National Planning Policy Framework

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also thank all hon. Members who have participated in this wide-ranging debate, and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) for their contributions. The degree of praise that I received from Opposition Members is slightly damning of my chances in any upcoming reshuffle, but I thank them for their kind words.

Members raised a wide range of concerns and asked many questions. In the time available to me, I will respond to as many as possible, but I will concentrate on those relating to the national planning policy framework. Issues such as the national scheme of delegation of planning functions—our modernisation of planning committees—are outside the framework, but I am more than happy to have a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and others about them.

The national planning policy framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how they should be applied. It makes it clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Accordingly, it provides a framework within which locally prepared plans can provide for homes, commercial development and supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. As hon. Members know, the framework must be taken into account in preparing local plans and is a material consideration in planning decisions.

The Government’s manifesto included a clear commitment to immediately update the NPPF. Within three weeks of taking office, we consulted on changes to the framework, finalising them in December 2024. Among the many changes made in the initial revision of the framework were the restoration and raising of mandatory housing targets—the Conservatives abolished them when they were in government, which contributed to the low number of net additional completions in our first year in office— a new standard method for assessing housing need, which is aligned to our 1.5 million new homes target; greater support for social and affordable housing provision; a strengthening of policy relating to brownfield land development; a modernised strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release; and support for key economic sectors and clean energy infrastructure.

As hon. Members know, in December 2025, we published a fuller and more definitive overhaul of the NPPF for consultation. The proposed new framework represented the culmination of a sustained effort over the first 17 months of this Parliament to revamp our planning system so that it meets housing need in full and unleashes economic growth. It represents the most significant reform to national planning policy since the original NPPF was introduced more than a decade ago.

The new NPPF that we consulted on is wholly restructured. It maintains and builds on the initial revisions that we made in December 2024. It includes a range of new measures to support key economic sectors. As hon. Members have noted, it incorporates new, clear, rules-based national policies for plan and decision making. The proposals will make the NPPF easier to navigate for communities, local authorities and developers alike.

The new decision-making policies in the framework published in 2025 are designed to make development management more certain, consistent and streamlined; to standardise policies that apply across the whole of England, particularly where we have national standards in place and do not need that degree of local variation any longer; and to reduce duplication and avoid unjustified local deviation from national policy in local plans as they are being prepared. To ensure that those changes made an immediate difference, the Government proposed that the new national decision-making policies effectively override conflicting policies in local plans from day one.

As part of that overall change to the framework, we also proposed new polices to boost housing supply and unlock economic growth in the years ahead. They include, as has been noted, a permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development; the establishment of in-principle support for suitable proposals that develop land around rail stations within existing settlements, and around well-connected train stations outside settlements, including on green-belt land; and policies designed to drive urban and suburban densification to secure a diverse mix of homes, including stronger support for rural, social and affordable housing and setting clear expectations for accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disabled people. Our proposals also include policies that embed a vision-led approach to transport, further embedding the changes that we made in December 2024; policies that better address climate change mitigation and adaptation; and policies designed to ensure that we are better conserving and enhancing the natural environment, including changes to reflect local nature recovery strategies, to recognise landscape character and conserve and enhance existing natural features, to incorporate swift bricks, and to provide guidance on sites of local importance for nature.

[Andrew George]

The Minister says that the purpose of the policy is, among other things, to drive the desperate need for affordable homes. Does he accept that, in rural areas, he is also driving affordable homes off rural exception sites and making them unaffordable? The setting of targets means that local plans are no longer viable and appropriate, and therefore developers can come in and simply insist that their developments should be permitted because they are delivering the housing numbers.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have had this debate many times. I will come on to housing targets and the fact that if there is an up-to-date local plan in place, the housing targets do not need to be immediately revised. On the specific point about rural affordable housing, the framework makes it easier for rural exception sites to come forward through clearer national policy. It makes it far easier for rural authorities to require affordable housing on smaller sites, including removing the need for legislative designation.

We have received over 20,000 responses to the consultation. We have made very good progress in analysing the responses and making final policy decisions, but unfortunately, as a result of the announcement made by the Prime Minister on 22 June that he was resigning as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party and the associated constraints on Government business in the period ahead of the summer recess, including the prohibition on initiating new policy commitments, it has not been possible to respond to the consultation and publish the final framework before the summer recess. We will seek to do so in due course.

The issue of flooding, which was raised by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, is of particular concern in her constituency, as she made clear. The NPPF outlines a sequential approach to flood risk management, requiring inappropriate development to be directed away from areas at highest risk and providing strong safeguards where development is necessary in those areas. In plan making, a sequential approach should be employed. That involves applying the sequential test and, if needed, the exception test. In decision making, where necessary, planning authorities also apply the sequential test and, if needed, the exception test to ensure that flood risk is minimised and appropriately addressed.

[Tessa Munt]

I wonder how the High Court came to its decision over the site in Yatton. What the Minister says sounds good to me, but it can be swept away because the NPPF is what the judge decreed was the way to go and, because there is a need for homes, the sequential test can be completely ignored.

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is not quite my reading of the Yatton judgment. The judge confirmed that even if a site fails the formal sequential test for flood risk, elements of the exception test remain valid material considerations that can outweigh flood risk under the tilted balance in paragraph 11(d). The High Court made a judgment in that case on the application of the policy, but it applies, as I have set out—[Interruption.] I will give way briefly, but I do want to cover the other issues raised in the debate.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the Minister meet me and those in my constituency who are particularly concerned about this to discuss it?

[Matthew Pennycook]

If I remain in post after the summer recess, I will be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady.

Where the sequential and exception tests have been applied as necessary and are not met, the framework is clear that development should not be allowed. I want to push back gently on the assertions made by the hon. Lady and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, that we have weakened the sequential test. We have not weakened the sequential test in any way. We have clarified through changes to the PPG the triggers for the sequential test as well as its application, but we have not weakened it. If it is found necessary to build homes in areas of flood risk, the statutory guidance accompanying the building regulations promotes flood-resilient building work in flood-prone areas through approved document C, and the framework makes it clear that developments of all sizes should use sustainable drainage techniques where the development could have drainage impacts.

The draft NPPF that we have consulted on includes a dedicated chapter on planning for flood risk and coastal change. This seeks to clarify how existing policies should operate and aligns the NPPF with recent updates to planning guidance. It also included policies incorporating a new requirement that sustainable drainage systems should be designed in accordance with the national standards for sustainable drainage systems to provide a consistent basis for improving their design.

On the presumption in favour of sustainable development, we are trying to drive up the coverage of up-to-date local plans. Several hon. Members have spoken today who represent areas that do not have up-to-date local plans and five-year housing land supplies. We are making great progress in driving up plan coverage. Over 60% more local plans are at examination now than at this time last year, but it will take time to boost coverage. It is important, where policies are not up to date or where there is an insufficient supply of land, that there is a fallback to encourage planning permission to be granted, and that is what the presumption provides for.

However, the NPPF we published in December 2024 not only improved the operation of the presumption by clarifying the circumstances in which it applies, but introduced new safeguards to make it clear that its application cannot justify poor-quality development. Under the revised draft presumption published for consultation last year, the default support in principle is turned off in certain situations, including where the development would conflict with sites allocated for specific uses or would use parks and open space or land identified for flood risk management. It would also be disapplied where development does not achieve acceptable standards in relation to harm to nature, heritage assets, flood risk, design and being an effective use of land.

I have only a short time available to me and a wide range of other issues were raised. I will touch on each briefly. On our housing target and the standard method we have introduced, in our view the new method better responds to affordability pressures by using a higher affordability adjustment in its calculation. That recognises the importance of housing affordability in assessing housing need and helps direct more homes to where they are most needed and least affordable. It also provides greater certainty to the sector through more stable and predictable housing numbers, compared with the previous approach that relied on out-of-date demographic predictions and unevidenced and arbitrary judgments.

On brownfield, grey-belt and green-belt land, the hon. Member for Orpington knows full well that we strengthened the policy in the December 2024 NPPF on brownfield land. We have gone further in the draft framework that is out for consultation. It is not the case that there is enough brownfield land, particularly not viable land in the right locations on brownfield land registers across the country. In certain exceptional circumstances, local authorities need to release green-belt land. We ask them when they do so to explore all options in maximising brownfield land, working with neighbouring authorities and where necessary reviewing their green belt.

The definition of grey belt is set out in the glossary of the NPPF. There is no confusion about what it means. Where grey belt is being brought forward, it cannot fundamentally undermine the policies of the green belt across the wider plan area; we included that safeguard in the framework.

On train stations, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) was right that we want more development to come forward in sustainable locations around train stations. We obviously took a different approach to all stations, as opposed to well-connected stations, where we are looking for higher minimum densities to come forward. I must be clear that the proposals do not grant automatic permission on suitable sites or remove appropriate local oversight of the development control process. They add weight to what needs to be considered as part of an overall planning judgment, as is the case with all material considerations.

I will not dwell on rural or urban housing targets. I have said before and say again that across city regions the new standard method increases targets by 20% and, through that, housing growth is directed to a wider range of urban areas and smaller cities as well as our larger city areas.

I commend the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills and the Backbench Business Committee for giving the House an opportunity to debate these important matters. Over the past two years, the Government have sought to revamp the planning system to ensure that it will facilitate the delivery of high and sustainable rates of house building and high-quality infrastructure in the years ahead. To the point on infrastructure, the new NPPF strengthens expectations in that area as well.

More needs to be done to transform the failing housing system we inherited, but the revised NPPF we published in December 2024 and the wholly restructured framework we will publish in due course are integral to our plans to improve housing availability, affordability and quality in this Parliament. I thank all hon. Members for their considered contributions today and wish them all, and you, Sir Desmond, an enjoyable and productive summer recess.

Local Planning Authority Capacity

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Written Statements

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

It is essential that local planning authorities have the resources and skilled planners they need to provide a proactive, efficient planning service for local communities and support housing delivery, economic growth and the provision of infrastructure. Yet we know that planning departments across the country are experiencing challenges with resourcing, recruitment, retention, and skills gaps, and that in many cases these issues are having a negative impact on service delivery.

That is why the Government are investing heavily to boost local planning department capacity and capability. At the autumn Budget 2024, the Chancellor announced a £46 million package of investment into the planning system as a one-year settlement for 2025-26. At the Budget on 26 November 2025, the Chancellor announced a further £48 million of investment over three years to support local planning authorities to attract, retain and develop skilled planners over a sustained period.

However, we recognise that more must be done to better resource LPAs and drive better outcomes including faster determination times, improved service standards and stronger performance across the planning system. To address local planning department underfunding, we included in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 powers that allow the Secretary of State to delegate planning-fee setting to local planning authorities, enabling them to recover costs and reinvest to provide a more efficient and responsive planning service.

To inform the implementation of this local variation model, the Government consulted earlier this year on a new national default fee schedule, based on 90% of estimated costs, and the wider framework for local fee setting.

I am today publishing the Government’s response to that consultation, which can be found on gov.uk at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fees-for-planning-applications. The response confirms that the Government will proceed with a national default fee based on 90% of estimated processing costs, providing a significant uplift in resources for local planning departments and establishing a robust national baseline ahead of the introduction of local fee setting powers. The regulations required to increase national planning application fees have been laid today.

The national default fee will remain in place and apply to all LPAs, unless an authority chooses to vary from the default fee for any or all application fee categories to reflect their own costs. Regulations and guidance for local fee setting will be taken forward in due course.

To justify a variation in fees, LPAs will need to evidence that the national schedule does not cover their costs. Having considered the feedback received, we have decided that LPAs should be able to set planning fees up to a maximum of 30% above the national default fee. This strikes an appropriate balance between supporting local flexibility and cost recovery, while providing applicants and developers with greater certainty about the extent of local fee variation.

We recognise that a small number of LPAs may face exceptional cost pressures that cannot reasonably be addressed within this limit. Where this the case, LPAs will be able to consult the Secretary of State with a view to providing robust evidence to justify a proposed fee level above the 30% cap. The operation of the cap, including the use of the approval mechanism and intervention powers, will be subject to further policy development and set out through future regulations.

Taken together, these changes will enable LPAs to secure the funding necessary to strengthen their capacity, invest in skilled staff, and deliver a more efficient, high-quality planning service, helping to unlock growth and accelerate the delivery of new homes.

It is vital that increased fees translate into improved performance. We will continue to monitor the speed and quality of LPA decision making and will take action where performance does not meet expectations. We also intend to review the performance regime to identify opportunities to strengthen it further and drive sustained improvements.

Finally, we intend to undertake a further consultation before the end of the year on the detailed design and implementation of the proposed planning-fee surcharge, including how it should operate in practice and be linked to improved performance of statutory consultees.

[HCWS291]

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024: Implementation

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Written Statements

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

The leasehold system is blighting millions of lives. The leasehold system is a barrier to a fair and efficient modern residential property market. The leasehold system is an anachronism in the 21st century. That is why this Government made a clear and unambiguous commitment in their manifesto to act where previous Governments had failed and finally bring it to an end.

To bring the feudal leasehold system to an orderly end in this Parliament, we must stop it perpetuating itself. To do so, we will legislate through our forthcoming commonhold and leasehold reform Bill to reinvigorate commonhold through the introduction of a comprehensive new legal framework and make it the default tenure by banning the use of leasehold for new flats—complimenting the ban on new leasehold houses already on the statute book.

In the commonhold future that is on the horizon, existing leaseholders will not be left behind. We will put in place measures that enable more existing leaseholders to take control of their buildings and more easily convert to commonhold as and when they judge the time is right for them. And we will continue to strengthen protections for existing leaseholders in the here and now.

Implementation of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 is an integral part of the Government’s ambitious leasehold and commonhold reform agenda. Bringing the various provisions of the Act into force is essential both to providing immediate relief to existing leaseholders currently suffering as a result of unfair and unreasonable practices and to facilitating a rapid reduction in the prevalence of existing leasehold by enabling leaseholders to covert to commonhold in practice.

The Government have already made significant progress when it comes to commencing provisions in the 2024 Act. On 24 July 2024, we brought into force provisions relating to rent charge arrears, building safety legal costs and the work of professional insolvency practitioners. On 31 October 2024, we brought into force further building safety measures. On 31 January 2025, we commenced provisions to remove the two-year qualifying rule in relation to enfranchisement and lease extensions. And on 3 March 2025, right to manage provisions (expanding access, reforming its costs, and voting rights) came into force.

Today, I am setting out details of the next phase of the 2024 Act’s implementation.

Leasehold enfranchisement: valuation rates and non-litigation (process) costs

Our forthcoming commonhold and leasehold reform Bill will include a new and improved process for commonhold conversion, one which brings it into line with wider enfranchisement processes and will make conversion possible if at least 50% of qualifying leaseholders agree.

However, to ensure more leaseholders are able to convert in practice, we need to implement measures in the 2024 Act that will make it easier and cheaper for leaseholders to extend their lease or buy their freehold (known as “enfranchisement”), as well as implement mandatory leasebacks, address development value as a barrier to enfranchisement, and legislate to cap ground rent at £250 which will further reduce the cost of enfranchisement for many leaseholders with ground rent.

We have been constrained from implementing the 2024 Act’s enfranchisement measures to date by the fact that legislation contains a small number of specific flaws. These include a loophole in the new valuation process which means that some people could avoid paying the correct price for their lease extension or freehold acquisition, thereby compromising the integrity of the amended method, and an omission that would deny tens of thousands of shared ownership leaseholders the right to extend their lease with their direct landlord, given that the providers in question do not have sufficiently long leases to grant 990-year extensions. The King’s Speech 2026 confirmed that fixes to these flaws will be included in the forthcoming commonhold and leasehold reform Bill.

To ensure that we can commence the 2024 Act’s enfranchisement provisions as soon as possible following Royal Assent of the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill, the Government need to have determined the prescribed rates that will be used to calculate the enfranchisement premium and to have confirmed their approach to the recovery of non-litigation (process) costs. To inform final decisions in respect of both matters, we are today launching two technical consultations.

The first consultation, which can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/leasehold-enfranchisement-valuation-rates, concerns valuation rates. The new method for calculating the price of a statutory lease extension or freehold acquisition provided for by the 2024 Act removes the requirement for marriage value to be paid, caps the treatment of ground rents in the valuation calculation at 0.1% of the freehold value, and allows Government to prescribe through secondary legislation the two rates used to calculate the enfranchisement premium.

Within the parameters defined by the 2024 Act, the consultation seeks evidence and views to inform the setting of both the deferment and the capitalisation rates. Our aim is to set rates that reasonably find the present value of the “reversion” and “term” elements of the premium while providing simplicity, certainty and stability for those involved in enfranchisement claims.

The second consultation, which can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/leasehold-enfranchisement-process-costs, concerns non-litigation (process) costs. At present, leaseholders are forced to pay their landlords’ process costs when extending their lease or buying their freehold. The 2024 Act ends the recovery of non-litigation costs by landlords with a small number of exceptions, as recommended by the Law Commission, to account for low-value claims, failed claims and where there are leaseback arrangements in place.

The consultation seeks evidence and views on the amount of the landlords’ process costs that should be payable by leaseholders where one of the exceptions in the 2024 Act applies and also on the merits of a new exemption (subject to future legislation) designed to support resident-led management organisations, and possibly some other organisations, which might otherwise be unable to fund the costs associated with an enfranchisement claim.

Both consultations will run for 10 weeks. While each is technically complex and demands a degree of specialist knowledge, we strongly encourage input from all parties affected, including individual leaseholders and freeholders, so that the Government’s final decisions on valuation rates and non-litigation (process) costs are informed by views beyond simply enfranchisement professionals.

I want to reiterate that no amount of litigation will deter the Government from progressing their ambitious leasehold and commonhold reform agenda. We robustly defended the challenges brought to the enfranchisement provisions of the 2024 Act last year and warmly welcomed the High Court’s judgment which comprehensively dismissed them. We will defend any appeals just as tenaciously.

Regulation of leasehold: service charges, litigation costs and insurance costs

The forthcoming commonhold and leasehold reform Bill will contain a number of provisions that provide existing leaseholders with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes, not least the abolition of leasehold forfeiture and its replacement with a modern, proportionate lease enforcement system that addresses breaches fairly, with appropriate safeguards and judicial oversight. However, providing urgent relief to existing leaseholders struggling with the cost of living requires us to switch on a number of remaining measures from the 2024 Act.

The “Strengthening leaseholder protections over charges and services” consultation undertaken last year sought views on measures contained in the 2024 Act to drive up the transparency of service charges and reform the litigation costs regime, as well as a number of further reforms outside the scope of that Act including mandating reserve funds, introducing mandatory qualifications for managing agents and improving the section 20 major works regime. We received a very large number of thoughtful and detailed responses to it from leaseholders, landlords, managing agents and representative organisations. The insight provided has been invaluable in shaping our approach.

Having considered carefully the feedback received to this consultation, as well as the separate consultation undertaken in respect of permitted insurance fees, we are today publishing a Government response to those proposals in the consultation relating to part 4 of the 2024 Act, which can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/strengthening-leaseholder-protections-over-charges-and-services-consultation.

That response confirms that the Government will now proceed to implement measures to drive up the transparency of service charges, including standardised service charge demand forms, an annual report and enhanced leaseholder rights to obtain information on request, and reform the litigation costs regime by requiring court or tribunal approval for the recovery of litigation costs through the service charge and giving leaseholders a new right to enable them to recover landlord costs in certain circumstances. We will also look to introduce a transparent and fair permitted building insurance payment. These measures will work in tandem to help leaseholders better understand what they are paying for and empower them to challenge charges where they believe them to be unreasonable.

This impactful package of reforms will be laid in Parliament later this year through a minimum of five complementary statutory instruments, at least two of which will be made under the affirmative procedure. We will provide a separate response in due course in relation to the further reforms consulted upon that are outside the scope of the 2024 Act, including those that concern the regulation of managing agents.

[HCWS270]

Social Housing: Awaab’s Law

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Written Statements

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

Every social housing tenant has the right to live in a safe and decent home, receive services that meet their needs, and have their complaints promptly addressed. Yet far too many still live in social homes that are not well maintained or managed and struggle to secure adequate redress. That is why the Government are acting to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing.

Awaab Ishak was just two years old when he died in December 2020 as a result of a severe respiratory condition due to prolonged exposure to mould in the social home his family rented from Rochdale Boroughwide Housing. Awaab’s death was wholly avoidable. His parents raised concerns about their living conditions time and time again, but their landlord failed to take any action to treat the dangerous mould present in their home.

In the wake of his untimely death, Awaab’s parents, Faisal Abdullah and Aisha Amin, tenaciously and courageously fought to secure justice, not only for their son but for all of those who live in social housing. I pay tribute to them once again for their passion and persistence.

In response to their campaign, new powers were introduced through the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 enabling a new legal duty to be placed on social landlords to investigate and address serious hazards within clear and enforceable timeframes.

Awaab’s law is vital legislation that empowers social tenants to hold their landlords to account using the full force of the law if they fail to investigate and fix hazards within their homes within set timescales. It also allows tenants to access the Housing Ombudsman if their landlord does not adhere to strict timelines for action.

While progress is also dependent on a more fundamental change in the culture and values of social housing providers, Awaab’s law will play an integral role in ensuring that all social landlords take complaints about hazards seriously, respond to them in a timely and professional manner, and treat tenants with empathy, dignity and respect. It is also the Government’s sincere hope that, over time, it will build trust between landlords and tenants.

Per the written ministerial statement made on 6 February 2025 (HCWS423) the Government are implementing Awaab’s law through a phased approach to ensure this landmark reform will be effective, proportionate and of lasting benefit to social housing tenants.

Phase 1, which came into force on 27 October 2025, introduced a requirement for landlords to respond to damp and mould hazards that pose a significant risk to health within set timescales, alongside a requirement to respond to all types of emergency hazard within 24 hours.

As promised, we have taken a “test and learn” approach to implementing this policy. Working closely with social landlords, tenants, regulators and representative bodies, we have closely monitored and evaluated the impact Awaab’s law is having in practice and the effectiveness of the processes put in place to implement it. This has provided invaluable early insights into the operation of the requirements and has enabled us to refine the policy to ensure that it is proportionate, effective and deliverable.

Today, I am confirming the next phase of the implementation of Awaab’s law. From 30 November 2026, we will extend the requirements to the following significant hazards: excess cold and excess heat, falls, structural collapse and falling elements, fire and explosions, electrical safety, and hygiene. We are also publishing new guidance to support social landlords as they prepare for Awaab’s law to apply to expanded range of hazards.

In addition to expanding the range of hazards within scope of Awaab’s law, we are making changes to ensure that the policy works as effectively as possible.

Clarifying thresholds for the types of hazards covered by Awaab’s law

We have updated the definitions of “emergency” and “significant” hazards that fall within the scope of Awaab’s law to help landlords make their assessments. This will support more consistent application of the requirements and help tenants more easily identify when landlords must act.

Avoiding duplication with existing fire safety rules

Where fire risks relate to parts of buildings that are already covered by existing fire safety legislation—communal areas, for example—these will be managed under those rules rather than being duplicated under Awaab’s law.

We will continue to take a “test and learn” approach as phase 2 is implemented. Building on the evidence gathered through phases 1 and 2, we remain committed to extending Awaab’s law in 2027 to the remaining hazards as defined by the HHSRS (excluding overcrowding).

[HCWS222]

The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 General Committees

[The Chair]

Given the heatwave that we are experiencing, I am happy to give blanket dispensation on the jacket rule, so Members can take them off if they so wish.

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. The order was laid before the House on 4 June. It will establish a centrally led urban development corporation in greater Cambridge, pursuant to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which provides that the Secretary of State may designate an urban development area only when they are of the opinion that it is expedient and in the national interest, and following a public consultation.

As the Committee will be aware, the economic growth of Cambridge over recent years has been a phenomenal success. It now has arguably the most intensive and innovative science and technology cluster in the world, with more than 5,000 knowledge-intensive firms based in and around the city, employing tens of thousands of skilled workers and generating in excess of £18 billion in annual turnover. However, the supply-side constraints that are evident across the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, from infrastructure deficiencies to housing affordability, are particularly acute in greater Cambridge. Its continued position as a world-leading centre of innovation, its ability to make an even greater contribution to the UK economy, and the quality of life experienced by its existing residents are all dependent on removing those constraints.

Local institutions and leaders have worked hard to support the rapid growth of greater Cambridge over recent years. Over the past two years, the Government have intervened alongside local authorities and the greater Cambridge shared planning service to address pressing constraints such as water scarcity. Such action has helped to unlock more than 9,000 homes, 500,000 square feet of commercial space, and a new cancer research hospital.

It is widely accepted, however, that delivering development at the scale and pace necessary to realise the full potential of greater Cambridge is beyond the capacity and powers of existing institutions. It was for that reason that, between 4 February and 1 April this year, we consulted on proposals to establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation—a centrally led urban development corporation with the legislative powers, focus and resources to unlock the area’s full potential. I once again thank all the organisations and individuals who took the time to engage with the process.

The prevailing theme among responses was that infrastructure delivery in greater Cambridge has been slow and piecemeal, or has failed to keep pace with historical population and employment growth, and that that was having a detrimental impact on residents’ quality of life, constraining the region’s ability to scale its globally significant innovation economy, and reducing business and investor confidence. Individuals and organisations widely reported that greater Cambridge has lacked a strategic, co-ordinated and long-term approach to the rapid delivery of primary infrastructure. Complex governance, fragmented decision making and uncertain long-term funding were identified as obstacles to delivering at the scale and pace required.

While fully acknowledging the strong local efforts that have been made and the excellent performance of the greater Cambridge shared planning service, the consultation confirmed the Government’s belief that the scale and complexity of the development challenges faced by greater Cambridge required a bold and long-term approach, and a genuine step change in how infrastructure is planned, co-ordinated and delivered; and that the establishment of a centrally led development corporation, combining responsiveness to local priorities with national leadership and influence, would be the most effective way to unlock nationally significant growth at the pace and scale required.

The development corporation established by the order will unleash ambitious and high-quality sustainable growth in greater Cambridge to the benefit of its existing communities and the country as a whole. Once established, the corporation’s boundary will align with the current combined administrative areas of Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council. This broad development area will underpin the corporation’s ability to deliver its objectives and make effective use of its powers, enabling the scale of growth necessary to deliver on both local and national interests.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The Minister is always very generous with his time. He has just explained the boundaries of the development corporation. Cambridge is going through local government reorganisation. How will that affect the order and the boundaries that he has just described?

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a very good question. In short, although I am more than happy to expand on this response, the development corporation’s boundary does not pre-empt or prejudice the outcome of the recent consultation on local government reorganisation. The Government would, of course, consider, through due process, any changes to the development area that are deemed necessary as a result of any local government reorganisation but, as I say, that does not pre-empt or prejudice what we are taking through by dint of this order.

The Government have worked hard to sustain a constructive relationship with local leaders and key partners. We want the development corporation to be a joint national and local endeavour that combines local insight and input from local democratically elected representatives with national leadership powers and investment. As such, the democratically elected leaders of Cambridge city council, South Cambridgeshire district council and Cambridgeshire county council, as well as the democratically elected Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, will be invited to join the board. The Government also recognise that input from residents and communities will be integral to the success of the development corporation. That is why it will be asked to create exemplary engagement structures to enable broader community participation, including from residents, community representatives, and town and parish councillors.

The order will establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation as an independent corporate entity, allowing it to be granted infrastructure, financial and land assembly powers in due course. The powers and functions order, which my officials are preparing for consideration later this year, will equip the development corporation with planning powers, including the ability to determine planning applications above a minimum threshold of 250 homes, and non-residential applications above 5,000 square metres. Our intention is that the development corporation will eventually take on plan-making powers. However, we believe the optimal way to kick-start growth in the plan-led system is to take a phased approach. As such, the development corporation will exercise plan-making powers only once the draft local plan has been adopted. The Government are clear that adoption of the draft local plan should not limit or delay future ambition for growth and, subject to its adoption, successor plans will be expected to build positively on the draft local plan’s foundations to support continued growth.

The development corporation will also be granted development management powers for strategic sites within its boundary. Only applications for sites of strategic importance will be determined by the development corporation. The vast majority of planning applications will continue to be determined by the greater Cambridge shared planning service. The Government recognise and accept that almost all strategic residential developments will be of over 1,000 houses, flats, or houses and flats. However, to account for the possibility of residential development prejudicing the delivery of sites of strategic importance, residential thresholds will be set at a minimum of 250 houses, flats, or houses and flats. Any application that is determined by the development corporation will still be considered against national and local policy, and subject to public consultation as normal. That combination of powers will provide the development corporation with the tools, certainty and investment needed for sustainable infrastructure-first growth. The model will form an exemplar for integrated powers and funding, and set the standard for housing development elsewhere in the country.

The order will establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation as an entity accountable to the Secretary of State and set out the geographical boundary in which it may operate. The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation will focus on the delivery of strategic, nationally significant growth within its boundary. It will work collaboratively with local authorities both within and bordering its development area, as well as with transport bodies and utility providers, to unlock development opportunities and boost economic growth.

I extend my sincere thanks to local leaders and their officers in greater Cambridge for their hard work and ongoing constructive collaboration in pursuit of our shared objective of supporting ambitious and high-quality sustainable growth in Cambridge and its environs. I also thank Peter Freeman for his continued leadership of the Cambridge Growth Company and commend the CGC for everything it has done to date to help to facilitate the delivery of new homes, infrastructure, and commercial and laboratory space. I hope that hon. Members agree on the value of establishing the development corporation. I commend the order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

That was a long list of perfectly reasonable and fair questions, which I will seek to answer in turn. If I miss any, hon. Members are more than welcome to intervene on me.

I will begin with the questions from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. The order establishes, as a corporate body, a centrally led urban development corporation, not a mayoral development corporation. The sitting Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will have representation, with a seat on the board, but the mayor and his area will not be controlling this development corporation; it is very different from the mayoral development corporation model. I think the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough has designs on a mayoral development corporation for Peterborough, but that would be a delivery vehicle very different from the one we are establishing here. The mayor will, however, have representation on the board along with other local authority leaders.

The shadow Minister asked me about the planning committee modernisation statutory instrument that we voted on today. That will apply to local authority committees in the ways we discussed when we considered that instrument in Committee. As I said in my opening remarks, we expect the vast majority of planning applications still to be determined by the greater Cambridge shared planning service. I will come on to why we have taken the development management powers we propose to in the functions order that will follow in the months to come, and why we have chosen the 250-home threshold, but planning committees are a local planning authority designation. The development corporation, as an entity and delivery vehicle in itself, will take particular development management powers to determine specific sites, which I will come on to in a moment. The same goes for conditions that would be associated with a planning permission.

We think those development management powers are important to accelerate strategic growth in an integrated and co-ordinated way. The decision to grant development management powers to the development corporation for strategic sites reflects the need to balance local and national planning merits to facilitate nationally significant growth in the area. I bring us back to the objective of the development corporation to facilitate nationally significant growth, which local leaders—they have made great efforts over recent years—are quite clear that they are not able to do. When it comes to some very serious constraints—the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire mentioned water scarcity—local leaders have not been able on their own to remove some of these barriers. That is what the development corporation is for.

Development management powers will be granted for sites of strategic importance. We will define what “strategic importance” means at a later date, but as a proxy for a definition of strategic sites, the development corporation will use the minimum thresholds that we outlined in the Government response to the consultation on 3 June. We gave a flavour in the consultation of the type of sites we have in mind. I think we listed seven sites, which are major sites already identified in the local plan. I hope that gives the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire a sense of the type of strategic sites that we are talking about.

We need the threshold because the development corporation can delegate decision making to the greater Cambridge shared planning service, but that service is unable to reverse-delegate the determination of planning applications to the development corporation. As such, we judge that if the threshold for residential development were set at a level higher than 250 homes, the development corporation would be unable to exercise development management powers for any application that fell below that threshold, even if the application could prejudice the delivery of a strategic site.

That is the central objective of the 250-home threshold. We do need the development corporation to have the ability to move in and determine an application on a site that might impact the delivery of a strategic site. As I said to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and the Committee, we will come back and define a “strategic site” in more detail as we take forward the functions order later this year. To reassure him, that functions order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure; we will have a chance to debate and vote on it in the House. [Official Report, 8 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 422.] (Correction.)

The shadow Minister raised a point about boundaries. Again, this is all outlined in the 3 June Government response to the consultation: 42% of respondents to the consultation agreed with our proposed boundaries—the Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council administrative areas—23% felt they were too small, and 33% felt they were too wide. We recognise that there is a wide range of views about what the precise boundaries should be, but we judge that the boundaries as consulted on are a broad development area that will allow and underpin the development corporation’s ability to deliver its objectives and make effective use of its powers, enabling the scale of growth that is necessary to deliver on both local and national interests.

As set out in the consultation, the proposed boundary encompasses the land required to support strategic infrastructure, providing a sufficiently broad geography to maximise funding opportunities and enable land value capture to support social and environmental projects. Aligning the boundaries with those of Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council will simplify the governance arrangements in this area—that has been a real source of challenge over recent years—and enable the development corporation to support the delivery of the draft local plan.

I am glad that the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire mentioned the draft local plan. We are working very closely with the shared planning service and democratically elected local leaders. We want to see that draft plan adopted. On the Secretary of State’s powers as they apply to the development corporation and its ability to take planning powers in the future, we do want it to have those powers; we think that is absolutely necessary to set out a spatial plan for the years to come. This development corporation will exist for at least 25 years, perhaps longer, but we want to see that local plan in place in the first instance, and the Government are doing what we can to support that process and help the authority get the plan in place.

On local government reorganisation, to add briefly to what I said in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Broxbourne, proposals for reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough were received in November 2025 and recently went out to consultation. As I said, the development corporation’s boundary, established by this order, does not pre-empt or prejudice the outcome of LGR in that regard.

I push back quite strongly on the challenge from the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire that we have not outlined in any way the objectives of the development corporation. If he reads the Government response to the consultation, published on 3 June, he will see exhaustive explanations of why we think the development corporation is necessary and the sort of capacity, powers and ability it can leverage in on private finance, land assembly and all these matters to meet the shared objectives for the area. We will build on that with the functions order—we will detail precisely how the planning powers and the development management powers will come through—but to assure him, the development corporation will have powers to directly plan, fund and deliver essential infrastructure to support regeneration, including utilities such as water. Targets for the development corporation’s objectives will be set across the development corporation’s corporate plan, framework document and development plan, and in individual business plans for all projects. We will have a chance to scrutinise those documents, among others.

I hope that I have responded to all the points raised by hon. Members. I think this is a fairly straightforward and simple instrument, which establishes the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation as a legal body and sets the geographical boundaries in which that development corporation will operate. I commend the order to the Committee.

Question put.

Point of Order

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to correct an inadvertent error I made earlier today. During the Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee debate on the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026, I inadvertently stated that a relevant powers and functions order would fall under the affirmative procedure, when it will actually be made under the negative procedure.

[Official Report, Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee, 8 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 10.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the Minister for giving notice of his point of order, and for seeking to correct the record so quickly, which he has now done. Hopefully that draws a line under it.

Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. The regulations were laid before the House on 1 June and, following a minor correction, re-laid on 8 June.

In considering this instrument today we are not debating the principle of modernising planning committees. The enabling powers for these regulations are contained in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which was subject to extensive scrutiny by both Houses and approved by them. Before I turn to the detail of the regulations, it is important to set out the extensive consultation and engagement that we have undertaken on these measures.

As Committee members may recall, the commitment to improve local planning decision making by modernising planning committees was made in the King’s Speech 2024. Following that announcement, we published a planning reform working paper on planning committees that set out a range of proposals, including three options in respect of a national scheme of delegation designed to bring greater standardisation over the operation of committees and give greater certainty to applicants. Taking into account the valuable feedback we received to that working paper, three measures were introduced to the Planning and Infrastructure Act. The first gives a new power to the Secretary of State to set out which planning functions should be delegated to planning officers for a decision, and which should instead go to a planning committee or sub-committee. The second gives a new power to the Secretary of State to control the size and composition of planning committees. The third imposes a new requirement for members of planning committees to be trained and certified in key elements of planning law and policy.

During the course of the Act’s progress, we undertook a public consultation on detailed proposals in respect of the three measures. Our response to that consultation committed the Government to introduce, through regulations, a two-tier national scheme of delegation to set a maximum cap for planning committees of 13 members, and to undertake further stakeholder engagement with a view to designing a creditable and cost-effective system for training committee members.

As required by the Act, a further statutory consultation on the draft regulations for the national scheme of delegation and cap on committee size and associated guidance was undertaken earlier this year. The Government response confirmed that some changes would be made to the regulations as a result of feedback received, including imposing a size threshold in relation to reserved matters applications, which would determine whether they are in schedule 1 or 2. The result is the draft regulations before us. It is the Government’s considered view that they are integral to driving up rates of house building, and that they will improve, not undermine, the vital role played by planning committees.

As I was at pains to stress throughout the passage of the Act, the Government recognise the essential role that planning committees play in ensuring that decisions about what to build and where are shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. However, in providing essential local democratic oversight of planning decisions, we are determined to ensure that planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on larger and more complex applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions.

I reiterate that these regulations do not alter in any way existing requirements to consult on planning applications, the right of residents and elected councillors in any given local planning authority area to submit representations and make objections in respect of planning applications, or the fact that any such comments must be taken into consideration when determining applications, regardless of the decision maker. They are instead designed to ensure that planning committees function effectively, and that they are focused on the development proposals that matter most to an area, rather than spending time on minor or technical applications that can be efficiently determined by expert planning officers, bound by strict requirements in the way they make decisions on applications.

The principle of schemes of delegation is, of course, uncontested. At present, every local planning authority has its own scheme of delegation to identify the circumstances in which planning decisions are taken by planning committees rather than delegated to officers. Most local planning authorities already delegate a significant proportion of applications to such officers, such that 96% of planning decisions in England are already not made by planning committees. The problem is that there is significant variation across the country, and this creates risk and uncertainty in the system. For those reasons, we are introducing the national scheme of delegation. It will provide greater consistency and certainty across England about who in a local planning authority will be responsible for making planning decisions.

Let me briefly explain how the national scheme of delegation will work. It categorises planning applications into two types: those that must always be delegated to planning officers, as set out in schedule 1; and those that may, subject to a gateway test, be referred to a planning committee, as set out in schedule 2. The types of applications that must be determined by an officer include applications for minor residential development, that is schemes of fewer than 10 dwellings; minor commercial development; householder development; and reserved matters applications from proposals where the outline planning permission is for fewer than 500 dwellings. The types of application that fall into schedule 2 include larger applications for planning permission not set out in schedule 1, reserved matters applications where the outline permission is for more than 500 dwellings, and listed building consent applications.

We anticipate that, in many circumstances, schedule 2 applications will continue to be routinely delegated to officers, as is already the case across the country. However, councils can decide to take them to committee if they feel it would be appropriate. To do so, the application must meet the requirements of the gateway test. It will be the responsibility of a nominated officer, usually the chief planner or equivalent, and a nominated member, usually the chair of the committee, to determine whether an application meets those criteria.

The gateway test will operate as follows. Applications will be determined by a planning officer unless the nominated officer and member agree that it meets at least one of the following criteria: where the application raises an economic, social or environmental issue of significance for the local area; or where it raises a significant planning matter, having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations.

We recognise that for applications involving a local authority itself, or an officer or member of that authority, there may sometimes be cases where, in the interests of transparency, committee scrutiny is merited. To allow for that, we have provided in the regulations that such applications, regardless of whether they would fall into schedules 1 or 2, can be referred to committee with the agreement of the nominated officer and nominated member, even if they do not meet the specific criteria.

To support local planning authorities in implementing the national scheme of delegation, and to ensure a consistent approach, we have published statutory guidance that they must have regard to. We have also asked the planning advisory service to provide support and training to both the officers and the members of local planning authorities in implementing the new approach to the operation of the delegation of decision making. As I mentioned, we are also placing a cap on the number of members who can sit on a planning committee. That is intended to allow committees to have more focused and higher quality debates. The cap has been set at 13 members, to accommodate those local planning authorities that have members from multiple political parties to ensure appropriate representation.

To conclude, planning is and will remain principally a local activity because decisions about what to build and where should be shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. That is why the Government are determined to ensure that every area has an up-to-date local plan developed through resident engagement, and it is why we remain firmly of the view that planning committees have an integral role to play in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. It is, however, vital that in exercising that democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions.

As I made clear at the outset of my remarks, we have undertaken extensive consultation and engagement on these measures. We published an initial working paper. We held two rounds of public consultation and various roundtables and events, including with local authority officers, chairs of planning committees, house builders and sector bodies. Some of those events were led by the planning advisory service on behalf of the Department. We have listened and given careful consideration to the wide range of views expressed by those who have an interest in the matter. Those views and existing best practice across the country have informed the regulations. I hope that hon. Members agree that the changes we seek to make are a reasonable and proportionate means of improving the quality and speed of decision making in local planning authorities. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I knew that this instrument would provoke strong feelings, and it has done so, but I very much welcome the scrutiny provided by hon. Members and the considered contributions they have made.

The first thing to say is that a principled case has been advanced—as it was during the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—from members of the Committee who do not believe that a national scheme of delegation is warranted in any way. We have heard some of those arguments today, but, quite frankly, the time for those arguments has passed; the Act containing the enabling powers for these regulations passed both Houses after extensive scrutiny. We are talking about the form that the regulations take in implementing the national scheme of delegation, and we have undertaken extensive consultation and engagement to try to get the balance right in terms of the two-tier system we are introducing.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, put a number of questions to me. The first touched on the rationale for the regulations in a fundamental way. As I said, we recognise the important role that planning committees play in ensuring local democratic oversight, and they will continue, once the regulations have passed—if they pass—to play a crucial role in planning decision making in the future. Across the country, we have a plethora of local schemes of delegation with huge variation, and that postcode lottery of schemes of delegation creates uncertainty. It slows down the planning system in important respects, which is why these regulations are required. We have made a raft of changes through our reforms to the planning system and are introducing a new system to bring forward local plans quicker.

The hon. Member for Broxbourne mentioned the importance of local plans, and I absolutely agree with him. It is a travesty that we inherited a system with such low local plan coverage that was up to date. We have made concerted efforts, as he knows, to try and drive up coverage of local plans across the country, to introduce a more rules-based national planning policy framework and to resource planning authorities to ensure that they can do the job they need to. Planning committees will continue to play a vital role in exercising democratic oversight, but we have to ensure that they are operating as effectively as possible and are focused on larger, more complex applications where member input is required.

The Government trust expert planning officers. The question for us is finding the right level of trust and empowerment to allow them to resolve the applications that we propose to put in schedule 1 of the regulations more quickly in the service of residents and businesses. Only 5% of minor residential development applications are determined by committee, but that 5% adds a lot of time to what are, when it comes to residential development for example, quite minor applications. Local input in planning decisions will continue to be incredibly important, including from elected representatives. We believe that the best way for councillors and communities to engage in development is through the local plan process; that is the point at which local councillors can ensure that the local policies that planning officers would have to follow in respect of schedule 1 applications are in place. The changes we are making through the national scheme of delegation will support that plan-led system. They will ensure that planning committees operate as effectively as possible by focusing, as I have said, on those major decisions.

We recognise that some planning applications are potentially complex or controversial. That is why we have created a framework where schedule 2 applications can go to committee for consultation when additional scrutiny is necessary. For example, schedule 2 includes listed building consent applications. In the vast majority of cases, we would expect those to be delegated to officers without any consequence, but there will always be a few cases that raise more significant issues and where members will want to take a view. Where a controversial development is proposed that has not been planned for, councillors can still play a key role in representing the voices of their constituents.

I absolutely refute the Liberal Democrat spokesman’s argument that the regulations completely remove the role of councillors or cause the death of local democracy, as he sought to portray it. Local people will still be able to make representations on individual developments through the application process. Local councillors will be able to submit their views or objections, and, as the hon. Member knows because of his experience in the planning service, those concerns must be taken into account when, in the case of schedule 1 applications, the officer is reaching a decision. We are not changing anything in that respect.

[Gideon Amos]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. As he knows, we fundamentally disagree with these proposals. He has just illustrated the point that councillors will be reduced to the same role as members of the public: they may make representations, but that is it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

And we think that is right on schedule 1 applications. They are a very different proposition from schedule 2 applications, which we think members should be able to take a view on through the gateway test.

[Lewis Cocking]

The Minister mentions local plans and schemes of delegation. If a developer comes forward with a planning application that is not allocated within the local plan, how will that be dealt with? Will it be deal with through schemes of delegation, or would it automatically go to committee?

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a fair question. As I set out in my opening remarks, if such an application were to meet the conditions in schedule 2, it would go in front of the chief planning officer, in most instances, and the chair of the planning committee, and a gateway test would determine whether it meets the criteria that I have set out. If it does, the local authority can put the decision in front of elected members, as happens now with an officer recommendation, so we are not changing that. I have listed the types of application that fall under schedule 1: minor residential development under 10 units, minor commercial development and so on. There might be a principled difference of opinion here, which I respect, but we do think that expert planning officers should be able to take decisions on those matters.

The hon. Member for Orpington challenged me on the impact of the fact that 96% are already not determined by committee. In a sense, he was saying, “What’s the point of these regulations, given that we have local schemes of delegation doing the job?” As highlighted in the impact assessment for these reforms to the Planning and Infrastructure Act, we expect these reforms to have a small but positive impact on the delivery of housing in this Parliament. We have never suggested that they are a silver bullet for all the issues that we face in the planning system. The Act’s impact assessment covered a number of options, including our lead option of delegating when applications are in line with local plans. We explored that issue, but the regulations take a more structured approach to delegating along the lines of application type, so we need to update the assessment to reflect that.

We recognise that only approximately 4% of decisions are made by committees at present, but that percentage represents a substantial proportion of total units in the planning process because many major applications go to planning committee for consideration. Under the circumstances that we have outlined for the gateway test, they might not necessarily do so as they might not meet those criteria. Streamlining the planning process will make a meaningful contribution to the delivery of much-needed housing and sustainable communities.

[Gareth Bacon]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. I understand his point that the 4% of applications contain a significant number of units, but does he have a figure for that? How many extra units will be granted planning permission as a result of this change?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments that I have just made. The impact assessment for the Act was published on the basis of a particular scenario, which we have modified. We need to update the impact assessment and we will do so in due course so that he has a better sense of the impact.

The impact is tangible and real, in terms of what can go through schedule 2. We also anticipate that it will mean less time and resource spent on preparing for committee meetings for smaller applications in schedule 1, so it will speed up the decision-making process more broadly and free up important officer time to focus on larger applications that have a real impact on housing delivery.

Several hon. Members mentioned councillors’ ability to call in applications, which we are removing. The regulations do not require local authorities to put every schedule 2 application through the gateway test. It will be for individual local planning authorities to put in place their own arrangements for how the consideration of cases for referral to committee will operate in practice. In other words, it will be open to individual LPAs to triage their schedule 2 applications in ways that are appropriate for them so that only certain schedule 2 applications are considered by the nominated officer and member. Under those arrangements, it would be open to a local planning authority to include a mechanism for councillors to ask for applications that fall under schedule 2 to be considered under the gateway test, and if they meet that test they can be looked at by committee.

[Chris Hinchliff]

Is that not potentially reintroducing the same level of discretion and difference across the country if local planning authorities choose to use those powers in different ways?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not believe so, because local planning authority schemes must adhere to planning regulations and meet the gateway test—in the sense of what can pass a committee—and the statutory guidance to which they must have regard. In a sense, we want to ensure that applications passing through the gateway and considered by committees are larger, complex and more controversial cases, and that less significant applications are determined by planning officers.

That leads me to the legal obligations on officers. In a sense, the question has been put to me, “Can we trust local planning officers to make these decisions?” I must make it clear that officers working for local authorities are bound by strict requirements in the way they make decisions on applications. They must, by law, take all material considerations into account, including relevant parts of a local plan—that is why having an up-to-date local plan in place is so significant—and national planning policy. The law also requires their decisions to be rational. Planning officers’ actions must adhere to codes of conduct, be they those of the local planning authority or of the professional institutes to which they belong. Taken together, we think that these measures provide strong safeguards to underpin the integrity of decisions.

[Lewis Cocking]

The Minister is being very generous with his time. How can the public deal with planning officers who get it wrong? At the moment, if a planning committee gets it wrong, the public can go out to the ballot box and vote for someone else. They cannot do that with planning officers who make the wrong decisions.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Planning officers routinely make decisions without applications going to committee. We trust them to do so; they are bound by the requirements that I have just set out.

The hon. Member touches on a point that I was going to come to. It is important to ensure that we have a highly skilled planning profession and the right training and support in place for officers. We are investing in good decision making by planning officers in councils across the country. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Department has a planning capacity and capability programme that provides a broad range of support covering recruitment, skills, development, training and funding to ensure that local planning authorities have the capability and capacity that they need. Our approach to supporting planning recruitment and skills is deliberately demand-led, allowing local planning authorities to deploy support in line with their specific pressures. As he will know, councils have the flexibility to use support to recruit specialist skills or to upskill existing staff.

To ensure that I respond to all questions, I will make two final points. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, asked about instances in which the local authority is the decision maker or a local authority member is involved. I addressed that in my opening remarks, but it is worth clarifying again. We recognise that, for applications involving a local authority or an officer or member of that authority, committee scrutiny is merited in some cases, in the interests of transparency. To allow for that, we have provided in the regulations that such applications, regardless of whether they fall into schedule 1 or schedule 2, can be referred to committee with the agreement of the nominated officer and nominated member, even if they do not meet the specific criteria.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North made a powerful speech in support of the regulations. However, he asked how we determined which types of application fall into schedule 1. On the specific question of minor residential development, we took that as the appropriate threshold because, unlike in policy, in legislation—the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015—there is a distinction between minor and major development. With “minor development” being under 10 units, we thought that that was the appropriate level to set when it comes to residential developments. Commercial and housing development also falls into schedule 2.

Importantly, a key addition that we made to the regulations following consultation was the requirement for the regulations to be reviewed within two years of their coming into force. That will give us the opportunity to monitor their implementation and identify any issues or unintended consequences resulting from particular types of application placement. That review will take place by 31 October 2028.

Notwithstanding the range of issues and considerations that we have discussed, let me draw the Committee back to what the regulations seek to achieve. They are about improving the quality and speed of decision making so that the housing and growth that local communities want—and desperately need in many cases—can be delivered more quickly. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Houses in Multiple Occupation

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) on securing this important debate, and I thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for their contributions.

I fully appreciate the concerns my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields raises about houses in multiple occupation, and in particular about their excessive concentration in two parts of her constituency, and the many problems that flow from that, which she described so vividly. HMOs can play an important role in the housing market, providing relatively low-cost accommodation for rent, as my hon. Friend acknowledged. However, it is right that local planning authorities can act, where appropriate, to minimise any negative impacts that such houses may have on local communities.

My hon. Friend made a number of points about the interaction between HMOs and the planning system. As she rightly said, larger HMOs always require an application to the local planning authority for planning permission. However, nationally permitted development rights allow for existing homes to change use and become a small HMO for up to six people without the need for a planning application. Such small HMOs are also able to change back to standard family homes under similar rights. We recognise that the free operation of these nationally permitted development rights is not always suitable for all areas, which is precisely why local planning authorities can remove permitted development rights in a specific area by introducing an article 4 direction, following consultation with the affected local community.

As my hon. Friend made clear, South Tyneside council has introduced a borough-wide article 4 direction, which means that all new HMOs in its area will need a planning application, regardless of their size. She has previously drawn attention to the impact of the growth of HMOs in her constituency, and will therefore welcome that change; I know the role that she played in pressing her local authority to make it.

All planning permission applications are considered by the local planning authority in question in line with the development plan for the area, and in consultation with the local community. It is therefore key that local planning authorities have relevant and up-to-date policies in place. As my hon. Friend will be aware, South Tyneside council last adopted a local plan back in 2007, which means that the policies in the plan are significantly out of date. It is one of the oldest plans submitted in the legacy planning system.

Following the council’s repeated failure to agree to submit its new plan for examination by an independent inspector, I intervened to ensure that the plan progressed to examination. I am pleased to report that the examination hearings have been completed, and we await the inspector’s final report. Following receipt of the inspector’s report, and in line with my intervention direction, the council will need to consider adoption of the plan. Adopting the plan will ensure that the council has up-to-date planning policies in place for South Tyneside, which is hugely important.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government recently consulted on a new national planning policy framework. The consultation included proposals for a more flexible policy on the use of article 4 directions, so that local planning authorities can remove nationally permitted development rights where that is necessary to safeguard the amenity or wellbeing of an area—where, for instance, there is an over-concentration of small HMOs. We are analysing the feedback received on that consultation, and will publish our response in due course.

It is essential that HMOs are safe and well managed, which is why all HMOs are subject to management regulations. These regulations place duties on managers of HMOs to take safety measures, supply and maintain gas and electricity, and maintain common parts, fixtures and fittings. In addition, all local planning authorities must license HMOs with five or more people from two or more households who share facilities such as a kitchen or bathroom. Local authorities also have the power to require HMOs to be licensed where there are three or more people from two or more households sharing facilities. This means in practice that most HMOs can be licensed, where necessary. Local authorities can impose licence conditions to ensure that landlords effectively manage HMOs, and also have the power to inspect properties without notice, where they believe an offence has been committed under HMO legislation.

Furthermore, the licence holder must undergo a fit and proper person test to assure a local authority that they can manage the property responsibly, safely and lawfully. I note my hon. Friend’s concerns about the operation of that test and its potential shortcomings, and I am more than happy to sit down with her and work through some of the examples she provided, so that we can learn more about its operation. If a local authority finds that the licence holder is no longer fit and proper—for instance, where they have committed a serious or repeated breach of licence conditions—it can revoke their licence. Local authorities have additional robust powers to tackle landlords who breach HMO regulations. That includes civil penalties of up to £40,000, rent repayment orders.

[Emma Lewell]

The Minister is right: regulations are in place and there is a fit-and-proper test—but they are not working. That is why I secured the debate and why my colleagues and I are asking for stronger regulation. Everything that is in place is simply not working.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have said, I am more than happy to sit down with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to hear their suggestions on where the regulations need to be strengthened. As a Department, our experience has been that, in some areas of the country, the powers are being properly enforced and the regulations are working. I want to understand more, if she is able to provide the evidence.

[Emma Lewell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way in a second, but let me briefly mention resources, which are really important.

It is vital that councils have the capacity to take action where needed. That is why we have provided £18.2 million in 2025-26 and £41.1 million for 2026-27 to support the new enforcement responsibilities that local authorities have taken on under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We plan to establish a more sustainable funding system for enforcement in the private rented sector over the longer term based on future database revenue fees, but, again, I want to understand the challenges that particular local authorities are facing in that respect.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me just give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields before I come to the hon. Gentleman.

[Emma Lewell]

Can the Minister say how many licences have been revoked?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not have that information to hand. I am more than happy to follow up in correspondence with my hon. Friend, as I said. I will bring that data, and any further data we have available, to any meeting that we might have on this subject.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I suspect the answer to the hon. Lady’s question is “very few indeed.”

The issue in my Bridgwater constituency is that Hinkley Point C—a nuclear power station—is being constructed a few miles away. Many thousands of good workers have come to the town—their number will peak at around 12,000 in the next couple of years. The local council needs the power to restrict the number of HMOs in any particular street or district. Clearly, there is a housing need, so one understands why landlords convert those houses, but the resulting economic pressures bring a change upon the nature of certain areas. Councils need the power to restrict the concentration of HMOs.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Councils have that power. I do not know off the top of my head whether the hon. Gentleman’s local authority has consulted on and put in place an article 4 direction, but if it has not, I strongly encourage him to make that case so that his local authority makes full use of its powers.

This is the crucial point. Are the powers in place inadequate—in which case let us have that conversation among hon. Members—or are individual local planning authorities unable or unwilling, for whatever reason, to exercise properly the powers that they have? If that is the case, we need to understand what more they need in the way of resources, support and guidance to be able to do so.

Let me briefly touch on social and affordable housing. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields rightly said, the ultimate solution to ensure that we have enough housing supply in any given area is to build enough homes of all tenures, including social and affordable homes. She has welcomed our new £39 billion 10-year social and affordable homes programme, the largest long-term investment in social and affordable housing in recent memory. Our ambition is to deliver around 300,000 homes over the lifetime of that programme. As she knows, our target is for at least 60% of the homes delivered to be for social rent, to provide the genuinely affordable homes that families need in her area and others.

We are also taking decisive action to reinvigorate council house building, including a new 10-year housing rent policy, and we have reinstated rent convergence. That will strengthen councils’ capacity and confidence for building new homes. We are taking action to reform the right to buy, including returning right-to-buy cash discounts to between £16,000 and £38,000. Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields knows, we will go further in implementing the next phase of reforms through our Social Housing Bill, which is making good progress in the other place. Its measures include allowing councils to keep 100% of the receipts generated by right-to-buy sales, with increased flexibilities in how they can be spent.

We are already seeing many the fruits of many of the reforms that we have put in place. Data released just this morning by Homes England and the Greater London Authority in respect of affordable housing starts and completions shows that starts are up 26% and completions are up 8% on 2024-25, and we are delivering the highest number of social rent starts since 2010-11.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields mentioned the national scheme of delegation. We are modernising how planning committees function, and we have been very clear about the case for doing so. We want to ensure that in exercising their democratic oversight, planning committees are focused on the applications that require member input, not on revisiting applications and decisions that have already been taken.

We published a working paper on this in December 2024, and we carried out extensive engagement following that. We formally consulted twice on the reforms, once in May 2025, on the principle of a two-tier system with some decisions delegated to planning officers, and once in March 2026, on the draft regulations and guidance. We are to debate those guidelines next week.

I will gently push back on my hon. Friend’s contention that local voices and objections are cut out. Nothing in those regulations will stop local residents objecting to applications or registering their discontent, but we do think that on a certain set of applications, it is right that expert planning officers make the decisions.

I also just make the point that schemes of delegation are in place across most local authorities in the country. The problem is that there is huge variation, which is creating issues in the planning system. We want to streamline that with a simple set of rules across the country and a national scheme.

[Emma Lewell]

I thank the Minister for being incredibly generous and giving way again. Regarding the statutory instrument before the House, of course constituents and residents will still be able to voice their concerns, but will those concerns go to a committee to make a decision, or will all decisions on HMOs go directly to council officers for decision once the SI is in force?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am happy to sit down and run my hon. Friend through the instrument in lots more detail than I can give from the Dispatch Box, but it is the case that the national scheme of delegation does not specify HMOs in particular. However, development not covered by the HMO permitted development right will fall into schedule 1 of the regulations relating to the national scheme of delegation, where those decisions will be delegated to expert planning officers. As I said, we want to ensure with these reforms that planning committees, and their valuable time, are focused on the most controversial applications where their democratic oversight is best placed.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous with his time. One reason why so many HMOs are required is the lack of social housing, certainly around Bridgwater. I have had developers approach me who have completed a private scheme, and they want housing associations or a charity to take those social houses off their hands, but they have not got the funds to do it. I have raised this with the Minister before, and he told me that he set up a register to match housing associations with developers who have social housing to effectively dispose of the units. Could he update us on how successful that register has been?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The register was successful in its aims in terms of providing operators with a chance to submit uncontracted, unsold section 106 units. Roughly over 4,000 units were put into that clearing service, which closed on 1 June. Through the policy intervention we made, we encouraged local authorities to consider how best to get those units moved, cascading to market sale in instances where they felt that they needed to do that. But that small number, which is far below the estimates we heard from some quarters, is a sign that some of the problem is working itself out. We are providing registered providers of affordable housing with greater financial capacity through our rent settlement, rent convergence and all the interventions we are making. Those measures are allowing them to buy more section 106 units and get those stalled schemes moving.

To conclude, local planning authorities already have powers to restrict the proliferation of HMOs. They already benefit from or can deploy licensing powers to ensure that HMOs are safe and well managed, and they do have, we believe, robust powers to ensure that landlords of HMOs comply with all relevant regulations.

As I said, I am very interested to hear from hon. Members about particular cases where they think that their local authority is not able to enforce the regulations that already exist, and of instances of actors circumventing that system—I was very interested in the example that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford gave. Those are the types of things we want to work through. If it transpires through those examples that the regulations are lacking in some way, we will take that into account. I have made it very clear that we keep the regulation of HMOs under review to ensure that the system works in the way that we want to see it work.

Question put and agreed to.

Forest City: West Suffolk

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, please accept my sincere apologies for being slightly late to the Chamber.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Minister, if you were late, you would not be able to respond, so you got here just in time.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Excellent. I am very glad to hear it. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this debate. I assure him that I have heard loud and clear his concerns about the high-level Forest City 1 proposals, and that I will reflect carefully on them. I also thank the other hon. Members who have made contributions to the debate.

Setting aside the detailed criticism made of the proposals in question, the core argument the hon. Gentleman has advanced is that the Government have to date refused to “say no” to it, which I think were his words. I want to respond to this charge head-on at the outset, because as he knows full well, it is not the role of the Government to opine on every development proposal that materialises across the country. For good or ill, depending on one’s viewpoint, we have a discretionary planning system in which schemes of various sizes are judged on their site-specific merits by individual local planning authorities.

The Secretary of State has powers to call in or recover planning applications where they involve matters of more than local importance, and they are exercised where necessary. The Department can also take forward specific initiatives and programmes involving the delivery of large-scale new communities. The recent consultation and decision to establish a Greater Cambridge development corporation and the ongoing work taking place to progress a new towns programme are two good examples, but in each instance the Government clearly set out the parameters of their support and consult where appropriate. What we do not do—indeed, we are obliged not to do it, given the quasi-judicial role of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers in the planning system—is to publicly pass judgment on every unsolicited proposal that the Department receives. The hon. Gentleman looks somewhat confused by that notion, but that is how the planning system operates.

The hon. Gentleman kindly provided me with advance notice of the questions he asked, so in response to each of them, let me give him as much clarity as I can. He asked whether the Government recognised that the Forest City promoters do not seek to go through

“the appropriate local consultations and approvals”,

and plan to rely instead on the legal, financial and political support of central Government. In response, I say to the hon. Gentleman that, while the size and nature of the proposed development would suggest as much, it is not entirely clear from the high-level material published by the promoters. Their website states, for example, that subsidy is not sought. A clear preference is expressed, however, for a development corporation as the delivery model, but it is not made explicit whether they are seeking Government backing for a centrally-led urban development corporation or are interested in a future mayoral or locally-led approach. In short, we simply do not have enough detail about this proposal to be able to say with any certainty precisely how its promoters believe it should be delivered.

When it comes to the east of England, however, the Government’s focus is firmly on the establishment of the Greater Cambridge development corporation and using it to deliver nationally significant growth in Cambridge and its surrounding areas, in partnership with local leaders and communities.

The hon. Gentleman pressed me on whether the Government will take this opportunity to rule out Forest City for good. For the reasons I have just set out, it is not for the Government to rule in or out any proposed scheme in general terms. He is aware that when the promoters of Forest City 1 applied to be part of the new towns programme, officials reviewed the application and concluded that it did not meet the programme’s objectives, specifically the deliverability objective. However, as per the remarks made by Baroness Taylor in the other place on 10 June, which he cited, it is open to the promoters of the scheme to engage with the relevant local planning authorities and communities about their proposals.

[Nick Timothy]

I thank the Minister for his considered answers to my questions. The point is that the Forest City developers are not seeking a process where Ministers consider an application using their quasi-judicial role; it is that they are seeking a policy decision to support the creation of a development corporation with compulsory purchase powers. I think that is a different question, which I would like to press him on. Will he rule that out, or can he not?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which pre-empts the next of his questions that I was going to come on to. He asked me specifically to rule out the establishment of a development corporation and the use of compulsory purchase powers for the construction of Forest City. I believe I have already confirmed to him, in answer to a written answer on 9 February, that the Government have no current plans to consult on the establishment of a centrally-led urban development corporation to deliver the Forest City 1 proposals. I do not think we can be clearer than that. The Government are not exploring creating a development corporation to take forward this speculative proposal.

The hon. Gentleman invited me to provide an assessment of the financial modelling and subsidy gap in respect of the Forest City 1 proposal. It would not be appropriate for me to do so, even if the evidence base on which to make a rigorous assessment existed, which to the best of my knowledge it does not given that a business case has not yet even been put together by the promoters.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me to publish details of all meetings and conversations held between Ministers, officials and advisers and the promoters of the scheme. I can confirm that neither I nor the Secretary of State have met the promoters. I have met some of the board members in the past, but not in relation to the Forest City 1 proposals. The promoters met my officials earlier this year and proposals were reviewed by officials when the promoters formally applied to be part of the new towns programme. As we have discussed, special advisers in our Department have had a single meeting with the promoters with the aim of learning more about the proposals. As he will know, details of meetings that special advisers have with external organisations are published on gov.uk, in line with requirements set out in the relevant guidance.

To conclude, I appreciate fully the hon. Gentleman’s desire to have the Government express an opinion on the high-level scheme proposed, but I am afraid there is not much more to add to what I have set out already. As I have made clear, when it comes to the east of England, the Government’s focus is firmly on delivering high-quality, sustainable growth for Cambridge and its environs. We announced the establishment of the greater Cambridge development corporation on 2 June, and the required statutory instrument was laid two days later. Subject to forthcoming parliamentary scrutiny and approval, the development corporation will be established as an entity. A powers and functions statutory instrument will be laid later in the year, which will grant the development corporation both plan making and development management powers. The development corporation will be expected to work closely with neighbouring local planning authorities, including West Suffolk, engaging collaboratively to ensure that growth delivers positive outcomes across the wider area. On that note, I welcome the support he has expressed for the Government’s focus on Cambridge.

Question put and agreed to.

Home Buying and Selling: Reform Roadmap

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Written Statements

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

My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) has today made the following statement:

Buying or selling a home should be one of life’s most important milestones, yet for too many people the process is frustrating, uncertain and deeply stressful. For too long, people have had to navigate a system where they lack clear information and have little visibility of progress.

That is why I am delighted to announce that Government are reforming the broken home buying and selling system to reduce delays, cut costs and stop sales falling through. The fundamental changes we are introducing to fix this broken system will allow people to move into the right homes at the right time, put down roots in their communities, and relocate more easily for work. They will also save critical time and reduce the costs involved in what is already an emotional process for those buying or selling a home. These reforms will bring benefits not only for families, but also property professionals, the housing market, and the wider economy.

The Government have published a landmark road map setting out how we will transform the home buying and selling process over the course of this Parliament. Alongside this, we published our response to two key consultations—on home buying and selling reform, and on material information in property listings. Together, these publications mark a decisive shift from consultation to delivery, underpinned by strong and widespread support for reform from consumers and professionals across the sector.

The case for change is clear. The current home buying and selling process is slow, costly and uncertain. It takes around 120 days on average to complete once an offer has been accepted, and around one in three transactions fall through, costing buyers and sellers around £400 million each year in wasted costs. These failures create unnecessary stress for households, reduce confidence in the market and impose wider economic costs.

Our reforms will create a system that is more streamlined, less stressful and fit for the future. At a time when households are feeling the squeeze, new changes will cut home-buying times by around four weeks, save first-time buyers an average of £650, and stop the nasty surprises that cost time, money and heartbreak. Overall, first time buyers are set to save more than £200 million a year, and the reforms will support a housing market in which people can move with greater confidence and with less risk of late surprises and failed transactions. They will also support the Government’s wider agenda of unlocking housing supply, improving affordability and supporting the delivery of 1.5 million homes.

The road map sets out a phased programme of action to ensure that change is practical, enforceable and built to last. We will act now where we can, while preparing carefully for more complex changes that require legislation or further market development. This phased approach reflects what we heard through consultation and our continued engagement with industry, and will help ensure that consumers and professionals can have confidence that the system will change in a meaningful and sustainable way.

The core principle at the heart of our reforms is simple: people should know what they are buying before they commit money and time. Sellers and estate agents will have to prepare a sales pack, providing key information before a property is even listed. This will cover the condition of the home, leasehold costs, the status of the chain, flood risk and planning history. Buyers will see the reality up front, before they spend a penny, reducing the risk of transactions being derailed by problems that are uncovered too late.

We will also raise standards and build trust across industry. A new code of practice and our proposed consultation on mandatory qualifications for estate agents will set clearer expectations for this sector.

Alongside this, we will bring home moving into the 21st century, requiring the wider use of digital property logbooks and digital sales packs. These tools store current and historic information on properties, reduce transaction risk by verifying data provenance, and provide consumers with digital property information up front in the sales process.

A modernised system must make full use of digital tools, trusted data and secure information sharing. We will publish a call for evidence this year to identify barriers professionals face when sharing data, and will consult next year on a smart data scheme for property data. We are also taking forward work to support the adoption of digital identity services and qualified electronic signatures to reduce reliance on paper-based and disconnected processes, and will continue to work with HM Land Registry and partners to modernise services and improve access to key datasets.

We are preparing the ground for earlier binding agreements in property transactions. After sales packs are embedded, we will require the use of binding conditional contracts, so that once both sides have committed, they cannot simply walk away without consequence. In the meantime, we will work with industry to support readiness for this change and raise awareness of existing voluntary reservation agreements.

To support leaseholders and homeowners on privately managed estates, we will use powers in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 to make it quicker, cheaper and more predictable to obtain the information needed to sell their homes. This will end the practice of third parties delaying home moves by taking too long to respond, or charging unreasonable amounts for information.

In parallel, we will publish non-statutory material information guidance later this year, so that estate agents understand their responsibilities to provide potential buyers with critical property information. This will be supported by a standardised form and clear, user-friendly guidance.

Taken together, these measures represent a once-in-a-generation programme of reform to create a housing market that works better for all and supports the dream of home ownership.

[HCWS132]