intended to follow a single-consenting regime, which works reasonably well. As we discussed earlier today, it includes a listed building consent, conservation area consent and a whole range of other matters. Certain consents are reserved to other executive agencies—or quangos, we might say. That is time consuming, as it obstructs the principle of a single, one-stop shop for these big projects. It is also less democratic even than the Secretary of State taking the decision.

Industry is keen on this new clause. Another reason to table it was to show the Minister that we also have proposals to speed up the process, where that does not remove people’s democratic say. The new clause would enhance that democratic say, because it would restore to elected Ministers some of the decisions that are currently reserved to unelected arm’s length bodies. The new clause is offered in the spirit of improving the Planning Act 2008 regime.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving the new clause. As he says, it seeks to repeal section 150 of the Planning Act 2008. I recognise the issue touched on, and it is one that the Government have considered but ultimately decided not to make the changes that he seeks, for reasons that I will outline.

In addition to the planning permit granted through the DCO, NSIPs have to secure a range of other, secondary consents. Those can be temporary permits if only needed for construction, or permanent permits if needed for operating the development. Section 150 enables applicants to include those secondary consents in the DCO, instead of having to seek them separately. That speeds up the consenting process, but it is subject to the agreement of a relevant consenting authority, such as the Environment Agency.

The Government agree that the consenting and permitting process for NSIPs needs to be streamlined, and work is ongoing to achieve that. Seeking permits after the DCO has been granted causes unnecessary delays to the construction of significant infrastructure schemes. As the hon. Gentleman referenced, section 150 was intended to support the one-stop shop ambition of the NSIP regime, but in practice is rarely used. Consenting bodies require a large amount of information to decide on a permit application, but applicants rarely have such information this early in the planning application process.

As we said in the planning reform working paper, the Government want to deliver the one-stop shop vision for the NSIP regime. We considered potential reforms, such as a deemed consent framework, or indeed to repeal section 150, to reduce barriers and increase uptake. However, after speaking extensively with stakeholders, we think that those are not viable options.

The new clause repealing section 150 would allow applicants to include consents and permits in their draft DCO application without the agreement of the consenting body. The secondary consents would then be included in the DCO under section 120, which does not require permission from the relevant consenting authority. That risks, however, lessening the robustness of the permitting process for the following reasons.

As the draft DCO is submitted at an early stage, most applicants do not have enough information about their project to underpin a permitting decision, and consenting bodies would need to evaluate applications based on incomplete information. The Secretary of State making the decision on the DCO would likely have insufficient information to make a robust and legally sound decision. In particular for environmental permits, there is a risk of regression on environmental standards. Some consents are also not suitable to be included in the DCO, because they relate to ongoing activities that a regulating body needs to monitor, and where permits may need to be amended or revoked. I therefore disagree—the Government took this view on the balance of serious consideration, after engaging with a wide range of stakeholders—that repealing section 150 would be beneficial.

Instead, we will reduce the permitting burden by reforming the permitting system. Many NSIPs need environmental permits for low-risk temporary construction activities. Our wide-ranging reforms will modernise, accelerate and simplify decisions to get projects and developments moving, while upholding protections for the environment and local communities. The reforms by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will further empower regulators to make risk-based decisions on which activities should be exempt from needing environmental permits.

Easing permitting requirements for low-risk activities will help to speed up consenting and construction, as well as incentivise more investment in infrastructure. Further operational and service improvements to the Environment Agency’s permitting service will enable permits to be issued faster. Additionally, we will provide clearer guidance to applicants and consenting authorities to improve the usage of section 150 in its current form.

I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington accepts that we recognise the problem, but think that there is a different way to address the challenges he has highlighted that does not involve a full repeal of section 150. We agree that change is needed, but we are focusing on alternative and what we consider more effective solutions. On that basis, I hope that he is reassured, although I recognise the point he makes.

[Gideon Amos]

I am concerned that this smacks of certain parts of Government reserving to themselves decisions that could easily come under one Secretary of State, and would be the one-stop shop that we would all like to see. In the interests of time, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 96

Review of land value capture

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of land value capture.

(2) A review under this section must consider—

(a) the benefits of different methods of land value capture;

(b) international best practice;

(c) how changes to existing practice could assist in the meeting of housing targets and the delivery of critical infrastructure and public services; and

(d) how any changes to existing practice could be incorporated into UK planning law.

(e) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the conclusion of the review, lay before Parliament a report on the findings of the review.”—(Olly Glover.)

This new clause would require a review into methods of land value capture, to ensure the public benefit from instances where land value rises sharply, and for this to be considered to be incorporated into UK planning legislation.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would require a review into methods of land value capture, for reasons that I shall explain. As the Minister will be aware, currently the primary mechanisms to capture land value uplifts in England are developer contributions, in the form of section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy. While those mechanisms bring some benefits, they are not without their challenges.

Earlier this year, the Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee launched an inquiry to examine how land value capture policies can contribute to the delivery of the Government’s house building plans and, crucially, help to fund affordable housing and public infrastructure. The Committee gathered valuable insights from experts, and one finding was that in high- value locations such as the greater south-east, to put it in affordable housing terms, only 19.6% is being achieved on average at the moment, whereas one could achieve 40% to 50%.

Land value capture is not unknown in this country—indeed, it is being used to finance the ongoing operational costs of the newly reopened Northumberland line between Newcastle, Blyth and Ashington in the north-east of England—but we need a land value capture system more widely that is fair and delivers what communities need: genuinely affordable housing, and public infrastructure and services that people can rely on. Moving to more mechanisms for local authorities to use land value capture methods other than section 106 and CIL might enable them to fund some more expensive elements of infrastructure, such as new railway stations or lines, that are currently neglected.

The new clause would require a review into land value capture methods, building on the work of the Select Committee inquiry. National Government should consult with local government. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the important issue of land value capture. As he says, local planning authorities can use developer contributions secured through section 106 planning obligations and the community infrastructure levy to capture a proportion of the increases in land value that occur as a result of planning permission being granted.

Developer contributions play a vital role in the planning system: nearly half of affordable homes delivered in England each year are through section 106 planning obligations, and contributions from developers fund essential infrastructure to support new development and mitigate its impacts. That is why, as I made clear previously in relation to earlier amendments and clauses, the Government are committed to strengthening the system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide the necessary affordable homes and local infrastructure.

To that end, we chose not to implement the alternative proposal for land value capture provided for in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023—namely, a mandatory infrastructure levy, which the previous Government would have had replace section 106 and CIL—given the concerns raised by many involved in the planning system. I remember extensive debates on that point in Committee; if hon. Members think that some of the debates that we have had lasted a long time, I refer them back to the Hansard reports of the debates on that infrastructure levy. There were real risks that it would, overall, have led to our receiving less affordable housing than under the present system, so we are not taking it forward.

We have already made progress through the revised national planning policy framework published on 12 December last year in other areas—for example, the new golden rules for green belt development, which are designed to capture more of the land value uplift to fund central infrastructure and high levels of affordable housing—and we will legislate to give mayors of strategic authorities the power to raise a mayoral CIL, alongside the requirement to have a spatial development strategy in place, enabling them to raise revenue for strategic growth-supporting infrastructure where that is balanced with viability.

We welcome an ongoing discussion about how we improve the system of developer contributions—I look forward to hearing the thoughts of the hon. Gentleman’s when we bring the Government’s proposals forward in due course—and I personally look forward to engaging with the findings of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s important inquiry into this subject. However, we believe that the Government’s focus is better directed on delivery at this stage, reporting to Parliament through the usual procedures. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member is content to withdraw the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I rise in support of the important new clause 111, in the name of the shadow Minister. I have six villages in my patch—Goffs Oak, Hertford Heath, Brickendon, Great Amwell, St Margarets and Stanstead Abbotts—all of which have a unique character. We need to protect village life; villages are all unique and different. The new clause is not saying that we do not want any development in villages—of course, to make progress, there has to be developmentbut people in villages in my constituency, and probably across the country, are fearful of having loads of development so that villages all get connected up together and lose their rural identity, village community and spirit.

I would like the Government to really consider the new changes they have made to the national planning policy framework, particularly on villages. As I said, when we drive throughout the country, probably through hundreds of villages, we know they are all unique and have a different character. We should try to maintain that, rather than having an urban sprawl, with no green spaces left and developments that all link together. I fully support the new clause in the shadow Minister’s name.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will start with new clause 101. I gently say to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington that I do not agree with his interpretation of the reforms that we set out for the statutory consultee system or our minded reforms; as I have said, we will consult on those in fairly short order.

We want to look at both the scope of statutory consultees and the specific application types on which they provide advice. We know that there are lots of applications where statutory consultees are required to be consulted but do not even engage with the issues for which they have responsibility. We think there is a sensible reform there. But I take issue with the hon. Gentleman’s claim that the in-principle decision to look to consult on the removal of Sport England means that the Government are determined to develop on every playing field across the country.

The Government agree that access to recreational spaces, including playing fields and pitches, is vital for the health and wellbeing of communities. Those spaces play an important role in supporting physical activity, social cohesion and opportunities for young people. The national planning policy framework already includes strong protections for playing fields and pitches. It sets out clear and robust tests that must be met before any development affecting such space can be approved. The policies ensure that playing fields can be lost only where the facility is no longer needed, or where there is a justified and appropriate alternative, such as equivalent or better provision elsewhere.

Given those existing safeguards, we do not believe it is necessary to duplicate them in primary legislation. The risk is that doing so could lead to an overly rigid framework that limits the ability of local planning authorities. We have had a number of debates where in a sense we are trying to restrict the ability of local planning decisions—I do not think advertently, but perhaps inadvertently. We think local planning authorities are best placed to make some of these decisions. We do not want to overly restrict their ability to respond to the specific needs and circumstances of their communities. We need some of that flexibility to be left in the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to speak on new clauses 105 and 106, which are the final new clauses in these debates—I know how disappointed Government Members will be to hear that news. They are a couple of important new clauses, and I will spend a couple of minutes on them. There are, of course, well discussed and rehearsed arguments about second homes and short-term lets and their effect on existing communities. New clause 105 would take the position in Wales, where there are separate use classes for short-term lets and second homes to enable them to be regulated, and extend that across to England. New clause 106 would ensure that planning permission was required to change a dwelling house to a second home or a short-term let.

The previous Government indicated that they would legislate on short-term lets and allow planning authorities, local councils, to determine their extent, and that is what this is really about. Of course, second homes can be great for the local economy by bringing people to the area to spend money, but when they become a huge proportion of that local town or community, they can lead to businesses being closed and trade going away if the homes are left empty for too long. The same can apply to short-term lets.

In Cornwall, there are 13,000 second homes. In Somerset, my own county, there are 4,200 second homes. In recent years, there has been a staggering 30% increase. The whole point of the two new clauses is that they would give local planning authorities the ability to plan and to say what the appropriate level of short-term lets and second homes in their communities was. It would give them the ability to set those policies themselves and to grant or refuse planning permissions in accordance with the policies, so that they could do what is right for their areas to ensure that they do not suffer from too many short-term lets and second homes, which are pulling resources out of their communities.

We believe that the new clauses are vital and needed by councils around the country, and we urge the Government, at least on short-term lets, to make good on the previous commitment to introduce planning controls, not just taxation controls. Planning controls are needed because they shape the community in which people live and over which councils have a say.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling and speaking to these two new clauses and highlighting this really important issue, which does affect a large number of rural, coastal and, it is important to say, urban communities across the country. I have had a number of extremely fruitful meetings with colleagues on both sides of the House about it—most recently with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who is from the same party as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and whose constituency typifies the problems that can occur from incredibly excessive concentrations of both short-term lets and second homes.

Short-term lets and second homes can benefit local economies. They can be incredibly important for tourism in particular parts of the country. But we are also very aware of the concern that excessive concentrations can affect the affordability and availability of housing to buy and to rent, impact on the sustainability of local services and reduce the sense of local community. There is clearly a balance to be struck. As things stand, it has not been struck correctly. We think that change is needed in this area.

To take action on short-term lets, we still intend to introduce a registration scheme for them to ensure the quality and safety of tourist accommodation, provide better data to local authorities and protect the spirit of our communities. In addition, from April 2025 the furnished holiday lettings tax regime was abolished, eliminating the tax advantages that short-term let owners had over private rented sector landlords. Furnished holiday let owners are now subject to the same income, corporation and capital gains tax rules as other landlords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

Would the Minister not agree that the problem of locking-in could be countered by giving a lead-in time of six or 12 months? After that time, there would be a need for planning permission to continue with a short-term let, for example.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I note and accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, and there are a variety of considerations at play in this area. Locking in was one concern raised; enforcement was another. In response to feedback, we are considering the issue more generally. I make those points simply to say that this needs to be thought through carefully.

I have made this point in the House a number of times, and I am happy to do so again: we recognise the case for further action on short-term lets and second homes. We are very carefully considering what additional powers we might give to local authorities to enable them to respond to the pressures they are facing, but this is a complex area, and we have to think carefully about introducing these types of restrictions. We need to explore various potential levers that could help better strike that balance between housing and the tourism economy before moving forward.

We do not consider the planning changes set out in the new clause to be the most effective route to achieving that aim, but I once again reassure Members that we are taking concerns in this area very seriously and that I am more than happy to continue the dialogue with the hon. Gentleman and other Members who are affected. I know it is an extremely pressing issue in many constituencies. On that basis, I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel content not to push the new clause to a vote.

[The Chair]

I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson Gideon Amos for the final time in this Bill Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 101 and 102.

Clause 95 stand part.

Government amendments 68 to 71.

Government amendments 55 and 56.

Clause 96 stand part.

Clause 97 stand part.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I rise to speak to the final group of clauses and amendments. Clause 94 simply sets out the Crown application of Bill measures.

Government amendments 101 and 102 make minor technical changes to reflect the fact that the amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 in schedule 6 extend only to England and Wales, because there are different versions of those Acts for England and Wales and for Scotland. I hope that the Committee accepts the amendments.

Clause 95 sets out the territorial extent of the provisions in the Bill and whether each part of the Bill extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The devolution position has been debated in relation to each part during the discussion of that part.

Government amendments 68 to 71 make minor consequential changes related to new clauses 44 and 45. To summarise, new clause 44 removes statutory consultation from pre-application, and new clause 45 makes subsequent changes to sections of the Planning Act 2008 and clauses as introduced by the Bill to reflect the changes made in new clause 44, and to remove reference to statutory requirements for consultation and associated documentation. The original clauses were to come into force six months after Royal Assent. These Government amendments now mean that new clauses 44 and 45 will come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.

In my written ministerial statement accompanying the tabling of the amendments, I made it clear that the Government intend to publish statutory guidance setting out strong expectations that developers undertake consultation and engagement prior to submitting an application. As we have discussed, this will be an important component of how we implement the removal of statutory consultation requirements for NSIP projects.

We will work with stakeholders to design the guidance and will launch a public consultation to seek input on how the guidance, regulations and transitional arrangements should be implemented. We are also aware that consequential changes to secondary legislation need to occur, so that associated legislation aligns with those changes. Therefore, the changes to the commencement of new clauses 44 and 45 allow the Government to adhere to commitments, ensure that guidance is in place to support changes and make the necessary changes to associated secondary legislation before the removal of statutory consultation requirements takes effect.

Government amendment 55 relates to new clause 42 and the amendments that the Government are introducing to improve the process for accessing land when needing to survey it in connection with an application or proposed application for development consent, or the implementation of a development consent order. Under new clause 42, the Government will later be introducing regulations associated with the notices that will need to be served on landowners before an applicant, or proposed applicant, enters the land in question. Government amendment 55 will ensure that the amendments under new clause 42 will come into force only when the Secretary of State introduces regulations associated with that new clause.

Government amendment 56 is a consequential change related to new clause 43. The merits of new clause 43 have already been debated. A proportionate and unified process for making changes to development consent orders post consent will be developed following appropriate consultation and engagement with consenting Departments and stakeholders and set out in revised regulations. Transitional provisions will be included in the revised regulations to ensure an efficient transition to the new system. The amendment will permit the clause introduced by new clause 43 to be introduced by regulations at the appropriate time.

Clause 96 sets out how different provisions in the Bill will be commenced, and clause 97 reaffirms that the short title of the Act will be the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. I commend the clauses and amendments to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 94 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95

Extent

Amendments made: 101, in clause 95, page 134, line 11, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (1A),”.

This amendment, and Amendments 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107 and 108, are technical amendments reflecting the fact that there are different versions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 for England and Wales and for Scotland, and making it clear that the amendments to those Acts in Schedule 6 only extend to England and Wales.

Amendment 102, in clause 95, page 134, line 12, at end insert—

“(1A) Paragraphs 37 and 41 of Schedule 6 extend to England and Wales only.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 101.

Clause 95, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 96

Commencement and transition provision

Amendments made: 68, in clause 96, page 134, line 28, leave out “1, 2 and 3” and insert “1 to 4”.

This amendment has the effect that the changes made by the new clauses inserted by NC44 and NC45, and current clauses 4 and 6 of the Bill, are to come into force by regulations.

Amendment 69, in clause 96, page 134, line 30, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 68.

Amendment 70, in clause 96, page 134, line 32, leave out paragraph (c).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 60.

Amendment 71, in clause 96, page 134, line 34, leave out paragraph (d).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 68.

Amendment 55, in clause 96, page 135, line 2, at end insert—

“(ea) section (Planning Act 2008: right to enter and survey land) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;”.

This amendment provides that the new clause inserted by NC42 comes into force by regulations.

Amendment 56, in clause 96, page 135, line 3, leave out “section 8 comes” and insert—

“sections (Changes to, and revocation of, development consent orders) and 8 come”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This amendment provides that the new clause inserted by NC43 comes into force by regulations.

Clause 96, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Matthew Pennycook]

On a point of order, Mrs Hobhouse. Briefly, I want to take the opportunity to put on the record my thanks to you and the other Chairs of the Committee. I also thank our exemplary Clerks, the Hansard reporters and the Doorkeepers for overseeing our proceedings. I thank my officials and private office team who have supported me and worked tirelessly to bring forward the ambitions of the complex piece of legislation that we have debated over recent weeks.

Finally, I thank my fellow Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen, for his support on the relevant parts of the Bill that pertained to his Department; my other hon. Friends, whose valuable insights have benefited our deliberations; and the shadow Ministers, the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, and the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington, for Didcot and Wantage, and for North Herefordshire for the spirited and constructive dialogue that we have had. I value all the contributions and challenges that have been made.

I know we are all united in wanting to deliver the best piece of legislation that we can for our constituents and the country. I very much look forward to further engagement with all hon. Members as the Bill progresses through its remaining stages.

[The Chair]

I thank the Minister for his point of order. I understand that it has been a marathon of a Bill. I thank all members of the Committee for their attendance, their great contributions and the respectful tone of the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. New clauses 12 and 13 relate to the introduction of a community right of appeal against planning applications that are approved contrary to the local development plan. That includes policy in local and neighbourhood plans.

New clause 12 reflects the wider need to rebuild public trust in a system that is perceived to be dominated by the power of private sector development interests. It has additional importance in the context of the provisions in the Bill to restrict democratic oversight of planning decisions by locally elected members, which would mean that planning officers and not councillors would decide on the final outcomes of major planning applications.

New clause 12 would address the unfairness in our planning system, whereby only applicants have a right to appeal planning decisions. It would create a strictly limited community right of appeal that applies only when decisions are approved contrary to local planning policy; it would balance things up by creating a reciprocal right of appeal, essentially. That reflects the minimal opportunities that are currently available to the public in the taking of development management decisions and the frustration caused when decisions are made that go against local and neighbourhood plans that have been agreed by communities. New clause 13 is an additional safeguard to give the Secretary of State powers to intervene if the community appeal is considered to be vexatious. Taken together, the new clauses are proportionate and limited measures that could begin to rebuild public trust in the planning system.

Creating such a qualified right was an important recommendation of the Raynsford review of planning in 2018, which was produced by the Town and Country Planning Association. I warmly commend the new clauses to the Committee.

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

It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine, and I thank the hon. Lady for speaking to the two new clauses, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff).

We have a long-established and much-valued right of appeal in the planning system. It recognises that the system acts as a control on how an individual may use their land. That existing right of appeal compensates for the removal of the individual’s right to develop.

The planning system already enables community involvement through the preparation of local development plans and neighbourhood plans, and through consultation on individual planning applications. Given that these opportunities already exist, the Government do not believe that it is either necessary or helpful to introduce a right of appeal for interested parties.

New clause 12 would serve only to discourage early involvement in the planning process or lead to repeated consideration of issues that have already been raised and addressed during the planning application process. In our view, adding a new appeal process to the planning system would create more delay, costs, complexity and unpredictability, undermining confidence in the system and ultimately delaying the delivery of new housing and economic development at a time when we need to get Britain building again, which we have been very clear about. For that reason, we will not be able to accept new clause 12.

I turn to new clause 13. We do not believe that we should extend appeal rights to third parties, which again would serve only to delay the planning process and hinder the development of new housing and economic development. Although I welcome the sentiment behind the new clause—namely, to deter appeals submitted for spurious or non-planning reasons—in our view there are already appropriate measures in place to respond to such appeals through the awards of cost regime. The appeal system in the awards of cost regime helps to stop unmeritorious appeals by making those who submit them pay costs, thereby discouraging vexatious or frivolous cases.

For those reasons, the Government will not be able to accept either new clause.

[Ellie Chowns]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 16

Refusal of planning permission for countryside development close to large electricity pylons

“(1) If an application is made for planning permission or permission in principle relating to large scale housing development in the countryside which—

(a) may lead to affordable housing being built within 100m of the centreline of any high voltage overhead electrical transmission system; or

(b) may lead to any new residential dwelling or new residential garden being within 50m of the centreline of any high voltage overhead electrical transmission system

the local planning authority must refuse the application.

(2) This section applies to any planning permission for large scale housing development in the countryside for which a decision notice has been issued by a local planning authority since 11 May 2022.

(3) If planning permission has been granted for development to which this section applies which contravenes subsection (1), that planning permission shall be revoked.

(4) The revocation of planning permission for the carrying out of building or other operations shall not affect so much of those operations as has been previously carried out.

(5) In this section—

‘large scale housing development’ means any development which includes more than 500 houses;

‘countryside’ includes any predominantly agricultural, rural or greenfield land;

‘may lead to’ includes plans for housing shown in any outline or illustrative masterplan;

‘high voltage overhead electrical transmission system’ means any overhead electrical transmission system at or over 275kV.”—(Gideon Amos.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to continue with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak to new clause 16, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). The new clause goes some of the way to address what I spoke about on Second Reading, about how we must create communities. When we are designing new large-scale housing in the countryside, community and design must be at the forefront.

I want the Government to look at what more they can do, because we do not want affordable homes to be put next to large electricity transmission systems. In the interests of time, I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to write to me on this issue, setting out the Government’s position and explaining what they are doing, when we have large-scale development in the countryside, to stop the social housing element of the development being placed in these locations.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will respond briefly to new clauses 16 and 29, but I am more than happy to expand on what I say in writing to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. New clause 16 relates to the refusal of planning permission for large-scale housing developments where they are close to large electricity pylons in the countryside.

The new clause seeks to require local planning authorities to refuse applications for planning permission, or permission in principle, for large-scale residential development in the countryside that falls within specific distances of overhead electricity lines. It would also require any planning permission granted since 11 May 2022—a specific date—to be revoked where the development meets the criteria set out in the new clause.

There is nothing in current planning legislation that prohibits development near to overhead electricity lines. However, there are mechanisms within the existing system that ensure decision makers are aware of and—to the extent that they are material—take into account potential safety or other issues of siting development near overhead lines. When developing sites that are close to overhead lines, in practical terms, developers are more likely to position less sensitive elements of their development under these, such as roads rather than homes, which can further minimise any impact.

In the Government’s view, including a clause within legislation that requires the refusal of certain large-scale residential developments together with the revocation of existing permissions would be a major departure from the current approach in planning legislation. It would have a significant impact and would therefore need to be supported by strong justification. That is particularly the case given that other types of safety risk, such as residential development near oil pipes, are deal with adequately under the current framework.

I would also highlight that in the case where an existing planning permission is revoked, which happens very rarely at present, it can be subject to compensation payable to the developer in particular circumstances. That could be significant in the context of large-scale housing development. National Grid has published guidance relevant for development near overhead lines, which ensures that decision makers are aware of safety and amenity issues that may arise from development within close proximity of electricity pylons and overhead lines, citing statutory safety clearances. It also encourages early and proactive engagement with National Grid on plans and individual schemes, which are brought forward within proximity of its infrastructure. That is precisely so that matters can be considered and addressed at the outset.

Given the mechanisms already in place to address impacts on development near high-voltage lines, the new clause would place unnecessary restrictions on the decision-making powers of local planning authorities. For those reasons, we cannot accept it, but, as I said, I am more than happy to set out some further detail to hopefully reassure the hon. Members for Broxbourne and for South Leicestershire.

I turn to new clause 29, as tabled by and spoken to by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. The Government are committed to ensuring that our goal of building 1.5 million homes does not come at the expense of nature. We have had several debates where the Government have reinforced our position in that respect. We are taking steps towards achieving our commitment of protecting 30% of our land for nature by 2030.

I again highlight, as I have in previous debates, local nature recovery strategies, which were introduced under the Environment Act 2021 and are being rolled out across England. They are vehicles to agree priorities for nature’s recovery, to map the most valuable existing areas for nature and to identify proposals for creating or improving habitats for nature and wider environmental goals. They will provide a basis for local decision makers to take informed decisions about where to protect and restore areas that are of importance for nature recovery. They will be able to identify the best opportunities to create or improve habitats, while enabling the development that is needed in their area.

It is important that local areas have flexibility in how they do that. We are not convinced that we need a new category of designated area in law to achieve that end. Development plans at both the local and strategic level will be required to take account of local nature recovery strategies under provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and this Bill when brought into force, and will be able to identify area for environmental improvement.

The Government published guidance setting out the role of local nature recovery strategies in the planning system in February this year. We are considering how the creation of a national set of policies for decision making can further support the goal of protecting and restoring land, which will become of importance to nature’s recovery, using those strategies. I hope that in the light of that information, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington might consider withdrawing his new clause.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. We believe that wild belts could be a significant new designation and would add something of real value to help to restore the species that I discussed—those that are in recovery and need their habitats to be developed and further protected, such that they reach protected status. When we reach that point, we will be pressing new clause 29 to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to speak to new clause 26, which would increase biodiversity net gain to 20% for nationally significant infrastructure projects, and new clause 27 on swift bricks. The Committee will be relieved to know that I will not repeat all the points that have been made on this. It is worth saying that the swift bricks proposal has widespread public support and would be a very small and limited change to introduce to building practices. Swifts fly thousands of miles from the Congo basin and back across the Sahara desert twice. When they get here, quite often they find that their nesting places have gone, have been sealed up or are not available. This new clause would make a significant contribution to providing better habitats for swifts and other bird species. We are in support of this new clause.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I take from that that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is not seeking a debate on new clause 27. Is that right?

[Gideon Amos]

I did refer to new clauses 26 and 27.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Sorry—and 23 as well? I could also address that, if we come on to debate it, but let me first respond to new clauses 20 and 27 relating to swift bricks.

I am well aware of the serious population decline of swifts in the UK. There are numerous reasons behind that decline. It is not just the loss of nesting sites; there are other factors, such as the decline of insect food, but nesting sites are a certainly a contributory factor and the Government recognise that. The objective of increasing the coverage of swift bricks is one that we absolutely share.

However, there are different ways of advancing that aim and this is where a fruitful debate can take place. We are not convinced that legislating to mandate the use of specific wildlife features is the right approach, whether that is done through building regulations or a freestanding legal requirement. If the hon. Member for North Herefordshire wants a good summary of my own views, which I have been very clear on over many years, she can find it in a 10 July 2023 Westminster Hall debate we had on the subject, where I expressed similar reservations about the approach that the new clause dictates. Measures such as swift bricks and hedgehog highways are beneficial in many cases, but they will not be feasible or effective for every single development across the country.

The way that new clause 20 tries to provide for exceptions demonstrates that, so there is obviously an awareness of the issue, but it also shows the complexity which arises from a blanket approach. I have real concerns that it would be difficult to operate in practice and risks more legal challenges seeking to block development, rather than securing better uptake of the right features in the right places.

Progress is already being made in expanding the use of wildlife features in homes across the country. The Future Homes Hub, representing 29 home builders who have a large share of the market, operates a voluntary commitment to install a bird nesting brick or box for every new home built. There are factories across the country producing large numbers of swift bricks, so they—and similarly hedgehog highways—are being rolled out as a standard on every new development. That action is welcome, but we absolutely accept that more can be done.

That is why our revisions to the national planning policy framework, published last December, make clear that developments should incorporate features that support priority or threatened species such as swifts, bats and hedgehogs. That is supported by both the national model design code and Natural England’s green infrastructure framework, which set out how developers can do this.

[Gideon Amos]

It is good to hear the support for this measure. It is a very standard practice that could be expanded. Would the Minister be willing to meet with the hon. Members who support this new clause, including the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), myself and others, to discuss how the use of swift bricks and related features could be encouraged further across the development industry?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am always happy to have conversations with hon. Members about the Government’s thinking in this area and other areas, although a particular spin on recent conversations I have had with hon. Members found its way into The Guardian, which is a warning to Ministers. We are trying, as a Government, to feel our way to the most appropriate way to boost the coverage of swift bricks. As I have said, that is an objective that we absolutely share.

In that regard in particular, I point once again to the fact that we are committed to producing a set of national policies for decision making to set out policy requirements in a variety of areas in a more explicit manner. As part of that, we will assess how existing policy is operating, and whether there are any changes to wording in that area that would be beneficial to that objective. Although I fully support the aim of securing both an increase in swift brick coverage and more nature-friendly features in new developments more generally, I cannot support these new clauses, for the reasons I have given. I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will be content to withdraw them. Given that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington has not spoken to new clause 23, which relates to biodiversity net gain, I will—

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister for correcting the numbering. When I referred to new clause 26, I meant to refer to new clause 23. I spoke only briefly on that, so I understand why the Minister is not responding to that detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 21 would introduce a mechanism compensating small businesses and organisations that incur operational losses due to significant roadworks. This is an important measure for us. I am disappointed that it appears that the Government may be foreclosing a whole half day of debate of this Bill Committee. None the less, I will proceed as rapidly as I can. It will be very disappointing if that does indeed occur, Ms Jardine, but they are the powers that be.

The purpose of this measure is to ensure a fairer distribution of impact when infrastructure projects take place. At present, the law is such that the Land Compensation Act 1973 covers only property damage and loss of land value. There is a clear legislative gap when it comes to consequential non-property-based losses.

Small businesses in Wellington, in my own constituency, are experiencing this at first hand. This summer’s unavoidable closure of the M5’s junction 26 and link road to Wellington, for reconstruction, has huge implications for the local economy. Several small businesses on the Foxmoor business park in particular, which depend on daily access to the M5 corridor, will see that closed off for up to three months. A scaffolding company showed me its estimates; it expects to lose around £14,000 over that three-month period. This is not speculative; those are real impacts.

A whole series of other companies will be affected: Adler & Allan, Moss Joinery, Apple Campers, Weston Recovery Services and TLC Garage Services and Recovery. Many of those have emergency services contracts with the police, the RAC and the AA. They are required by the police to be on-site, on the motorway, in 30 minutes. They will lose that business because they will no longer be able to get on to the motorway, because the motorway junction they are situated on will be closed. They are eligible for no compensation at all, despite those significant losses.

That situation is mirrored in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), in whose name the new clause was tabled, where redevelopment of the M25’s junction 10 has already run beyond its original deadline. By the time it is complete, it will have taken four years, causing serious disruption to both large and small organisations. RHS Wisley is projected to lose £11 million, and Ockham Bites, a small local café, is losing £600 per day. Those are real impacts on small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy, and they need support when they are experiencing massive losses due to roadworks.

We believe that infrastructure investment must balance public benefit with the private burden that they often incur. This is a targeted measure that would introduce pragmatic, proportionate reform, and means to support businesses that are being hardest hit during the delivery of major projects.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I note and appreciate the case that the hon. Gentleman has just made, but successive Governments have taken the view that businesses should not have the right in law to any particular given level of passing trade, and that traders, or other organisations, must take the risk of loss due to temporary disruption of traffic flows along with all of the other various risks of running a business or organisation. The same businesses or organisations may also profit from new developments once works have been completed.

If planning permission is needed, affected organisations can express concerns as part of that process if they are worried about how works will affect them. Temporary traffic regulation orders are needed for some road closures, and affected organisations can also express concerns as part of that process to the relevant local planning authority.

[Lewis Cocking]

Does the Minister not appreciate that lots of utility companies dig up roads under emergency procedures, so do not have to let the local authority know? As it is an emergency, one would expect someone to be working, maybe not around the clock, but for a long period of the day over multiple days to get it fixed. When people drive past roadworks in those scenarios, and they do not see anyone working on them, they get incredibly frustrated. Could he just outline what the Government are doing to make sure that roadworks are finished as quickly as possible, in a timely manner?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Well, I do not begrudge the hon. Gentleman for asking, but he tempts me to move into areas far beyond my ministerial remit and, I would argue, outside the scope of the Bill. In the interests of time, and of ensuring that all of the other worthy new clauses that I see before me on the selection list are debated, I will write to him on that particular point.

On this new clause, following on from what I have just said, we must bear in mind that local planning and highway authorities can take concerns into account when approving planning permission or road closures. They can also amend the timings of road closures and make other arrangements to ensure that access to properties and businesses is maintained. On that basis, we cannot accept the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I briefly draw the Committee’s attention to the Planning Advisory Service. As a result of a long-standing arrangement with the Local Government Association, through a funding set-up whereby local authorities and Government provide resources, both peer-support services and these activities are already provided in partnership with local authorities. For that reason, I would be reluctant to seek a legislative method of delivering something that is already, in practice, working well on a voluntary basis. There will always be a debate about whether local authorities feel that their resources are sufficient, but in supporting them to undertake the capacity assessment and build their capacity by working with their peers, that arrangement has been in place and working well for several decades.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for—

[David Simmonds]

On a point of order, Ms Jardine. I should declare that I am an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of the Local Government Association, which I referred to in my contribution.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome that clarification from the shadow Minister and thank him for his comments. He highlighted the important role that the Planning Advisory Service plays.

Skilled planners are essential to delivering efficient, proactive planning services and ensuring that new development supports growth and high-quality design of places and homes. The Government recognise the mounting pressures on local planning authorities as they adapt to significant reforms, both in how we want to reform the house building system and in boosting housing supply. That is why we have legislated in the Bill to allow all local planning authorities to set their own planning fees in order to increase resources in a way that responds to the individual needs of each authority and, as we have debated at length on previous clauses, ensure those fees are ringfenced.

Furthermore, the Chancellor announced—I have said this before, but it is worth my pointing to the Government’s good efforts in this area at every opportunity—a £46 million investment for 2025–26 at the Budget last year, supporting planning capacity and capability, including the recruitment and training of at least 300 graduate and apprentice planners. Funding is also being used to support implementation of the revised national planning policy framework. For example, we allocated substantial funds to local planning authorities to assist them with green belt reviews.

Alongside that, our planning capacity and capability programme works with sector partners to build long-term skills, modernise local plans and speed up decision making, using innovation and digital tools. Importantly, we are closely tracking the impact of those interventions through an embedded research and evaluation team. A national survey conducted in 2023 informs our approach; a further survey, now concluding, will build on that baseline. Given the robust programme of support and evaluation already in place, we are of the view that the new clause is not necessary, and I hope that with those reassurances he might be minded to withdraw it.

[Olly Glover]

I thank the Minister for his comments, and I welcome his overview of the Government’s endeavours in tackling the issue of local planning authority capacity. I also note the comments from the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. I understand his point, but nevertheless, there are still considerable challenges in this area that need to be tackled. Notwithstanding that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 32

Register of planning applications from political donors

“(1) A local planning authority must maintain and publish a register of planning applications in its area where—

(a) a determination has been made by the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning, and

(b) the applicant has made a donation to the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning within the period of ten years prior to the application being made.

(2) A register maintained under this section must be published at least once each year.”—(Gideon Amos.)

This new clause would require a local planning authority to keep and publish a register of applications decided by the Secretary of State where that Secretary of State has received a donation from the applicant.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 32 would require local planning authorities to keep and publish a register of applications decided by the Secretary of State where the Secretary of State had received a donation from the applicant. We are fortunate to live in a country where the planning system is, generally, free of corruption. The United Kingdom is ranked by the Corruption Perceptions Index as among the least corrupt countries in the world. It is in the top 20 alongside Japan and other countries, but perceptions, as in that perceptions index, matter. It is important that justice is not only done, but seen to be done.

We believe there is a need for better control of situations where donations have been made to Ministers, and those Ministers have themselves then made decisions. I will not name any individual, but there has been a well-known scheme involving the Isle of Dogs in which that occurred. I do not allege any corruption in that instance, but, as I say, it is important that justice is not only done but seen to be done. The new clause would be an important contribution to ensuring that our planning system remains as free of undue influence as possible.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving new clause 32. In short, we think it is unnecessary, but I take on board his points and I share his concerns about the particular case that he raised.

Local planning register authorities are already required to maintain and publish a register of every application for planning permission that relates to their area. The register must include details on application decisions, including where the Secretary of State has made the decision either via a called-in application or a recovered appeal. That is set out in article 40 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. Secretary of State decisions on planning casework are also published on gov.uk in order to provide additional transparency. That includes the decision letters that set out the reasons for the decision in question.

When determining applications for planning permission, the Secretary of State operates—obviously—within the ministerial code and planning propriety guidance. The planning propriety guidance makes it clear that decisions on planning proposals should be made with an open mind, based on the facts before them at that time. Any conflicts of interest between the decision-making role of Ministers and their other interests should be avoided.

To that end, planning Ministers are required to declare their interests as part of their responsibilities under the ministerial code. The ministerial code makes specific provision for the declaration of gifts given to Ministers in their ministerial capacity, and gifts given to Ministers in their capacity as constituency MPs or members of a political party fall within the rules relating to the Registers of Members’ and Lords’ Financial Interests. In addition, before any planning Minister takes decisions, the planning propriety guidance reiterates that they are required to declare anything that could give rise to a conflict of interest, or—this is equally important—the appearance of a conflict of interest.

The planning casework unit within my Department uses that information to ensure that planning Ministers do not deal with decisions that could give rise to an appearance of impropriety. For example, if the Minister in question has declared that the applicant of the proposal is a political donor, they would be recused from making the decision. We therefore feel that there is sufficient transparency on planning casework decisions made by the Secretary of State, and the Ministers, including myself, who act on her behalf, and it is not necessary to impose an additional administrative burden on local planning authorities.

I hope that, with those assurances, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will withdraw his amendment.

[Gideon Amos]

I have nothing further to add. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 35

Prohibition of development on functional floodplains

“(1) No local planning authority may grant planning permission for any development which is to take place on a functional floodplain.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, issue new guidance, or update existing guidance where such guidance exists, relating to development in flood zones and the management of flood risk.”—(Ellie Chowns.)

This new clause would prevent local planning authorities from allowing developments on functional floodplains.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

I was very concerned to read in the DEFRA and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s “Review of policy for development in areas of flood risk”, published relatively recently, that only 3% of local planning authorities always inspect new developments for compliance with flood-related planning conditions. Another 3% say that they often inspect for those conditions. That is clearly nowhere near enough, so the new clauses would tighten things up and provide the guidance that planning authorities need to ensure we tackle as much as possible the very real challenge of ensuring flood resilience for any new development.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will speak to new clauses 85 and 86, for which the hon. Lady has just made the case. The Government are committed to building the homes that the country needs while ensuring that they are safe from flooding. The national planning policy framework contains strong policies on flood risk, which, along with associated guidance, must be considered when local plans are made. They are also an important material consideration when planning applications are being determined.

The framework is clear that inappropriate development in areas of flood risk should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, including flood plains. That means that new housing and most other forms of development are not appropriate in a functional flood plain. Where the strict tests set out in national policy for flood risk are not met, it is clear that new development should not be allowed. I believe we share the same ambition to protect development from the risk of flooding. To that end, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, local planning authorities are already required to follow the sequential and exception tests through the NPPF, associated planning guidance and the underpinning legislation that requires them to be taken into account.

New clause 86 seeks to require the installation of flood resilience measures in new build homes in areas at risk of flooding through an amendment to approved documents to the building regulations. I assure hon. Members that I agree with the intent of the new clause. As I said, the Government are committed to building the homes the country needs while ensuring that they are safe from flooding. Building regulations set a minimum standard to protect people’s safety, health and welfare. They are supported by approved documents that provide guidance in common building situations towards meeting outcome-based standards. Specifically, approved document C promotes the use of flood resilient and resistant construction in flood-prone areas, while avoiding placing undue costs on any properties that do not require further flood resilience measures.

Those designing homes can choose to use the Construction Industry Research and Information Association’s code of practice if they so wish, while ensuring that the building is compliant with the building regulations. However, to establish that as a minimum standard for all new dwellings would be, in our view, disproportionate. The revised national planning policy framework, published in December 2024, is clear that development should be directed to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. Where no alternative sites are available, permission should be granted only where it can be demonstrated that it will be safe for the building’s lifetime, taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Where possible, it should reduce flood risk overall.

The use of property-level flood protections, as recommended through the proposed Construction Industry Research and Information Association’s code of practice, such as flood doors, flood barriers and automatic air bricks, should only be considered as part of a wider package of measures to ensure that the development would be safe for its lifetime. Where they are used, they must be in compliance with the requirements of the building regulations. In addition, there are well-established means for ensuring that developments are not approved where there is unacceptable flood risk, with the Environment Agency and local authority bodies overseeing the maintenance of existing mitigation methods.

The Environment Agency has also commissioned an independent review of property flood resilience, which is due to report in the autumn, and we would not like to pre-empt its recommendations with any action that might be contradictory. Although I agree with the intent of the new clause, introducing additional building-level requirements through the approved documents to the building regulations is not a proportionate measure in the context of our wider policy framework. On that basis, I hope the hon. Lady might withdraw it.

[Ellie Chowns]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 36

Internal Drainage Boards to be statutory consultees

“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

This group of new clauses relates to statutory consultees. We are concerned that the Government are reducing the number of statutory consultees. We do not believe that reducing consultation with expert bodies is the right approach. Some of the new clauses in this group relate to introducing certain organisations as statutory consultees into the system. Our new clause 62 would require water companies to be consulted. At present they are not consulted, but they are also obliged to provide connections. They are unable to state whether there is capacity to provide water supply for new development.

New clause 63 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) would introduce the Association of British Insurers into the statutory consultation list, which would mean that insurance companies would be able to indicate whether they would be able to insure properties, particularly those vulnerable to flood risk. At present they have no role in the planning process to do that.

New clause 64 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) refers to national landscape partnerships being involved. Areas of outstanding natural beauty are now called national landscapes. The partnerships that oversee them are incredibly important and do not have any statutory voice in the planning system at present.

New clause 87 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) would require fire authorities to be consulted, and new clause 90, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), would require historic parks and gardens to be consulted. New clause 97 is also included in this group. We believe Parliament should be required to agree when statutory consultees are removed from the list.

With regard to national landscape partnerships, in my constituency the Blackdown Hills national landscape partnership covers a wide number of local authorities that are unable to provide a single voice in the planning system. The partnership covers probably tens of different parishes and certainly three council areas. It has asked us to put forward the case for it to have a single voice, a seat at the table. If our national landscapes are of importance, they should have a seat at the table in the planning process.

Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester points out that national landscapes such as Chichester harbour are just asking for a seat at the table in the same way that other organisations do. Chichester harbour national landscape currently responds to 300 planning applications a year, so there would be no increase in resource or funding required to become a statutory consultee. The pressures on Chichester harbour, with the loss of 58% of its salt marsh in 80 years—two and a half hectares a year—mean that it is under considerable stress and needs its voice to be heard in the planning process.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will respond to this large group of new clauses by taking seven of them together and then responding separately to new clause 97.

New clauses 36, 62 to 64, 87, 90 and 100 seek to introduce internal drainage boards, water companies, the Association of British Insurers, landscape partnerships, fire authorities, the Gardens Trust and emergency services as statutory consultees in the planning application process. As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will be aware, on 26 January my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a moratorium on any new statutory consultees in the planning application process and a review of existing arrangements for statutory consultees to ensure that they align with the Government’s ambitions for growth.

I set out the Government’s concern in this area in more detail in the written ministerial statement that I made on 10 March. It responds to concerns—I think this is an important point to get on the record—not only from developers about the operation of the statutory consultee system at present, but from local planning authorities. In that written ministerial statement, I outlined a package of measures to reform statutory consultees in the planning system, so that they meet their goal of supporting high-quality development through the swift provision of expert relevant advice to inform decision making.

The Government have committed to reviewing the system of statutory consultees and will soon be consulting on proposals. At that point, I will expect and welcome a more extensive dialogue with the hon. Gentleman and others about the changes that we might have in mind. Decisions about the long-term operation of the system will be taken as part of the review, with any changes to statutory consultees being taken forward through changes to secondary legislation at a later date.

The new clauses are broadly framed and would result in the various bodies being consulted on a wide range of applications, including for small-scale housing and householder development. That could result, in our view, in many tens of thousands of applications requiring to be consulted on, which would be likely to have severe resourcing implications for the bodies in question—we have spoken about the resource pressures and challenges placed on local planning authorities, and hon. Members might like to have that in mind when drafting amendments that would increase pressure on them—and slow down the planning process. That would be especially acute in relation to application consultations for any building or property requiring insurance or any building that needs connecting to the water mains, and for fire and emergency services.

The Environment Agency and lead local flood authorities are statutory consultees in relation to flood risk issues. Internal drainage boards are not statutory consultees, but they do work proactively with local authorities, which are represented on their management boards, and they can comment on proposals within the statutory public consultation period. Where an internal drainage board raises issues that are material to the determination of the application in question, local authorities must take those into account in reaching a decision.

I should note that the Gardens Trust is currently a statutory consultee for development likely to affect any registered battlefields, gardens or parks. We have committed to consulting on the impact of removing its statutory consultee status, as part of the review. Any decision will obviously be taken in the light of the evidence provided through the consultation.

This Government take fire safety extremely seriously, but we do not feel that making fire authorities statutory consultees for planning applications involving battery energy storage solutions is necessary or proportionate. BESS grid-scale batteries are regulated by the Health and Safety Executive within a robust framework that mandates battery designers, installers and operators to uphold high safety standards. Developers of BESS sites are already expected, under guidance from the National Fire Chiefs Council, to engage with the local fire and rescue services prior to the submission of their planning application.

The Government are considering further measures to enhance the regulation of environmental and safety risks from BESS. DEFRA intends to consult by June 2025 on incorporating BESS in the environmental permitting regulations. That will provide further oversight to safeguard both people and the environment.

We must also consider at what stage in the planning process engagement is most effective. For instance, where particular emergency service concerns exist, such as in relation to high-growth areas, new settlements or developments with complex infrastructure needs, we believe that these are more appropriately addressed through local plan policies and strategic infrastructure planning. It is important to note that local planning authorities have the discretion to consult emergency services where that is relevant to a specific application.

Lastly on this large grouping of new clauses, I note that many organisations can meaningfully contribute to planning decisions through their responses within the statutory public consultation period. That includes charities that promote particular interests, as well as bodies performing public functions. However, the role of statutory consultee creates an obligation not just on the part of the planning authority to consult, but on the part of the consultee to respond within statutory timelines.

I set out in my written ministerial statement the ways in which the system, in various respects, is not performing in the way we believe is most conducive to the outcomes we seek. The burden is substantial, and existing statutory consultees, in some cases, can struggle to deliver. Under a streamlined and effective planning system, the bar for becoming a statutory consultee, in our view, must necessarily be high.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 58 would impose a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to contribute to targets set out in the Environment Act 2021 and the Climate Change Act 2008. The Environment Act is the UK’s framework for environmental protection. It was particularly important after the UK left the European Union to maintain rules on nature protection, water quality, clean air and other environmental protections that were at risk. The Climate Change Act established a legally binding framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, making the UK the first country to do so. It set a target of net zero emissions by 2050 and established the Climate Change Committee.

The activities of local authorities inherently have an impact on carbon emissions, and UK100 has estimated that it amounts to between 4% and 9% of the UK’s total carbon emissions, which is of course a non-trivial impact. As we know, and as I believe we largely agree on this Committee, climate change is one of the biggest issues facing us today and has wide-reaching consequences. It is right that any organisation should take reasonable steps to reduce its carbon footprint, and local authorities are no exception.

New clause 58 would impose a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps in relation to Environment Act and Climate Change Act targets, as they do not have such a statutory duty today. As the Committee has discussed, that presents opportunities as well as challenges for councils and our communities.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Gentleman has just made clear, new clause 58 would place a statutory duty on local planning authorities to contribute to targets set under the Environment Act, the Climate Change Act and the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010, and to contribute to the programme for adaptation to climate change under the Climate Change Act.

Many local authorities already have a high level of ambition to tackle climate change, restore nature and address wider environmental issues, including air quality. In our view, it is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a new statutory duty would bring. Local authorities already have statutory duties to improve air quality in their areas. Thanks to the combined efforts of local and central Government, air quality in the UK is improving, although we accept that there is more to do. The Government will continue to work with local authorities to reduce air pollution and its harmful effects.

Existing tools and duties also support efforts to contribute to targets for nature, such as local nature recovery strategies, which we have discussed, and the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which was strengthened by the Environment Act 2021. The latter requires all public authorities to consider and take action to conserve and enhance biodiversity, which must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy and any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England.

On climate adaptation, the Government already work closely with local authorities, a number of which are developing dedicated climate risk assessments. In October, the Government launched the local authority climate service, which provides tailored data on climate change impacts. The Government also ran the first adaptation reporting power trial for local authorities last year, providing guidance and support on how to assess climate risks to their functions and services.

The Government also provide a range of net zero support to local authorities. This includes funding five local net zero hubs, which support local authorities to develop net zero projects and attract commercial investment, and funding the local net zero accelerator pilot programme to test how to support local places to leverage commercial investment at scale to accelerate the move to net zero.

Given such existing support, and the fact that many local authorities are already taking great strides in tackling the combined issues of environmental decline and climate change impacts, we do not think a statutory duty for local authorities to contribute to environmental, net zero or air quality targets, or towards the Climate Change Act’s programme for climate adaptation, is necessary. For that reason, I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the new clause.

[Olly Glover]

I thank the Minister for his response, and we note his comments. Yes, many local authorities are making significant contributions, but I am sure he would agree that it is patchy and inconsistent at the moment. Nevertheless, we will not press the new clause to a Division, but we will observe local authority progress and Government support in the future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 75

Requirement for 20% of housing to be on small sites

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue or update guidance for local planning authorities regarding the identification of sites for housing development.

(2) The guidance must outline a requirement for at least 20% of an authority’s housing requirement to be accommodated on sites no larger than one hectare.”—(David Simmonds.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.