Post-industrial Towns

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jo White]

I totally agree. It has been too easy to invest in our metropolitan and city areas, so areas such as ours have missed out time and again. The fact that my hon. Friend’s constituency is in the far corner of England has made it far too difficult for previous Governments and industries to think about her communities and what they need in order to be strong again. I am so delighted that we have a Labour Government who are focused on the same priorities that we all share.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

While the hon. Lady is talking about the south-west of England, I would hate for her to forget Axminster, which still has a flourishing carpet maker, but it does not have quite the same level of employment that it did in its heyday. Does she agree that Government can help by investing in superfast broadband, given that Axminster is in the 10% of places in the country with the least superfast broadband?

[Jo White]

The development and growth of our infrastructure must include superfast broadband, so that we can all benefit from it. Too many areas are missing out, particularly remote, rural areas.

We need a strong economy that includes superfast broadband, AI and energy provision to ensure that we are supercharged for the future. The announcement made by the Government yesterday that British railways will use British steel is a welcome example. That commitment must be replicated in every infrastructure project across the country, in our nuclear ambitions, roadbuilding, munitions, prisons and hospital-building projects. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the industrial strategy gives priority to British companies while addressing our ambitious infrastructure commitments?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Richard Foord Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman knows he is talking absolute rubbish because those are not the words I said at all. What I said was that the occupiers’ loss payments “are made to recognise inconvenience”. He may have misheard me. I did not say that farmers were an inconvenience or anything of the kind, and Hansard will reflect that. As the proposed payments would clobber the taxpayer by making them pay double the land’s value, we cannot support the new clause.

On the contrary, we say that people are fed up with money going to private developers, leaving local people with little to show for the sacrifices that they are making for new construction projects. There are further areas where the maximum commercial value of land should not have to be paid by public and community bodies. Under amendments 88 and 89, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), hope value would not have to be paid in CPO cases where land is being acquired for sport or recreation. Her new clause 107, relating to disposals of land by public bodies, would ensure that top dollar did not have to be paid where the Secretary of State certified that the disposal was for “public good”; in those cases, a discounted price could be paid.

As we have heard, another Liberal Democrat amendment, new clause 22 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), would provide a “compelling case” justification for compulsorily purchasing land for new footpaths and cycle paths. Knowing the location of Haddenham and Thame parkway station as I do, I congratulate him on this key proposal, which would really help his constituents.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Local authorities could really do with compulsory purchase powers for cycling and walking paths. The Devon local cycling and walking infrastructure plan that came out last December said that

“certain private sector development…may come forward sooner, or later, than anticipated”.

Local authorities do not have any control over when they can put in walking and cycling paths. Would my hon. Friend’s amendment correct that?

[Gideon Amos]

The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame would definitely provide a much stronger justification for a CPO that enabled footpaths and cycle paths to be made. As he said, it would create a more level playing field with the compulsory purchase powers already in use for highways. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). New clause 22 is a very logical amendment, and there is no logical reason why Ministers should reject it, although that has not stopped them so far; I hope that they break the habit of a lifetime.

We are clear in our amendments that communities should lead, and should be in the driving seat, when it comes to development and land. When people see the infrastructure for which they have been calling, it drives more community consent for the homes we need and the communities that we want to build. We need infrastructure for nature as well. Good places to live have gardens, open spaces, parks and meadows, so our new clause 114 would charge development corporations with ensuring those things.

I remind the shadow Minister that development corporations discharged planning powers under Conservative Governments, just as under Labour and coalition Governments. It is not always local authorities that deliver development. It is therefore right to ensure that development corporations discharge their duties as effectively as possible. If and when they build new towns and major developments, as the Government want them to, they must ensure open spaces for nature—spaces that work for people and our environment. Amendment 151 would require them to report regularly on their environmental and climate duties.

The first garden cities were supported by a Liberal Government and built without felling a single tree, as the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) confirmed yesterday. Their successes were emulated, and they are still emulated in the best developments, right up until today. The vision was a radical one of bringing people and the environment, town and country, and nature and humanity closer together. Those pioneers ensured healthier places to live in, an objective that our new clause 6, promoted by the Town and Country Planning Association, would insert in the planning objectives. Today, however, we face the much greater challenge of saving nature, as well as community cohesion and consent, before it is too late.

These amendments may not pass, but make no mistake: there are no greater threats to our way of life than the breakdown of trust, which risks destroying communities, and the breakdown of our environment, which is destroying nature. Those are the challenges that our amendments would tackle head-on, and I humbly urge Members to support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord]

That sounds similar to the Otter Trail in my patch, which would link Feniton to King’s School at Ottery St Mary. Does my hon. Friend agree that these new active travel paths will enable young people to get to school safely?

[Manuela Perteghella]

Yes, absolutely. We need to ensure that our new generation of young people are fit and healthy and able to cycle. That would also reduce carbon emissions in our towns. We need high-quality cycling infrastructure to ensure that all this happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord]

I, too, will keep my remarks brief, but I wish to put it on the record that Devon, which is rightly celebrated across Britain for its rugged coastline, its rolling farmland, its spectacular moorlands and its ancient woodlands, is subject to the diggers of developers who are encouraged by this Government. Although we all need houses and we all need the protection that they afford, this Bill, if enacted, will only damage nature. Nature in Devon is part of who we are and we face a nature crossroads. The Devon Local Nature Partnership tells us that the loss and decline of Devon’s wildlife has accelerated rapidly over the past 50 years. The wooded valleys of the Blackdown hills and the wildflower meadows of East Devon are priceless, but once they are gone, they cannot be brought back.

Yesterday in the Tea Room, we were talking about the darkening clouds of the international system and how this Government are having to deal with such grave matters of state. Somebody then pointed out that, never mind grappling with wars and conflict, we cannot even create a system where a £44 swift brick is put in a new house to encourage nature in our rural areas.

Healthy natural systems underpin our economy and our communities, but unless we restore nature, we will have nothing left. Building homes does not need to come at the cost of nature. We must build in the right places with nature embedded at the heart of planning.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Pubs and Community Funding

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Absolutely, those things apply to clubs and to any premises where we might listen to live music —they apply to so many places. I will focus on pubs, but I hope that we will have many other debates on all those other things.

The Garibaldi has stood on Mill Street for 150 years. It has survived two world wars, multiple recessions and two global pandemics. It has seen Redhill transform around it into the modern, bustling town it is today, but it is now at risk if the funds cannot be raised to buy the building. Rather ironically, the pub is so much more than bricks and mortar, but it needs to buy the bricks and mortar if it is to survive. In previous years, the community ownership fund has provided a great opportunity for community groups to acquire community buildings. It has awarded more than £135 million to 409 projects across the UK, including several community pubs. Sadly, however, the fund is no longer available.

The new Government have announced their intention to introduce a new right to buy for important community assets. This will no doubt bring many benefits and help to preserve valued community buildings and spaces. It will empower communities to save much-loved pubs and community halls, rather than just having to accept their loss. However, in order for groups to utilise this to the full, I ask the Minister whether they have any plans to introduce a fund to support the purchase of valuable community assets by the community.

The Garibaldi is doing a sterling job of trying to raise the money itself, as I am sure many other groups around the country are doing, but it would be useful to know if there is any likelihood of new funding on the horizon that it could apply for to supplement its efforts. The Garibaldi is such an important part of Redhill—we cannot imagine Redhill without it—so I would be most grateful for any advice and support from the Minister on how we can secure it for future generations.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that some sort of community ownership fund is required. Does she agree that the companies that own the pubs that the community is seeking to buy need to look after the properties? In Chardstock, the George Inn Continuity Group is trying to buy the pub, but the Wellington Pub Company is allowing water in through the roof, which is completely unacceptable. Does she agree that the pub companies that own the pubs need to look after them?

[Rebecca Paul]

Obviously I do not know the details of that specific case, but I agree that we all have a collective responsibility to look after these important community assets. Before I bring my comments to a close, I would like to pay tribute to some other fantastic pubs in my constituency. I have quite a lot of them.

Residential Estate Management Companies

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. It is plain from what others have said that this is a sector-wide problem. In 2017, Sajid Javid, when he was the Secretary of State, set up the regulation of property agents working group, under Lord Best. When it reported in 2019, it recommended

“a model for an independent property agent regulator”

and

“a single, mandatory and legally-enforceable Code of Practice for property agents”.

The Government would do well to follow that advice.

I want to refer to the constituency case of Cathy Gardner, a resident of Sidmouth. Since 2017, her insurance premiums payable to Blue Cedar Homes management company have risen from about £100 a year to as much as £900 because she is being charged for every single eventuality, including terrorism. Now, we do not have a great deal of terrorism on the retirement estates of mid and east Devon, so I can be certain that a large cut is being taken out of that fee. We need transparency so we can all know why that is happening and where that money is going.

Council Tax Reform

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Council Tax is, without doubt, the most unfair, regressive and punitive taxation system in this country. It is hammering towns such as Hartlepool. Places with high deprivation and low wages—the very areas that a fair tax system would support—are instead being squeezed to breaking point by a broken system that must be fixed. A Government that stand up for working people, promise change and have a mandate for that change cannot sit back while such fundamental unfairness continues.

The numbers speak for themselves. For a band A property in Westminster, it is £648 a year. In Hartlepool, it is £1,585. A Band H property in Hartlepool pays nearly £3,000 a year more than one in Westminster.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The hon. Member makes a good point in comparing his constituency with the situation here in London. To continue that point, on top of council tax, there is the settlement funding for councils, of which London boroughs have received roughly twice as much as shire counties. Does the hon. Member agree that that is also a problem with the current council tax regime?

[Mr Brash]

Certainly, the last 14 years—I note that none of the Conservatives are here—shifted the settlement away from areas of deprivation to more affluent areas. That has had an incredibly punitive effect.

Council tax in Hartlepool represents 9% of median gross pay. Here in Westminster, it is just 2%. Someone can live in a multimillion-pound property in London and still pay less council tax than someone in a terraced house in Hartlepool. It is not right. It is not fair. It must change. An outdated system based on 34-year-old property values can never deliver fairness and has widened regional inequalities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

That is an important point. In a sense, we can draw up a fairer and more balanced system, and build more security into it. What a system can never do is accommodate every localised decision and how it presents. In the end, there has to be local checks and balances, and that must come through the ballot box. It sounds as if voters in the hon. Member’s area have cast that judgment.

We are committed to reform and to moving at pace, but we recognise in doing that that the system is fragile. We are undertaking reform of the business rates system and revaluation, and a lot of devolution deals will come forward where intricated settlements are being worked towards, which will be important. All that, of course, rests on local government being strong and stable enough to support it. We completely recognise all the issues around adult social care, children’s services and temporary accommodation, which mean that councils are being overwhelmed. There is £69 billion available through the funding allocation this year, £5 billion of which is new money, and for the first time ever there is £600 million through the recovery grant, which is about bridging to the multi-year settlement. We have recognised the urgency and depth of the crisis that many councils find themselves in, but we are also honest in saying that it will take more than seven months to repair 14 years of harm. We are getting on with the job, and we are determined to get it right.

[Richard Foord]

Shire counties have had their settlement funding cut from more than £300 per person in 2015 to less than £200 per person now. Does the Minister recognise that counties such as Devon have huge road networks to maintain, and that that difference in funding helps to explain why roads in Devon are falling apart?

[Jim McMahon]

I think that after the last 14 years, roads in quite a lot of England are falling apart. That is why we injected another £500 million into pothole repairs this year, because we know that local people feel that issue acutely. We also recognise, as I said before, that this will take longer than seven months.

On financing, we are clear that the current formula needs to be reviewed. It is not good enough any more to keep on having a formula that is not fit for purpose, and which is supplemented by top-ups that change depending on the whim of the Government of the day. If this is a genuinely fair funding formula, it must be fair when tested. That means that wherever someone is in the country, and whatever their local circumstance, they know that those issues have been taken into account. Some of that will involve deprivation or the ability to raise tax at a local level, but some of it will involve demand on services, including rurality. We must ensure that in the review we rebuilt trust and confidence as well as sustainability, and the hon. Gentleman has my commitment that we are determined to ensure that that work is done with integrity.

We recognise the urgency to fix the foundations, and to tackle the underlying issues that we have talked about. For all the criticisms of the current council tax system—many of which are completely legitimate—it has some advantages. First, it is a settled tax that taxpayers understand, and notwithstanding the uncollected element that was mentioned earlier, pound for pound it has a high collection rate. On that basis, revenues are relatively predictable, which means that local authorities have greater certainty for their financial planning. Council tax is genuinely local. The money is collected locally, retained locally, and authorities will make decisions on the band D level based on their local requirements and delivery priorities.

Housing Development Planning: Water Companies

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this debate on both housing and sewerage. These matters are clearly important to the 13 Liberal Democrat MPs who have been present in the debate, but they are frankly important to all 72 of us. I am pleased to follow my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed)—I do regard him as a friend on this issue, because we share the same sea, which has been dogged by sewage pollution from the same water company. We co-operate very well on this issue.

I recognise what my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire talks about regarding sewage backed up in people’s homes; at a surgery six weeks ago in the village of Feniton, I had people come to see me who showed me photos of sewage in the leat or stream at the end of their garden. It was very visible; the toilet paper and condoms give us a pretty good idea that it is not naturally occurring sewage. They told a story of neighbours having to knock on the doors of people in their street to ask that flushes are not pulled and baths are not emptied at a time of heavy rain, for fear that the sewage will back up into people’s private homes.

Water companies and Ministers, when seeking to excuse the volume of sewage that is spilled, have told us for a while that it is a simple choice between either having sewage backing up into people’s homes or its being emptied into our rivers and seas. The purpose of this debate is to show that it is not a straightforward, binary choice. There are other options. We heard this week that the Government are removing Sport England, the Theatres Trust and the Gardens Trust as statutory consultees on planning. I am hoping to hear that they are doing that to make way for water companies.

To again use the example of Feniton, the village has been subject to flooding over a very long period, a fact well recognised by both councils and the water company. East Devon district council has spent £6 million of taxpayers’ money to introduce a flood alleviation scheme to the village. That spending would not have been necessary had there been good advice at the outset from water companies when planners were proposing to build in that area. In Acland Park in Feniton, residents have been left to try to get their sewer adopted by the water company themselves because the developer has gone bust; again, had the water company been consulted at the planning stage, that might not have come about.

We have heard about water companies objecting to being statutory consultees. That is not my experience. I met the chief executive of South West Water in recent months—I have been a thorn in the side of South West Water; if we are having a competition this afternoon about the volume of sewage spilled, I think I can win it, with over half a million hours of sewage spills in 2023 in the south-west region, though I confess that is not the figure for my constituency alone. The south-west region is dogged by sewage spills, and there was an 83% increase in spills from 2022 to 2023.

The chief exec of South West Water asked me to lobby the Government to have water companies as a statutory consultee. I say that not because I am being lobbied, but because it is in the interests of the residents I represent. I would be curious to know whether the Minister, too, has been asked to make water companies statutory consultees.

Rural Housing Targets

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is fascinating to hear my hon. Friend talk about the success of rural exception sites in Cornwall, but elsewhere only 14 of 91 local planning authorities that have a policy of using rural exception sites have actually built houses using the policy. Why does that discrepancy exist?

[Andrew George]

Well—

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine, and to respond to this debate, secured by my close constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). He is my former boss—I was his special adviser—and as you can tell from this afternoon, Ms Jardine, I was never allowed to write his speeches because he is so brilliant at orating in the Chamber. He is a doughty champion for his constituents in East Hampshire and I congratulate him on securing the debate.

In December 2024, the Government published their reforms to the national planning policy framework, which included the reintroduction of mandatory house building targets. As of March 2025, some local authorities will face an overwhelming fivefold increase in new housing targets, dictated by central Government. These targets will hit many rural areas’ councils hardest, as my right hon. Friend outlined, and they are to be imposed with little regard for local people.

We firmly believe that building more homes is a necessity. As my right hon. Friend and Members from all parties have said, for too long the dream of home ownership has felt out of reach for many hard-working families. We must make that dream a reality for as many people as possible. A property-owning democracy in which people in different areas can own a house is vital to giving maturing and succeeding generations a stake in the society in which they live. Although I am supportive of the Government’s ambitious goal to build 1.5 million new homes, I must stress that those homes must be the right homes built in the right places, by a method that ensures that the voices of local communities are listened to.

The troubling reality is that the Government’s housing targets are, frankly, unrealistic—and they know it. The chief executive of Homes England has cast doubts on whether the Government can realistically meet their goal of building those homes. In a Select Committee hearing last year, the Minister himself said that it will be hard and virtually unachievable for them to build 1.5 million homes in the lifetime of this Parliament. A recent County Councils Network survey found that nine in 10 councils cited a lack of infrastructure as the main reason why they could not support the new targets, with the delivery of new schools, doctors’ surgeries and other social infrastructure lagging behind the delivery of housing.

The targets are not just unrealistic and unpopular; the methodology behind them seems to represent a cynical gerrymandering exercise of political opportunism. For example, take east Hampshire, the New Forest and Fareham—these areas are being told to build more houses than Manchester, and the New Forest and north-east Hampshire include a national park and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Meanwhile, cities such as Labour-run Southampton, Nottingham and Coventry see their targets slashed by as much as 50%. It does not add up. The Government’s new method punishes Opposition councils for their success and rewards Labour local authorities for failure.

Why have the Government reduced housing targets in urban areas, where it is easier to build due to existing infrastructure, population density and the availability of brownfield sites? Instead, Labour reforms to the NPPF have resulted in top-down targets that will silence local voices. They have chosen to prioritise building in rural areas and on the green belt rather than on focusing where the demand for housing is greatest: in our cities and urban centres.

Under the Government’s proposals set out in the NPPF, councils and county areas will have to deliver at least an extra 64,769 homes per year, equating to 1,240 homes per week. That is seven times higher than the targets for large towns and cities governed by metropolitan authorities. It rewards city councils such as Labour-run Southampton city council, which has consistently underdelivered on its targets. Having been required to deliver 1,473 houses in the 2023-24 period, the council built a mere 261. In response, the Government have opted to ensure the council is spared further humiliation for failure by having its target cut by 12%. It is a similar story across the country. In some rural areas, housing targets will increase by 113%, while in urban settings the increase will be a mere 1%—if indeed there is an increase at all. How does that make sense?

The Minister will know that I am no fan of Liberal Democrat-run Eastleigh borough council, which is building double the number required because of its excessive borrowing and failure to run a decent council. But his policies are unfair to councils like that, too. Eastleigh is facing a 42% increase in its house building requirement, from 645 houses a year to 922, but it has consistently overdelivered on its housing targets over the last five years. Where is the retrospectivity that should be delivered to successful councils that have overdelivered on their promises and housing targets over the last period?

[Richard Foord]

Did I just hear the hon. Gentleman describe his local Liberal Democrat council as successful?

[Paul Holmes]

No. The hon. Gentleman is grasping at straws. The Liberal Democrat-run administration in Eastleigh is anything but successful if we look at value for money and the £750 million of debt that its leader has accrued for the people of Eastleigh. The council’s method of paying off that debt was to build beyond the expected targets while destroying green areas in my constituency. But it is still not fair that my local council is being asked to deliver more homes despite having delivered more than was required. That is my point. There needs to be retrospectivity for councils that have delivered on those conditions.

The issue is the same in east Hampshire where, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire noted, the target will rise by 98%, from 575 to 1,142. Fareham, which covers half of my constituency, will see a 62% rise, from 498 to 800 houses. Why are councils that have built more than their required share of housing being punished for their success, whereas the pressure has been taken off the Government’s political allies—generally Labour councils—despite their continued failures to deliver? It is beyond belief that rural areas, which are already struggling with infrastructure and a fragile environment, are being handed inflated housing targets while urban areas, with a far greater demand for housing, are seeing their targets reduced. That is not just poor planning; it is unfair.

Protecting the green belt and preserving our natural environment are non-negotiable, yet under the new policies we are seeing parts of the green belt reclassified as grey-belt land for development, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) said. We cannot allow unsustainable urban sprawl to destroy what we have worked so hard to preserve, including national parks, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) outlined.

One of the most disheartening aspects of the debate is the way in which the Government have cut key programmes such as the right to buy and first-time buyers’ stamp duty relief, while simultaneously reducing the number of affordable homes for purchase. That is not the way to help people on to the property ladder, it is not the way to address the housing crisis, and it certainly should not come at the cost of rural England—and Labour MPs agree. Indeed, 14 Labour Front Benchers have campaigned against house building in their own constituencies, which contradicts the Prime Minister’s pledge to have a Government of builders, not blockers. If Labour cannot even get its own party to back its housing targets, how can it expect its Labour council leaders to do so?

Responsibilities of Housing Developers

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I am glad that the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) secured the debate, because this issue is vital. I will focus on the premature handover of sites from housing developers to management companies before the developers’ responsibilities are fulfilled. I will do that by giving a couple of examples from the area I represent: Pebble Beach in Seaton and Acland Park in Feniton, both in east Devon.

In Pebble Beach, construction began on a site for 220-odd homes in 2014. I saw the Bovis Homes advert on YouTube earlier, and it shows drone footage over beautiful Seaton. It is absolutely stunning. Who would not want to live there? Sadly, the experience of people who have moved to the site is that it is very much incomplete. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley talked about a play area that was never finished; well, these people had a play area that was never started, despite having been pledged. The kerbs are so high that a child could sit by the road and eat their lunch off the pavement—such is the incompleteness of the construction.

There are trip hazards and blocked drains, and the site has been more or less handed over to the property management company FirstPort without the developer having fulfilled its responsibilities. That has resulted in poor maintenance and the deflection of responsibilities, with the property management company pointing at the developer and the developer pointing back at the property management company. The residents are stuck in the middle, not knowing quite who is accountable.

Last week, Liberal Democrat MPs met FirstPort and took the issue up with it. Also last week, the Business and Trade Committee met Vistry in Exeter. Vistry takes on board its responsibility as a developer, but it needs to get back to the site and fix the things it said it would. I will have to leave to another day my comments about Acland Park, which I have talked about in this Chamber before.

The key point that I would like the Minister to take away is that we cannot have a situation where property management companies essentially take responsibilities from developers, and developers are therefore not held accountable.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I call James Naish. [Interruption.] Yes, I called you.

Planning Committees: Reform

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. At the moment, the system incentivises allowing speculative development to come forward and go to the Planning Inspectorate on appeal, because then the local authority or local council members are not responsible for the decision. We have to ensure that we have better, up-to-date local plan coverage, which is the best way to shape development in the area. Less speculative development on unallocated sites will therefore come forward, with more allocated and planned development through the local plans system, but with streamlined and timely decisions. That is what we are aiming for, and this working paper is but a small aspect of that wider agenda we are taking forward.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Some 57% of East Devon is made up of national landscapes, previously known as areas of outstanding natural beauty. I welcome the fact that these areas are protected from housing and industrial development, but for planning committees that have to meet the Minister’s targets, national landscapes compress the area that remains, which can be devastating for flood-prone villages such as Feniton. How are these reforms going to help people who are seeing housing targets concentrated on their village because they live near a national landscape?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope the hon. Gentleman is aware that in those areas—he highlights very real problems about the unavailability of data to shape local targets across areas where there are such protected places—the Planning Inspectorate will test whether a local plan is sound, and will make a judgment about whether such hard constraints make a difference to the allocations the local area needs to bring forward. I am more than happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman about the specifics of development in his area if he would find that helpful.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

Now then, Mr Speaker, you know there is no greater enthusiast in this place for a local pub than me—[Interruption.] And indeed for flying saucers. These are exactly the types of assets of community value we are talking about, and exactly the sorts of assets that will be in the scope of the new community right to buy. Of course I would be keen to meet my hon. Friend and the campaigners on that issue.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

East Devon District Council has declared Seaton hospital an asset of community value and is awaiting news of round 4 of the community ownership fund to see whether we might get funding from that source. In the meantime, NHS Property Services might be seeking to remove part of that hospital. Can the Minister ask his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to prevent that?

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, although I am sad to hear it. The asset of community value status really ought to give a degree of protection, but I am happy to talk about that further. As I have said, round 4 of the community ownership fund will be coming forward very shortly.